What do you consider a "poorly recorded" album?

nathanm · « **on:** 13 Feb 2006, 11:54 pm »

A post in the Van Alstine circle got me thinking. Audiophiles like to mention "bad recordings" quite a bit and I am not sure what they mean exactly. So if you can, post a short list of what you feel are definitively BAD recordings and why you think so. Is there a way to quantify this badness? I am only talking about the recording\sound quality, not music you simply don't like.

Right now this is the only one that comes to mind out of my own collection. I'm sure there are more I am forgetting, but for the most part I just don't think there are that many truly derelict recordings in the realm of commercially-released albums.

Bathory "Hammerheart" - Has a large amount of hard clipping on it. Very audible. I would qualify this as a technical error.

jon_010101 · « **Reply #1 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 12:11 am »

There are some traditionally "bad" recordings out there that manage to capture a certain lo-fi ambience, where the badness increases the appeal. For example, Guided by Voices album "Vampire on Titus" is one of my all-time rock favorites, but is technically a disaster. But it captures a feeling/mood and always sounded great on my '88 Mazda's stereo. Filled with clipping, overdriven everything, tape noise, insanely bad EQ, bad everything. Artistically, its a nice piece ... certainly the product of a bit too much beer ... but consistent in the context of the original performance.

Now, in terms of a recording gone wrong but made to a high standard with "real" equipment... I imagine over-compressed, over-bright pop music. A lot of that stuff makes me want to rip my ears off. That's what I would consider a bad recording, because it does not in any way complement the performance.

Tweaker · « **Reply #2 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 12:17 am »

David Hazeltine- The Classic Trio Vol I and Vol II. Cymbals recorded hot, bass recorded light. Eric Johnson- Venus Isle. Over-all too bright sounding. Randy Johnston- Walk On. Flat and dry. Must have forgotton to flip on the reverb switch or something.

JoshK · « **Reply #3 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 12:17 am »

My vote for a terrible recording is anything by Diana Krall. Sure its stands up and says, "hey notice me" but it is really a pathetic overabundance of close mic'ing that leads to a syrupy artificial sound.

I'll take GBV anyday.

mcgsxr · « **Reply #4 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 12:35 am »

Without a doubt, the worst album in my collection is - The Stone Roses - Garage Flower. Trash, trebly, splashy, gritty, nasty kife.

And this from a guy who owns one of ALL of their known recordings, so I love the band, but despise that album.

NO system I have ever owned can overcome the utter disgust that this recording overwhelms me with, upon every listen.

jon_010101 · « **Reply #5 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 01:07 am »

Quote from: mcgsxr

NO system I have ever owned can overcome the utter disgust that this recording overwhelms me with, upon every listen.

I have a similar problem with My Bloody Valentine's "Ecstasy and Wine" ... I've never been able to finish the album in one sitting because it induces nausea. Pretty good music though despite the painful brightness... hope it gets re-mastered some day.

art · « **Reply #6 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 01:19 am »

The Allman Bros. first album, the one with "Dreams" on it. Maybe is was supposed to have a raw, bluesy sound, but it just plain bad.

Recording-wise only.

I have been known to play it on demos. Audiophiles have no idea what to think at that point. Amazing that we are still in business.............

Pat

Scott F. · « **Reply #7 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 01:40 am »

Quote from: JoshK

My vote for a terrible recording is anything by Diana Krall. Sure its stands up and says, "hey notice me" but it is really a pathetic overabundance of close mic'ing that leads to a syrupy artificial sound.

HEAR HEAR!!!

I realize tha tons of 'audiophiles' use her recordings as a reference but this woman bugs the hell out of me. Maybe its the over hyping, maybe its the audiophiles going ga-ga over her, maybe its that she looks like she is just going through the motions when she performs rather than singing from the soul, be she gets on my nerves, sorry (and please, no flames cuz its just my personal opinion which means absolutely squat when it comes to who you like).

