Should sound quality determine reviews?

On topic, this is so subjective because I wouldn't say it is about sound quality per se (because most professional albums are well recorded if by that is meant capturing the sound faithfully).  It is usually an issue of either mixing or too much compression (too little in odd cases like Aja above).  Recordings where the vocals are too much in the background in the mix, overcompressed recordings (see loudness wars), recordings where drums are too loud in the mix or sound too trebly, these are some qualities that I may find irritating, sometimes irritating enough to mar my opinion of the album.

Grumpyprogfan wrote: ^ The production on Steely Dan's Aja  or Jellyfish's Spilt Milk is overdone, but I would not call either mix sterile. Superb is a better description.

Hercules wrote: Sound quality matters enormously to me. My hi-fi (Pink Triangle Anniversary TT, SME V arm, Ortofon Cadenza Blue cartridge + Audiolab 8000C/8000P amps + Mission 753 Freedom speakers) is incredibly revealing. Any faults in the mix/recording can make some music unlistenable, unenjoyable and hence it colours my review.

Frenetic Zetetic wrote: Few have the actual experience and understanding of the work involved to make a record sound good. Old records sounding fuzzy is fine. New recordings sounding bad is no excuse IMHO! For the record (lol) I think the production on Foxtrot is crystal clear to my ears.

I  disagree. Almost all audiophile grade recordings were done back in the day on analogue equipment, with great care, proper microphones and the right expertise. Foxtrot  sounding good to you is an indicator of the rule as opposed to the exception.

Man With Hat wrote: Yes. If I can't hear the music clearly it's a big drag on enjoying the music.

Atavachron wrote: ... Also a great observation about live-in-the-studio being an underused approach.

It is a good question , my answer is yes sound quality certainly matters .. remember all the fuss people made when vapor trails from Rush was first released it was a good album had some great songs on it but people focused more on its sound quality than the material itself  (it was an over compressed brick wall mess as far as recording quality goes). I have several albums in my collection that I would have added an extra star to had they been better recorded , so yes sound quality is important for a good review these days. But if we are talking a  late 60's early 70's album review sound quality isn't as important because we don't expect perfection, technology had not advanced enough at that stage it's amazing yes, jethro tull and King crimson etc albums sound as good as they still do. I noticed a big leap in about 1972 in sound quality then another leap in about 1975. I don't think the modern trend of volume wars is helping sound quality brick walling the dynamic range really bothers me, it hurts the feel of the music I think. Anyway a good question I hope I've helped in some way answer  

Edited by Enchant X - March 06 2020 at 22:10

I think that it can be a segmentof the reviewer's description of the material.  However, again, it is subjective, just like all music is.  And I do agree with whomever wrote that too sterile is not good (as in overly-produced, or too perfect, lacking in human element).