Should sound quality determine reviews?

No harm done. Let's return this thread to it's topic which is really dear to our hearts: the sound!

Edited by richardh - March 11 2020 at 01:08

richardh wrote: SteveG wrote: richardh wrote: Going back to my argument that sound quality doesn't matter , I would certainly think that good music always shines through. I've always loved every remix or release of Foxtrot because the music is brilliant. Abacab will never become a great album regardless of the sound mix because you can't 'polish a turd' . Ultimately the music is pretty much everything and as long as you can hear different instruments and the vocals then that is all there is. Admittedly though a live experience can be a different matter . I do believe that the penchant for just turning up the volume regardless is a terrible idea. I remember seeing ELP in 1992 and they had the confidence to let the music speak for itself. BUT that changed and now going to see bands live is very hit and miss. King Crimson were absolutely superb from this aspect of things when I saw them but that seems to be a rare experience. Surely there is some point when the sound quality is so bad that the recording is unlistenable. You don't have a single unlistenable album?   Not really although my collection is only about 1500 or so and gradually streaming is overtaking actual purchases.  One album that I hate sound wise is Discipline but ultimately it's the music that puts me off. If they released a live album (of material from Discipline) I might like it better but I doubt it would overcome my feelings about the music. I've also expressed a dislike for the sound of IZZ - Don't Panic but then I was pulled up for that and told off by a regular poster! Apparently Muse - Simulation Theory is a very bad example of modern sound mixing (way too compressed) but I quite like it. In general , however, my feelings about the music comes from the music and not the sound.  Can you give me an example of an 'unlistenable album'?

Sure. There's a series of CD Sony re-issues called "The Legends Of Rock" that are grossly over compressed for loudness that I think are unlistenable. Some titles, off the top of my head, are "Agents Of Fortune" by BOC and "Diesel And Dust" by Midnight Oil. But that's the fault of the mastering, not the recording. But one effects the other.

It’s a slippery slope for some...sound quality that is. Most folks I’ve met during my little stint down the headphone rabbit hole were so brainwashed by stuff they’d read somewhere online that they ended up neglecting the music half of the time. It’s the same way with folks chasing down a specific release of say Abbey Road y’know to get the REAL experience!!
Problem is that many of these albums were mixed and mastered beautifully to begin with..so seeking out that 0.000002 percent of ‘fidelity’ that you need to pierce your ears wildly just to pick up on...well it quickly becomes an exercise in futility.
....unless you pick up an album that was horribly treated at the time of it’s release but since then have gone through a welldeserved remastering/remixing process.

A completely different example is when an album is made to sound raw and rough..and then deemed unlistenable by the record company and then sneakily treated with white gloves. The Stooges’ Raw Power is like that. It was only in 1997 that it received a remastering job by Iggy and Bruce Dickinson that the album finally ended up sounding the way it was supposed to sound. Ironically enough most fans of the album had been listening to Bowie’s original production and found the remaster downright nasty.
That was the point though

Guldbamsen wrote: It’s a slippery slope for some...sound quality that is. Most folks I’ve met during my little stint down the headphone rabbit hole were so brainwashed by stuff they’d read somewhere online that they ended up neglecting the music half of the time. It’s the same way with folks chasing down a specific release of say Abbey Road y’know to get the REAL experience!! Problem is that many of these albums were mixed and mastered beautifully to begin with..so seeking out that 0.000002 percent of ‘fidelity’ that you need to pierce your ears wildly just to pick up on...well it quickly becomes an exercise in futility. ....unless you pick up an album that was horribly treated at the time of it’s release but since then have gone through a welldeserved remastering/remixing process. A completely different example is when an album is made to sound raw and rough..and then deemed unlistenable by the record company and then sneakily treated with white gloves. The Stooges’ Raw Power is like that. It was only in 1997 that it received a remastering job by Iggy and Bruce Dickinson that the album finally ended up sounding the way it was supposed to sound. Ironically enough most fans of the album had been listening to Bowie’s original production and found the remaster downright nasty. That was the point though

Yep. Some audiophiles are so concerned about the Dynamic Range data of a particular album, that they found on the web, that they completely ignore what their ears tell them. Would someone put salt on his food before tasting it? And everyone's taste in sound is different.

Catcher10 wrote: ... I have said umpteen times before that as much as I am an analog, vinyl is 95% of what I do, guy that I feel digital recording is the best way to capture live/studio music today. The technology to capture everything the mic is picking up in the studio is best served by recording in the digital form. That being said that sound can be way too clinical sounding, as some have mentioned, what you are describing is exactly what a lot of music lovers hate, the emotional disconnect with music today. ...

Catcher10 wrote: What I am saying is that today if a band goes in to the studio, it's 99% recorded with digital gear. The sound is saved as a hi rez digital file could be 24bit or even 32bit as 96khz or 192khz sampling. From this file the mastering work begins, mixing and final mastering. To me this is the best means to capture all the music that is being played, simply because of the resolution capabilities and dynamics, which are beyond human hearing anyways in the digital realm. Again, after that is where the krapp end product happens, due to engineers that are not doing or don't how to do a good job of mixing and mastering.

SteveG wrote: In a current review of a Tool album, the reviewer goes to great lengths to emphasis the album's poor mix and muddy sound as well critiquing the music and has based his opinions and ratings on both issues. Sound quality is something I've struggled with in writing my own reviews. I've always based my opinions and rating strictly on the music but always mentioned the recording quality, mixes and mastering as an aside. Which approach do you feel is proper?

Late to the show, since I don’t come here so often.

With an album, a band delivers a product. If the mixing or mastering isn’t good, for what ever reason, that diminishes the (musical, artistic) value of the product. So, yes, a reviewer is fully entitled to take that into account.

richardh wrote: I really don't understand how musical and artistic value can be diminished. That would make virtually all live versions of tracks inferior. Don't get it.

wiz_d_kidd wrote: Listening to an album with poor production and sound quality is like reading a book with poor punctuation, grammar, and spelling, or looking at a painting with unintentional splatter, drips, palm prints, and smears. If there was an artistic message, it gets lost amid the annoying artifacts. The quality of conveying the art is as important as the artistic statement being conveyed.