When it comes to poor recordings I'd say my definition follows some of the others here.
- Heavy compression that sucks the realism out of attack and decay of the instruments.
- Normalization of the music or making it LOUDER for the sake of being a lemming.
- Idoits during mixdown running the music waveforms into audible clipping is another issue.
- Over-mic'ing can be a real distraction too
- The final one is an unbalanced mix where one instrument gets lost in the mix (bass being too lite as an example)
- Heres an odd one that not many people talk about. In lots of vintage jazz, the piano is usually recorded with the lid closed and often sounds like its in another room rather than front and center. The typical piano has a marvelous sound with the lid open. Now I understand that you get heavy bleed over to the surrounding mics with the lid open but with the lid closed it really mutes what could make for a fabulous recording.

Really bad recordings that come to mind,
- Robert Plants latest, Deconstructor (or something like that)(clipped, normalized, compressed)
- Robert Randolph and the Family Band, Unclassified(clipped, normalized, compressed)
- Oingo Boingo, Dead Mans Party (bass lite)
- Trains first album (clipped, normalized, compressed)
- Robin Trower, Live (bass lite)

I could list tons more but suppers on!

Folsom · « **Reply #8 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 01:43 am »

Any time one insturment is so much more prevelant than others that it is disgusting, constitutes a poor recording to me. Example..... Vaughan brothers CD I borrowed from a friend. The drums where beautiful like in the aspect of Tool, yet the guitar and voice was simply not there. Forgive me but I think at least one of the Vaughans is a guitar artist....

Bad recordings in general... Any thing with harsh sounding insturments, where it is clear the microphones sucked and the recording chain of devices added harshness and strange EQed effects. When ever a recording has zero dynamic range, every thing sounds fast and flat. When the artists voice is almost impossible to hear, and the words never follow through, they are abrupt and stabbing.

Honestly just the dynamic range speaks for itself, the ability to hear the insturment from starting pluck to ending vibration.

JoshK · « **Reply #9 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 01:54 am »

For the record Scott, I agree with your descriptors of bad recordings. I wanted to provoke some thought so I threw out a non-convential bad recording which is truely bad but for non-orthodox reasons.

PhilNYC · « **Reply #10 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 02:40 am »

Quote from: JoshK

My vote for a terrible recording is anything by Diana Krall. Sure its stands up and says, "hey notice me" but it is really a pathetic overabundance of close mic'ing that leads to a syrupy artificial sound..

While I'm not a big fan of Diana Krall's music, I'll stand up and say that I don't think that overly-produced recordings or ones where the "sonic arrangement" is artificial are unenjoyable or necessarily "poor" recordings. For me, a "poor recording" is one where instruments are unintentionally compressed, or their tonal balance is thrown way off...like most DDD recordings from the 80s, or a lot of classic rock from the 60s and 70s. Also, things that get muddied and congested and smeared together.

Scott F. · « **Reply #11 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 02:51 am »

Quote from: JoshK

...I wanted to provoke some thought so I threw out a non-convential bad recording which is truely bad but for non-orthodox reasons.

Josh, good call. Thats one of the reasons I mentioned the piano with the lid closed.

mcrespo71 · « **Reply #12 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 03:19 am »

I think Diana Krall's recordings are pretty good, but i find her content objectionable and I just don't like listening to her. Some recordings from the 60's and 70's sound bad on CD, but pretty damn good on vinyl. I try not to worry too much about bad recordings. Most of the music I listen to would qualify as "poorly recorded" by audiophile standards, but the recording quality, or lack thereof, doesn't keep me from appreciating them.

Michael

JoshK · « **Reply #13 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 04:33 am »

Phil, Michael, we'll have to agree to disagree.... I think though if you base a good recording on what gives a realistic rendition of a live performance, Diana Krall recordings are pretty far from it.

PhilNYC · « **Reply #14 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 12:57 pm »

Quote from: JoshK

I think though if you base a good recording on what gives a realistic rendition of a live performance, Diana Krall recordings are pretty far from it.

IMHO, I don't base a good recording on what gives a realistic rendition of a live performance. For example, that Radiohead CD you introduced me to a couple of years ago (Kid A?) is the furthest thing from sounding like a live performance, but I think it is recorded quite well.

