when do you stop upgrading and just perseu greater resolution recordings

[HughP3]

Given my setup/room I “think” I am at I hope 90%+ system resolution. I have experienced profound clarity, depth and resolution with the some recordings. Others not so much. For those like Mike and many others here with what many consider Sota systems, are you now looking only for “the” recordings? I know I can upgrade more, but really, when I listen to my reference recording which is Hugh Masekela/hope/stimela on CD rendered through the digital chain in my signature, I cannot think of any upgrade I could make, other than the recording, to improve other recordings realisms. Does this make sense? I have not been in this boat before. in the most recent past upgraded equipdment/ room was the thing that provide that 15-20% improvement. Granted I have not heard very very top Wilson, Arakis, Kodo type speakers (maybe they are the “last reach”) but can they or their equipment equal/beat the truly Hi Rez(analog or digital) recording hi water mark like Hughs?

 

[Robh3606]

What would you expect an upgrade to accomplish?? Source material is what it is and you can't do anything about it. We all have our personal references we use and enjoy but you can't base your whole system around a handful of recordings. You have to accept that there is quite a bit of excellent music out there that was simply not recorded all that well. You don't get roses without thorns.

The absolute best system available can't fix the source material all you can expect it to do is reveal it for what it is. Enjoy it for it's musical merit not it's Sonic's

Rob

 

[HughP3]

I like the thrill of the system otw an mp3 would be good enough ... never ultimately happy I guess when i can hear such stark contrast. Now i find myself I looking for great music and the recording.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

there are no 'wrong' paths in this hobby. it's a hobby and not a peer reviewed white paper. not that there is not lots of judging and finger pointing going on. but mostly we are dealing with subjective topics so all is fair.

in other words the hobby has room every the media <-> gear <-> room development balance and priority, all variations of broadness and depth of our musical library, or musical formats, or even our listening habits. even how we like or not like doing or watching videos of our systems.

it's all good.

so the proper order of how we pursue versions of recordings we like is debatable for sure. and if some wanted to build their view of a great system before they got heavy into having a library of high resolution recordings then i respect that approach. that was not my process.

for myself i've had broad parallel pathways of learning curves and investments in my room/gear/format/musical learning/music collection/and set-up knowledge. so my references and expectations in all those categories 26 years ago in 1994 when i got serious about hifi and music reproduction performance is vastly different than 10 years later, or 20 years later, or how i view them right now in October of 2020. as i sit here today, i think i view the media i purchased between 1995 and 2005; the 45rpm pressings from Classic Records, AP and Music Matters as the absolute finest collection of high resolution music i've encountered. there have been other recordings i've acquired that do come up to this standard, but none that surpasss it. it remains the bedrock of my listening.

my reality is that as i progressed in all those other areas of the hobby, that those grooves yielded more and more resolution. not sure that process is finished, but only time will tell. there are a few tapes that might trump even those recordings, but only a few. certainly no digital has even approached it.

so i feel i've always found great resolution; only that my reference for what that meant has advanced.

i have likely come to a point where i'm not even considering upgrading; but i don't see that in the context of that triggering some different focus on better media. i have always pursued the best possible media from the earliest thinking as a serious audiophile.

and again i come back to my original point that there is not one way to approach our hobby or when to invest in great media. i would only say if i had waited the access and expense to acquire it would have been a huge challenge. glad i pulled the trigger when i did. if you happen to be digital only then there is no penalty for waiting until now; the best, highest resolution digital media is now easily acquired.....or streamed for that matter.

and when system building the best media is a help, as it reveals the most about a system and helps with good decisions. and it makes the process more fun.

 

[HughP3]

there are no 'wrong' paths in this hobby. it's a hobby and not a peer reviewed white paper. not that there is not lots of judging and finger pointing going on. but mostly we are dealing with subjective topics so all is fair.

in other words the hobby has room every the media <-> gear <-> room development balance and priority, all variations of broadness and depth of our musical library, or musical formats, or even our listening habits. even how we like or not like doing or watching videos of our systems.

it's all good.

so the proper order of how we pursue versions of recordings we like is debatable for sure. and if some wanted to build their view of a great system before they got heavy into having a library of high resolution recordings then i respect that approach. that was not my process.

for myself i've had broad parallel pathways of learning curves and investments in my room/gear/format/musical learning/music collection/and set-up knowledge. so my references and expectations in all those categories 26 years ago in 1994 when i got serious about hifi and music reproduction performance is vastly different than 10 years later, or 20 years later, or how i view them right now in October of 2020. as i sit here today, i think i view the media i purchased between 1995 and 2005; the 45rpm pressings from Classic Records, AP and Music Matters as the absolute finest collection of high resolution music i've encountered. there have been other recordings i've acquired that do come up to this standard, but none that surpasss it. it remains the bedrock of my listening.

my reality is that as i progressed in all those other areas of the hobby, that those grooves yielded more and more resolution. not sure that process is finished, but only time will tell. there are a few tapes that might trump even those recordings, but only a few. certainly no digital has even approached it.

