Is Your System Better Than the Music You Like?


I've recently come to the conclusion that the capabilities of my audio system exceeds the quality of my typical recordings. It's making me rethink any ideas I had involving future upgrades. Just wondering if anyone else has reached this point?

I have what most people would consider a very high quality system, but by no means is it a SOTA setup. The system is made up of components by JRDG, REL, Martin-Logan, MSB, Sony, TACT, RPM, Discovery, PS Audio and Benz. I have a decent room and while I won't say I'm obsessive about it, I've paid a reasonable amount of attention to setup issues. The overall sound quality is quite good. Still there's always room for upgrades. I could upgrade the DAC to a Plus, switch the subwoofer cables, add an Arcici stand, maybe go with an outboard tube phono preamp, etc. I could easily put another $10,000 into the system in worthwhile improvements without fundamentally changing the character or capabilities of the system.

Musically, I'm a basic old-school rocker. Anything from 50s New Orlean R&B, Motown, 60s psychedelia, 70s punk & funk to 80s rap. The 90s are less well represented, but there are smatterings. I'm a big Chicago style electric blues fans. I'm also a big classic jazz fan. I go for Ellington big-big-time, Billie Hoilday, Louis, 50s Blue Note and Miles. There's some classical as well as a couple of country artists (you can't go wrong with Dwight).

I have any number of audiophile quality pressings and recordings, but the majority of my music, particularly my favorite recordings, are down and dirty with no pretensions towards audiophilia. The 30s jazz that I so love is noisy, bandwidth limited and mono. The Chess blues recordings have a very nice aliveness to them, but they're mainly mono and without much deep bass. Most 60s to 70s rock is sonically undistinguished (obviously there are exceptions) and is more mid-fi than hi-fi. Rap is purposely lo-fi. Current recordings are extremely dynamically limited. My point is that you don't need a $150,000 system in a custom built room to properly reproduce these types of music. You still need a good system capable of low distortion, wide bandwidth, sharp imaging and all the other audiophile traits, but it doesn't have to be outrageously complex nor all that expensive.

I probably will continue to make relatively minor upgrades, but I can't imagine making any major changes. Maybe I'm no longer an audiophile and I've slipped down in the world of mid-fi, if so, I'd at least like to think that it's a quality mid-fi.
128x128onhwy61

Showing 2 responses by zaikesman

I've long known that I'm in the same boat you describe, except that I own no "audiophile" pressings or such at all. In fact, not only does a lot of the music I love not qualify as even coming close to being recorded with the quality of the "absolute sound", but with many of my favorite genres, I actually *prefer* that it sound this way. There can be something extremely evocative about "primitive" sound quality on vintage recordings of period music, and I don't believe my enjoyment of rockabilly, jump R&B, Chicago blues, girl groups, early soul, surf music, big band, early bebop, original ska, garage rock, etc., would be greater if those recordings had been made in modern "high-fidelity" sound - in fact, I'm sure it would be diminished. It's very interesting how on old recordings, we can definitely distinguish between "great"- and "bad"-sounding ones, even when none of them sound like the real thing. It has much more to do with the feeling one gets off the record, and whether that sound works to heighten the impact of the record's mood. In this sense, the "impressionistic" aspect of the recording art exhibited in vintage material has been lost to the technical competence of the modern age.

However, as far as my system goes, there are at least a few reasons why none of the foregoing makes me question persuing (to a budget- and neurosis-limited degree) a high-fidelity playback capability. For one thing, Howlin' Wolf and Link Wray still sound better on my system than they would on a department store rack system, and I think that remains true for all types of music, and for nearly all gradations of system quality. I will concede that some of the finer points of a high-end system's potential won't be realized when playing low-fi sources, but in general the presentation will still be better overall than if played back on a system that adds even more errors of its own. Even the "ruthlessly revealing" argument having to do with the supposed intolerability of playing back flawed recordings through a high-resolution, transparent system is, I think, unfounded when compared to listenting to the same recordings at anything approaching satisfying volume levels through a system that will add spurious resonances and distortions to the sound.

Additionally, for me, there is a need to feel that I can "trust" my system, to present a truer account of what is contained in the source material - whatever quality that may be. It doesn't matter to me if what I am spinning is the lowest-fi, DIY, beat-up old 45 of an amateur bunch of 17-year-old Yardbirds wanna-be's who can't even tune their instruments recorded in a backwoods shack with one microphone, I want to know that I am listening to the record and not my system, to the extent that is possible. Plus, as a musician of sorts, and someone who has done a decent amount of studio recording and is fundamentally aware of sound and its characteristics in general, I would never be happy for long with a playback system that displayed perceivable deviations from sonic neutrality which I knew could be minimized with better gear.

One more reason not to forgo the high-end route, for me, is classical music. Even though I don't listen to as much of it, and don't buy audiophile pressings and so forth, I find that, unlike the above-mentioned genres, I cannot greatly enjoy classical music that is not recorded with something approaching lifelike fidelity. By acquiring a system that can sound at least somewhat natural on naturally recorded acoustic music, I automatically get the added benefit of being able to listen to my well-recorded rock and jazz with a range and impact that my non-audiophile friends simply won't experience, no matter how much they love the music. Plus, I enjoy the ownership of quality gear, something I just wouldn't get from mass-market products. (But I do go the other route in my car - straight-stock, OEM, base-model indifference all the way for me, babies - and I still sometimes enjoy stuff most on the road regardless, despite [or maybe because of?] its low-fi freedom from thought.)

Well, I gotta go now, because the FedEx guy just showed up a day early with my new upsampling DAC, and the box displays some water stains and dampness. I know the point of diminishing returns is out there, somewhere...
Ivan, I possess two somewhat-vintage equalizers at my disposal, a Soundcraftsman 15 band per channel graphic (complete with noise generator and microphone metering), and a rare Sony Esprit 3 band per channel full parametric (which is built inside and out like comparably older pieces of Accuphase or Mark Levinson might be!), and they have been very useful and very educational to play around with in the past. But ever since I got my system up to and past a certain point of truthfulness, I find I don't use them much anymore, and then only for dubbing and diagnostic work, not for straight listening. The more complete - sonically speaking - my rig became, the less, I discovered, I needed to make any compensation for variable recordings to achieve listenability. In fact, this was one of the phenomena that really let me know I was on the worthwhile track with this madness. This experience, too, would seem to bolster the argument for not downgrading one's system to "match" the supposed source quality.