In general, I don't think there are very many recordings out there that give realisitc renditions of live performances. My recent trip to Kingston Mines reminded me that there is no pinpoint imaging in live performances, nor is there nuance in timbre and tone if anything is amplified and the room is crowded with people drinking whisky and beer. To me, there's no question that most recordings that are commercially available, no matter the genre, do not realistically reproduce a live performance. Maybe it can sound like a live performance when listening from "the other room", but not in the sweetspot.

One of my favorite recordings is "Root Down" by Jimmy Smith. Another is Eva Cassidy's "Live at Blues Alley". Both of these, when listening in the sweetspot, give me a great "sense" of being at a live performance, but in reality, they do not realistically reproduce the live event...they simulate it, and use recording techniques to give a sense of space and image; it is emmensely enjoyable (IMHO), but entirely artificial (IMHO)...

JoshK · « **Reply #15 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 02:36 pm »

fair enough....

kfr01 · « **Reply #16 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 03:01 pm »

A few that pop into my mind:

Evanescence ... lots of noise that shouldn't be there... especially annoying on that one vocal track that received quite a bit of play. Compressed highs. Too bad, because I like the music.

Josh Groban - Live at the Greek.. Wow. Great artist, horrible recording. I'm not sure if it was the venue or not, but lots of echo, nasal tonality, recording noise, compressed highs, slushly lows. Bad cd.

Josh Groban - Josh Groban... his first cd is better, but still has some low level noise that shouldn't be there. Low level hum here, a click and a pop there. Always makes me rewind to make sure it wasn't my equipment. No, it is on the cd. It isn't too frequent, but noticable enough to reduce my enjoyment.

Christina Aquilera - Stripped - another artist with a decent voice on a cd not only butchered by bad writing, but a poor recording. The otherwise good vocal song 'Beautiful' is butchered by some noise artifacts that kill my enjoyment of this track.

Cds by lots of popular 90s bands. I think this may have been the dark age of recording. 311. Rage against the machine. Soundgarden. Etc. On so many of these tracks you can tell the highs are compressed and clipped off. Fatiguing to listen to.

----
On a different note, a previous poster suggested Eva Cassidy - Live at Blues Alley as a great recording. I agree. Wow. Having been to multiple shows at Blues Alley, you wouldn't think the quality would be that great (lots of brick on the interior, low ceilings, etc.).. but the engineer must expertly correct for that because both live shows and recordings done there sound amazing, imo.

Folsom · « **Reply #17 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 03:12 pm »

Rage Against The Machine's self title and Evil Empire and not what I would call poor recordings. They are not amazing, but they are pretty decent. This was discussed in the rock and roll for an audiophile topic. However The Battle Of Los Angeles sounds awful, extremely compressed etc...

I wonder if compression is always at fault and in what way... I think some people that mix are just assholes and cut sound off to early because there "is not much there to even hear".

chadh · « **Reply #18 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 03:27 pm »

My sister was enroled in a technical course for studio recording many years ago. One of their first assignments was to take a piece of recorded music, listen to it, and describe as many details of the produced sound as possible. The one rule they were given for selection of source material: NO LED ZEPPELIN. The production quality was just way too bad.

[Side note - I thought this was a funny story...

The track my sister selected was from Stevie Ray Vaughn's, "Couldn't Stand the Weather." I think it was "The Things that I Used to Do." Anyway, my sister's analysis came back with one major comment: "You completely ignored the Hammond B3." WHich was hillarious, as there is no Hammond B3 playing on this track. Just Stevie Ray making his guitar sound like a B3!

Sorry for the digression.]

Chad

kfr01 · « **Reply #19 on:** 14 Feb 2006, 04:20 pm »

Quote from: Destroyer of Smiles.

Rage Against The Machine's self title and Evil Empire and not what I would call poor recordings. They are not amazing, but they are pretty decent. This was discussed in the rock and roll for an audiophile topic. However The Battle Of Los Angeles sounds awful, extremely compressed etc...

I wonder if compression is always at fault and in what way... I think some people that mix are just assholes and cut sound off to early because there "is not much there to even hear".

Really? Maybe Zach's voice is just really -that bad-

The bass lines are nice, but I find the vocals and highs incredibly fatiguing to listen to. Perhaps I was confusing his edgy and nasal voice with poor recording. "his voice can't possibly sound that bad naturally"