so i feel i've always found great resolution; only that my reference for what that meant has advanced.

i have likely come to a point where i'm not even considering upgrading; but i don't see that in the context of that triggering some different focus on better media. i have always pursued the best possible media from the earliest thinking as a serious audiophile.

and again i come back to my original point that there is not one way to approach our hobby or when to invest in great media. i would only say if i had waited the access and expense to acquire it would have been a huge challenge. glad i pulled the trigger when i did. if you happen to be digital only then there is no penalty for waiting until now; the best, highest resolution digital media is now easily acquired.....or streamed for that matter.

and when system building the best media is a help, as it reveals the most about a system and helps with good decisions. and it makes the process more fun.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply Mike. I think the underpinning of your reply is that yes you are likely done with the system and that certain analog has yielded to you the highest resolution. I have strived for a decent system - LDS - L810 back in the early 80’s thru various mid range system. But where we depart ways is i jumped way up in a short time frame so do not have your 26 years of consistent improvement. My path is really of the last 8 years, really the last 2 years where i decided to invest in this hobby. my current system was a big leapfrog which I am very happy with. Its just now I can descern recordings to a degree I have never been concerned about before. This is where I find myself searching for those special recording where the current system becomes magical vs ordinary.

 

[spiritofmusic]

I've listened to a whole host of highly resolving systems which are a tad unmusical, highly musical systems which lack that last degree of resolution, and one recently that really manages the amazing trick of superb resolution and fantastic musicality ie Bill's horns on Bergmann/DaVa analog source and Thomas Mayer tubes.

We listened to track after track digging out detail and nailing involvement. The last track we played, Rush "Tom Sawyer" off my Japanese pressing LP "Moving Pictures", was the only one where I could feel some restriction in communication compared to the rest of the music I had chosen. This track has sounded appalling on other horns/tubes and box spkrs/SS, and uniformly poor off Qobuz even on top streamers. So no surprise it couldn't sound as top draw as the other music we played on Bill's magical system.

I would say that it's taken this experience more than any other to finally prove to me that there really is a glass ceiling for the most challenging masterings to struggle. But that a very small number of systems with the ability to resolve deeply and knit that resolution together musically, can start to transcend poor/challenging masterings. For me, I can honestly say this most recent demo of Bill's horns is only the second one I've ever heard that was resolving AND musical on my torture tracks (the other one being the system at Z-Axis Audio). And that's after listening to dozens of systems with really well regarded, expensive gear that have never fully nailed the resolution/musicality dichotomy.

 

[tima]

There's never a time not to buy quality recordings.

 

[Al M.]

II would say that it's taken this experience more than any other to finally prove to me that there really is a glass ceiling for the most challenging masterings to struggle. But that a very small number of systems with the ability to resolve deeply and knit that resolution together musically, can start to transcend poor/challenging masterings. For me, I can honestly say this most recent demo of Bill's horns is only the second one I've ever heard that was resolving AND musical on my torture tracks (the other one being the system at Z-Axis Audio). And that's after listening to dozens of systems with really well regarded, expensive gear that have never fully nailed the resolution/musicality dichotomy.

The better my system and setup became (setup is *really* important) the more I discovered that recordings, which I had deemed merely "good enough" or even somewhat problematic, shifted into the "excellent" column, with natural and highly resolved sound full of information on musical expression and detail.

If your system gives you magic only on a limited number of recordings, something is wrong with it.

 

[spiritofmusic]

You obviously haven't understood what I've just written.

 

[bonzo75]

You obviously haven't understood what I've just written.

Is that a confession or accusation

 

[spiritofmusic]

Neither. Just a statement of fact.

 

[Al M.]

Is that a confession or accusation

Both.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Al, you should have contributed to the thread where when I said that music should always should enjoyable and immersive, I was told that shit recordings should sound shit...anything else was not the high end.

 

[HughP3]

I've listened to a whole host of highly resolving systems which are a tad unmusical, highly musical systems which lack that last degree of resolution, and one recently that really manages the amazing trick of superb resolution and fantastic musicality ie Bill's horns on Bergmann/DaVa analog source and Thomas Mayer tubes.

We listened to track after track digging out detail and nailing involvement. The last track we played, Rush "Tom Sawyer" off my Japanese pressing LP "Moving Pictures", was the only one where I could feel some restriction in communication compared to the rest of the music I had chosen. This track has sounded appalling on other horns/tubes and box spkrs/SS, and uniformly poor off Qobuz even on top streamers. So no surprise it couldn't sound as top draw as the other music we played on Bill's magical system.

