What's more important: Good sound or Accurate sound??

What do you think is more important in terms of mastering and also in terms of your playback system? Something that sounds pleasing and wonderful no matter what you are listening to and how it was recorded, or something that sounds brutally honest, no matter how awful or unlistenable, for better or for worse? For example, I've always had the idea that music should be heard EXACTLY the way the artist intended it to be. Therefore, I've always looked toward audiophile components and mastering that I feel paints an accurate portrait of exactly what went on in the recording studio. Lately, I've been feeling differently. Tonight I had the thought, what if the artist got a raw deal? What if the recording WASN'T the way they wanted it to sound? So I'm thinking that as long as it sounds natural and lifelike, what's wrong with sweetening things up a little bit? Many audiophiles cringe at the idea of a vintage, "colored", tube system, but geez, the music sure sounds good that way and sometimes a lot more enjoyable than on some of these $20,000 modern jobs if you catch my drift. Same goes for mastering. I'm not talking about compression, no noise, or any garbage like that, but I can't decide if a little fixing is okay or if the tape should be left alone and it should be up to the listener to choose what they want to hear based on their stereo systems? What do you guys think about this stuff??

 

I think the equipment should let the music stand on its own. Remember you should be listening to the recording, not the equipment. An inaccurate system might make some recordings sound "better" but it will also change the sound of all recordings. You can use tone controls or equalizers to shape the sound if you wish. (I almost never do).

So, in the end, I think that accurate sound is more important over "good sound", in spite of the artist not always being the best judge of his or her own work.

 

Impossible for two human beings to agree 100% of the time on what's accurate, I'd guess; but those same two people might agree 100% of the time on what sounds good to them.

If it sounds good is it accurate?

If it's accurate does it sound good?

Would those who visit this forum regularly who claim to know what's accurate and what's not please step forward?

 

Hmmh... many horn speakers sound soooo good, but accurate?

 

Accurate sounds good to me.

 

The way I see it as far as your playback system goes, you have to aim for accuracy while erring on the side of good when you hit limitations.

 

Accurate for me. I want to hear the recording, not the equipment.

 

IMO, good sound is most important, as long as it sounds natural, and not too digital. I really don't know how to determine if a recording is "accurate".

 

In most cases obtaining a reasonably accurate reproduction of the RECORDING is all that you have any control over therefore IMO that would be what to strive for in your system.

 

This idea is covered in depth by Tom Port, Steve Hoffman, Grant, etc. on this thread which I reread last night. It is very interesting reading:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7783&highlight=accuracy

 

As most folk's responding here, my first instinct is to suggest that engineers should always endeavour to capture what's on the original tapes, as accurately as possible. However, one example keeps gnawing at me: Bob Dylan's STREET LEGAL. The original vinyl and CD releases were a mess, and most fans seemed to dismiss it out of hand. However, as someone who used to think it represented a complete collapse of Dylan's creative muse, I was amazed by the effect the recent radical remixing of the album had on my appreciation of the material. I mean, it still sounds pretty lousy in many respects, but at least the songs have a fighting chance of being heard in all the clutter. In fact, at least one song from the record has emerged as a personal favorite: "Where Are You Tonight?". This remix obscures many of the tapes numerous flaws, and emphasizes the strengths. Accurate and historically honest? No. But I'm very glad to have it.

 

If I have a choice between a Led Zep CD with "good" tweaked EQ'd sound and an older accurate flat one which I can tweak any way I choose, I prefer the accurate sound. And also there's the argument about artist intent and all that

 

By accurate, I presume that you mean true to the original master tape.

In that case, I choose good sound, even if it's inaccurate. If it sounds good and it's accurate, then all the better.

A dorky case in point, I have a bunch of 80's music on CD that's just way too bright for my ears. And, I suspect, they are flat transfers from the master tape. They sounds nearly identical to my original vinyl. Just an 80's thing, I guess (lots of treble, no bass). On accident, I happened to play a cassette tape that I'd made of some of cd's for my wife about 5 years ago, and for whatever reason, the high end is severely rolled off. But guess what - it sounds *perfect* to me now! Really warm and inviting, easy on the ears, and *exciting*. We made CDR's from the tapes, and they sound yummy.

So, if the mastering engineer successfully tweaks the sound to sound better - even if it's "inaccurate", then give me that.

That's why we're all here right? What Steve does is oftentimes no less than magic, sounding much better than the "accurate" master tapes.

 

But I think Steve gives us a more accurate representation of the tapes than other guys. Other guys are tempted to tweak until the end product sounds nothing like what they started with. Steve just makes the warts sound better instead of cutting them off.

 

I think we just had a few side comments about playback.

 

I guess we're talking about both music and playback systems. In an ideal world, all cds would sound like yours, Steve, but on my "audiophile" system, there are obviously things (such as the import Kinks remasters, certain '80s cds such as the ones Jeff mentioned, and new ELO II remaster) that sound like crap. Then you plug in the old KLH speakers and EVERYTHING sounds warm and rich. So I'm starting to see why Jerry Wexler doesn't like audiophile systems and prefers to hear the music "the way the people hear it". I'm questioning audiophile values in the sense that only a handful of recordings on cd actually sound decent compared to the rest of my library. What's the point? Maybe a little coloration could be a good thing? This is the stuff that's going through my head lately in my quest for some nice vintage gear.

 

How do dead dogs poop?? Just curious

 

Accurate for me.

I've heard enough real instruments and vocalists (amplified & unamplified) in small clubs & played directly in front of me to know pretty much what things are supposed to sound like.

Unfortunately, I think some (original) recording engineers don't know what they are doing: guitars get their mics placed too close and you hear too much of the string's sounds so it sounds all gritty; cymbals overload equipment (mics I think?). I have a couple of CDs where you can clearly hear this staticky-type distortion; vocalists that sound TOO real(?)........I'm not sure how but on my Wrecking Ball album Emmylou's vocals are so grainy & piercing I literally almost can't listen to it, and I'm not even an audiophile. The rest of the sounds are of excellent quality--what happened Mr. Lanois???

I want my home playback system to play back what the ARTIST & his engineer wants me to hear, not what the amp or cd player manufacturer wants me to hear. Though I will use tone controls if the recording really stinks (Wrecking Ball--a great album BTW--causes my treble knob to get turned to the 9:00 position! ).

The flipside of having an "accurate" system is that well-recorded/mastered recordings sound awesome!! And this makes up for the mediocre sounding CDs and records.

[T]

 

Oh yea: I think mastering systems should also be accurate as possible, so they can record whatever the user desires.

[T]

 

It's a no win situation. I'm going back to 8 tracks!

 

Yellow matter custard.