Mediocre recordings with great gear vs great recordings with mediocre gear?

[Zuman]

Ok, I'll try to explain what I mean here...
While I certainly don't have the highest-end system, it's ok and it frequently makes me very happy. I use Roon ROCK on an NUC into a NAD Masters Series M50.2 player/vault connected directly to a NAD Masters Series M32 digital integrated amp. That connects to a pair of CSS Criton 2TD-X towers with upgraded crossovers, which are supplemented by a pair of Taket Live supertweeters and Taket WHDpure "woofer hi-definitioners."
On the analog side, I have a heavily-modified Rega table into a Moon preamp with outboard linear power supply, which goes into a line input on the M32.
Cables are Hapa digital and Audio Art analog.
So...I LOVE the sound I get from well-recorded HD downloads (such as the Nagra 70th Anniversary 2xHD Jazz album and Nuvelle's digital offerings) and when listening to those I have no desire to upgrade any gear whatsoever. But I'm left wanting on many of the non-HD digital recordings I own.
Similarly, UHQR vinyl sounds awesome and inevitably takes me where I want to go, but run-of-the-mill vinyl is often meh.
Is some gear simply too unforgiving with mediocre recordings, and can better gear help me find happiness when the recording isn't great or the digital resolution is lower? Or does better gear inevitably result in dissatisfaction with undistinguished recordings and I would be better off just gradually replacing my entire library with HD music?

 

[Al M.]

As my system improved, recordings that I thought were mediocre turned out to be better and better, with some of them actually turning from "mediocre" to great.

Of course, some really crappy recordings didn't get better in any way or, in rare cases, became more unpleasant.

But that second scenario turned out to be much less frequent than the first one.

 

[pjwd]

As my system improved, recordings that I thought were mediocre turned out to be better and better, with some of them actually turning from "mediocre" to great.

Of course, some really crappy recordings didn't get better in any way or, in rare cases, became more unpleasant.

But that second scenario turned out to be much less frequent than the first one.

I found that to be particularly the case with "more diffucult" music ... the better reproduction just lets you into the intent of of the music .. its one of the real pleasures of the hobby
Of course maybe my brain finally burnt in !

 

[Rexp]

Ok, I'll try to explain what I mean here...
While I certainly don't have the highest-end system, it's ok and it frequently makes me very happy. I use Roon ROCK on an NUC into a NAD Masters Series M50.2 player/vault connected directly to a NAD Masters Series M32 digital integrated amp. That connects to a pair of CSS Criton 2TD-X towers with upgraded crossovers, which are supplemented by a pair of Taket Live supertweeters and Taket WHDpure "woofer hi-definitioners."
On the analog side, I have a heavily-modified Rega table into a Moon preamp with outboard linear power supply, which goes into a line input on the M32.
Cables are Hapa digital and Audio Art analog.
So...I LOVE the sound I get from well-recorded HD downloads (such as the Nagra 70th Anniversary 2xHD Jazz album and Nuvelle's digital offerings) and when listening to those I have no desire to upgrade any gear whatsoever. But I'm left wanting on many of the non-HD digital recordings I own.
Similarly, UHQR vinyl sounds awesome and inevitably takes me where I want to go, but run-of-the-mill vinyl is often meh.
Is some gear simply too unforgiving with mediocre recordings, and can better gear help me find happiness when the recording isn't great or the digital resolution is lower? Or does better gear inevitably result in dissatisfaction with undistinguished recordings and I would be better off just gradually replacing my entire library with HD music?

It's a good question. Certainly with vinyl I only play around 50% of albums regularly due to meh sound quality. With digital I only like a small fraction of the albums I hear on Tidal but I think that is due to my budget rig. On the other hand some members here only listen to SACD, so maybe they have it right.

 

[Al M.]

It's a good question. Certainly with vinyl I only play around 50% of albums regularly due to meh sound quality. With digital I only like a small fraction of the albums I hear on Tidal but I think that is due to my budget rig. On the other hand some members here only listen to SACD, so maybe they have it right.

That depends on the type of music too. Pop/rock is more problematic than classical and jazz, where good recordings and masterings are common. Yet even with classic rock good masterings shouldn't be too hard to find these days (if you have the choice, with streaming often you don't).

I don't for a minute buy the idea that you need "hires" files to get good digital sound; I spin physical CDs. I do maintain though that streaming often is problematic, regardless of "hi-res" or 16/44. It *can* be done right, but it may require effort and/or expense. I'll take well-sorted out physical CD playback over mediocre "hi-res" streaming any minute of the day.

Yes, in some cases "hi-res" files or SACD may still sound better, but mastering and effort to get good reproduction through the system trumps format in importance. If you can't get 16/44 to sound really good, something is wrong with reproduction through your system.

 

[microstrip]

(...) If you can't get 16/44 to sound really good, something is wrong with reproduction through your system.

Or they simply prefer vinyl and tune their systems for it. It s not forcefully wrong.

 

[Fishfood]

This is my pet peeve. I've listened to some incredible systems in people's homes with high Rez audio sources but then when you pop in a rebook cd or a non audiophile LP, it sounds like garbage.

My goal has always been to make everything I own sound great.

I feel like there are a lot of people here who tailor their listening to what sounds good on their system- Diana Krall has made a killing off these folks.

 

[Al M.]

Or they simply prefer vinyl and tune their systems for it. It s not forcefully wrong.

Point taken.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I feel like there are a lot of people here who tailor their listening to what sounds good on their system- Diana Krall has made a killing off these folks.

I do not think so. Most tailor their systems to the music they prefer, a wise decision in this hobby.

BTW, although I am not a fan of Diana Krall - I do not own any of her recordings - I have listened more than once to some tracks of her sounding great, but also really bad. IMO the overexposure of her recordings at shows and demos is simply due to fact that dealers and manufacturers know that many people love her music.