I would say that it's taken this experience more than any other to finally prove to me that there really is a glass ceiling for the most challenging masterings to struggle. But that a very small number of systems with the ability to resolve deeply and knit that resolution together musically, can start to transcend poor/challenging masterings. For me, I can honestly say this most recent demo of Bill's horns is only the second one I've ever heard that was resolving AND musical on my torture tracks (the other one being the system at Z-Axis Audio). And that's after listening to dozens of systems with really well regarded, expensive gear that have never fully nailed the resolution/musicality dichotomy.

its actually your thread on Bill’s system that started me thinking. I have your list of music much of it I have and like too. Interesting the LZ in 24bit and the Dreggs album as CD sound excellent, Little feet sounds good but not as good the other recordings, to me is not as resolving. Miles Davis sounds great but Rush, even 24 bit, just does not sound quit right to me. Another recording thats sounds magical is TrondheimSolistene/Magnificat. These recordings make my good system sound magical, Journey on the other hand does not. I guess i’m an doing poor job explaining this, when the recording is good like above I have no desire to improve anything.

 

[Al M.]

Al, you should have contributed to the thread where when I said that music should always should enjoyable and immersive, I was told that shit recordings should sound shit...anything else was not the high end.

Which thread? Yes, shitty recordings sound shit, but I am starting to wonder how many really shitty recordings are out there. Maybe more in pop and rock, but in classical and jazz, not so much. In general, the overwhelming majority of classical or jazz recordings sound at least decent in my experience, and a substantial majority sounds good or excellent.

If a system gives the impression that many recordings are bad, this is not a badge of honor in my view. On the contrary, something is wrong with the system.

 

[wil]

My experience is that most Jazz is well recorded. (Thank Gawd!). Classical is less consistent, but with some effort, I can usually find a good performance/recording of just about anything in Classical. Rock is definitely more problematic.

All of this is in the context of 100% streaming. I'm sure I could do better sometimes if I were interested in taking the time to shop for primo recordings, but I don't really feel the necessity to do so.

 

[spiritofmusic]

its actually your thread on Bill’s system that started me thinking. I have your list of music much of it I have and like too. Interesting the LZ in 24bit and the Dreggs album as CD sound excellent, Little feet sounds good but not as good the other recordings, to me is not as resolving. Miles Davis sounds great but Rush, even 24 bit, just does not sound quit right to me. Another recording thats sounds magical is TrondheimSolistene/Magnificat. These recordings make my good system sound magical, Journey on the other hand does not. I guess i’m an doing poor job explaining this, when the recording is good like above I have no desire to improve anything.

Hugh, good call. I guess the point I was making was/is that Bill's horns are both super resolving and super musical. Now it might be he also has a magic room. He certainly has a magic rig w Bergmann/DaVa/Mayer. And I did bring along some excellently recorded music.
What was fascinating was how absolutely unencumbered Haydn, Legg and Coryell was. And how Rush started to stay locked to spkrs. Yet still musical despite any number of shortfalls in the mastering.

I've heard a fair number of systems that exaggerate the poor showing for stuff like Rush, that it was hugely refreshing to hear high resolution and high musicality hand in hand, rather than the emphasis on warts'n'all presentation.

 

[stehno]

its actually your thread on Bill’s system that started me thinking. I have your list of music much of it I have and like too. Interesting the LZ in 24bit and the Dreggs album as CD sound excellent, Little feet sounds good but not as good the other recordings, to me is not as resolving. Miles Davis sounds great but Rush, even 24 bit, just does not sound quit right to me. Another recording thats sounds magical is TrondheimSolistene/Magnificat. These recordings make my good system sound magical, Journey on the other hand does not. I guess i’m an doing poor job explaining this, when the recording is good like above I have no desire to improve anything.

Well, if you have a performance -oriented mindset, for some high-end audio can become as addicting and neverending as presumably auto racing. The fact that you're even asking the question tells me you ain't gettin' outta' this anytime soon. Personally, I think a performance-oriented mindset is any playback system's biggest requirement when striving for better.

FWIW, I think people place way too much emphasis on the quality of a given recording's engineering. Sure they make a difference and sometimes in a very musical way. Even so, the greatest bulk of deficiencies / roadblocks far and away still lie within the playback system itself.

Anyway, you've mentioned Rush and Journey a few times now. Perhaps these may help better illustrate my point that the bulk of improvements come from within the playback system rather than the recordings or quality thereof.

 

[HughP3]

[

Well, if you have a performance -oriented mindset, for some high-end audio can become as addicting and neverending as presumably auto racing. The fact that you're even asking the question tells me you ain't gettin' outta' this anytime soon. Personally, I think a performance-oriented mindset is any playback system's biggest requirement when striving for better.

FWIW, I think people place way too much emphasis on the quality of a given recording's engineering. Sure they make a difference and sometimes in a very musical way. Even so, the greatest bulk of deficiencies / roadblocks far and away still lie within the playback system itself.

Anyway, you've mentioned Rush and Journey a few times now. Perhaps these may help better illustrate my point that the bulk of improvements come from within the playback system rather than the recordings or quality thereof.

Just listened to “who’s crying now” and I must say its pretty good, good vocal presence/imaging and nice tight bass. It’s just not a track i listen to. I like “Escape” which kicked ass live but the sonics on are more muddled , bass is rather vague. It’s not doing it for me. Neils solo is monumental but i prefer the sonics of Bill Bruford/master strokes/the drum also waltzes. Could be i am just picky