What are the characteristics quality recordings?


I've been pondering what differentiates a quality recording from one that is mediocre. To me, good recordings transmit a realism of performance, have clarity, and reproduce the dynamic range of the artist(s) and their instruments. Good recordings also allow the emotionality of the music to be felt, IMO. Mediocre recordings do not do all or parts of the above. I ask this question in order to broaden my understanding of reproduced music.

That leads to my two part question:

1. What do Audiogoners believe constitutes a good recording? That is, what are the sonic qualities of an excellent recording?

2. What are examples (specific CDs or records)of recordings that reflect your answer to #1?

John
johnrob
Damn, Rushton! That was excellent! It is awful to admitt but I do not think I have ever heard anything approaching proper soundstaging. Everything I have heard always seems a little larger, little smaller than what I imagine the real thing sounds like.
Hi Timf, thanks for your comment. As to reproduction of size, I tend to differentiate that from soundstaging in my own listening. For me, soundstaging is about relative positioning in the recreated acoustic space, and a natural rendering of the instruments in that space: do I hear instruments spread naturally across the stage and in depth, or are instruments jumping around due to spot miking or is the soundstage totally flat due to excessive use of multi-miking, inept capture of stereo imaging or excessive processing that has destroyed phase relationships. (Some folks talk about height here as well, but that's not a hot button for me.)

Some great examples of excellent soundstaging on recordings, and recordings that make it very easy for others to hear exactly what one is talking about in this regard, are:

    Holst "Savitri" with Janet Baker, Argo ZNF 6 (In this wonderful recording, listen to the entry of the husband at stage far deep right and listen to his voice as he moves across the stage and then up to the front of the stage. Also listen to the voice of Death at the far left rear of the stage. On a good playback system, the spacial location is precise and specific as the singer move around the stage.)

    Allegri "Miserere", Tallis Scholars, CFP 40339 (The Scholars split into two antiphonal choirs in this recording, with one clearly in the far distance of the church in which this was recorded. If you have someone who claims not to understand what is meant by "depth" in a sound system, or how sounds can be behind the back wall behind your speakers, play this for them.)
"Size" can refer to size of the soundstage or apparent "size" of the instruments. In a favorite recording of mine, the Starker Bach Cello Suites (listed above), Starker plays a cello that appears to be 6' tall. The close miking really makes this instrument sound oversize. And yet, when I listen in a small room to a live solo cello, and if I'm sitting right up close in the first row next to the performer, this LP is not far off from what I've heard live in these settings, notwithstanding what I might otherwise imagine it should sound like.

In LP playback, I've found that different cartridges make a big difference in apparent size of both instruments and soundstage. These variables have made me somewhat more tolerant of the "size" issue.

Best wishes,
WOW - Some excellent responses to this post! Thank you.

I would enjoy hearing from other people regarding their views on this topic - particularly on what cds or albums exemplify a good recording in areas of music such as rock, jazz, etc.

Thanks again

John
I've always wondered, Bufus, why I have to turn Pearl Jam CD's WAY DOWN when I play them. They are so much louder than my other CD's. Is that due to "normalization, compression, etc..."?

Or just maybe the Ed Vedder honeymoon is over for me... sigh.

Cheers.
Thanks Rushton. Perhaps I will check your recommendations out. I obviously have difficulty describing what I hear so I appreciate the clarification.