 

[mulveling]

There's a plethora music out there that's recorded well enough to enjoy on a high-end system. All genres, even heavy metal, punk rock, hair metal, new wave etc has many surprisingly well recorded albums. There are plenty of duds too, but they should be in the minority and I find more than enough to satisfy. I don't own a single Krall or Patricia Barber or Lyn Staley, etc. If possible, I catch up on news or social media when they play this material during audiophile events.

Anyways, my theory is that systems which seem to penalize all but the most "pristine recordings" are actually not high-resolving at all -- rather they're severely unbalanced, essentially suboptimal music playback systems that put undue spotlight on certain aspects of musical information, at the expense of the overall message. This might happen if a system is voiced exclusively on "audiophile" fare. If it can't sound amazing on any rock besides Dire Straits (etc), then something is wrong -- with component synergy, setup, connections, room acoustics, etc.

Component synergy is so key, in my experience. Even exceeding considerations of room acoustics in many cases. I also play 99% vinyl, which may be relevant to the hit rate of "good" masterings for rock/pop fare.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I've listened to some incredible systems in people's homes with high Rez audio sources but then when you pop in a rebook cd or a non audiophile LP, it sounds like garbage.

What do you mean by "sounds like garbage"? What does this sound like?

Why do you think a regular CD or a non-audiophile LP sounds "like garbage" on those "incredible" systems? In other words, what are those systems doing or not doing to the regular CD or non-audiophile LP that makes the recordings sound like "garbage"?

My goal has always been to make everything I own sound great.

How do you accomplish this? What components do you use to accomplish this?

 

[tima]

I don't own a single Krall or Patricia Barber or Lyn Staley, etc.

Heh - how 'bout Mannheim Steamroller?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

pooh poohing music/sonic guilty pleasures is a bit snooty i think. there are many paths to musical maturity, and spots on the path. and even end points preferred. my sonic reference points have always included my listening 25 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and 5 years ago.

i just think this line of discussion is not friendly to the community here. get's people defensive about what they like or don't like. makes WBF a less welcoming place. today i had a WBF member visitor and the first call for a vinyl cut was Thelma Houston. that did make me smile.

i can like Bartok string quartets or Charles Lloyd......and Diana Krall. or Eva, or Allison.....i have 4 reels of an all analog Diana Krall 'Live In Paris' that sounds amazing.

OTOH i do respect comments about hifi show musical choices. but that's different.

we should not have to defend our musical choices. but it is an easy target for those needing one.

 

[tima]

Is some gear simply too unforgiving with mediocre recordings, and can better gear help me find happiness when the recording isn't great or the digital resolution is lower? Or does better gear inevitably result in dissatisfaction with undistinguished recordings and I would be better off just gradually replacing my entire library with HD music?

I don't know if any gear is 'unforgiving' with mediocre recordings -- they are known as mediocre for a reason. If a system prevents you from distinquishing well done recordings from mediocre ones, you can carry on in bliss or change the system.

Audiophile recordings are meant to placate mediocre systems. I discourage falling into the trap of buying them because they make your system sound better. I encourage using challenging music to help improve your system. There is a reason you hear the Krall, Barbour, la-la girl and guitar and light-weight electronica at shows and you tube recordings -- it doesn't grossly offend (other than through its repetition) and it is not a challenge to the gear.

 

[tima]

i just think this line of discussion is not friendly to the community here. get's people defensive about what they like or don't like. makes WBF a less welcoming place.

Yet the place encourages conflict and has a social credit system. Not by accident It calls itself 'What's Best', not What's Pleasant'.

 

[Fishfood]

What do you mean by "sounds like garbage"? What does this sound like?

Why do you think a regular CD or a non-audiophile LP sounds "like garbage" on those "incredible" systems? In other words, what are those systems doing or not doing to the regular CD or non-audiophile LP that makes the recordings sound like "garbage"?



How do you accomplish this? What components do you use to accomplish this?

It's in my signature and I give all the credit to a former member who apparently some people don't like? He couldn't have helped me more and made nothing from it. Just simple solutions for maximum value.

I think the key is we all hear differently and get different auditory pleasures from different things and my system is dialed into what I like. I think it's the combination of bass reflex studio monitors and SET amplification with a great phono preamp that is the secret combo for me. I listen to all non-Diana Krall related forms of music including gothic apocalyptic folk, rap, trip hop, dance, psych along with a bunch of jazz, country and blues. Vinyl only.

Also, I don't know how to describe garbage.... I don't have the vocabulary. But I know it when I hear it. Mostly I know it because I want to turn it off, whereas generally I can listen to music all day.

 

[Another Johnson]

My experience matches those who have found that fewer and fewer of the recordings in their collections seem poorly recorded as the quality of their systems improves.

In fact I often use recordings that I think are poorly done when evaluating new components just to hear if they present the music in a more pleasing way.

As for redbook CDs and run of the mill 1955 to 1985 vinyl, some of these are incredibly good.

 

[Fishfood]

My experience matches those who have found that fewer and fewer of the recordings in their collections seem poorly recorded as the quality of their systems improves.

In fact I often use recordings that I think are poorly done when evaluating new components just to hear if they present the music in a more pleasing way.

As for redbook CDs and run of the mill 1955 to 1985 vinyl, some of these are incredibly good.

Agree 100%

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Yet the place encourages conflict and has a social credit system. Not by accident It calls itself 'What's Best', not What's Pleasant'.

we all can choose to hit 'post reply' or not. and find ways to not be mean.

 

[Argonaut]

Yet the place encourages conflict and has a social credit system. Not by accident It calls itself 'What's Best', not What's Pleasant'.

Then why have you returned from your, all too brief, self imposed exile in support of your Guru ?