Quality system, make poor recordings sound better?

Some systems I have found mask poor quality recordings to the point they would be tolerable. However, in my experience, I have found that better quality equipment really show how poor the recording (not the music) really is. As I have upgraded, I have noticed that some CD's are just terrible to the extent that I can't listen to them anymore. However, I have also found that better quality (recording wise) cd's are absolutely wonderful sounding. You have to remember that back in the day, the cd recording equipment was touted as "perfect sound" but was really lacking. It is funny when I read so much about the tube vs solid state argument, when many times, the actual recording equipment is solid state based and multiple ICs at that with poor quality components. So yes, I have found in my experience the same as the OP. Love the music, but sometimes the recording quality really sucks and on better quality equipment, one can really hear this.

enjoy

Listen: This really isn't rocket science. it is logical and provable. Some recording engineers used the cheapest equipment, wiring and mikes that they could find and were solely concerned with getting the music on tape. Some couldn't afford or didn't care about the latest and greatest recording equipment. Especially the mikes. You go to a good studio with the cheapest radio shack mixer, mikes and recording equipment vs the top of the line equipment and record the same performance/artist and you tell me that the recordings played back on decent equipment won't reveal how badly the recording was? of course it will. take most cd's from the early eighties and they sound as if a tweeter aimed at your ear with a drill. This is why so many recordings are re-mastered. an attempt to fix the early recording issues. or to make more money, or both. This contributes first hand to "listeners fatigue" Ever wonder why you have trouble sitting for a long period some times listening? Many times it isn't the equipment, it is the recording itself. it simply drives you out of the room. like a magpie in your living room. Don't get me wrong. Many times the music is great. But the recording is really poor.

enjoy

Please reread my response regarding radio shack equipment. I was making a point (clearly I thought) regarding quality of sound recording equipment so that you could see an extreme example of how it would be virtually impossible for anyone with a decent system to not hear the poor recording quality of cheap recoding equipment, vs the same performance recorded with top of the line equipment. Also, many recording artists didn't and still don't have much of a say as to what was recorded, how it is recorded and distributed. So, to say they wouldn't let the poor recording be distributed is missing the point of "they were not in charge and didn't decide". Also, another point is that the playback equipment and speakers in some recording/playback booths were not close to the stuff audiophiles have in their homes, and many times they simply didn't hear the poor recording quality. Also, please remember that I was referring to really poor recording equipment of the early 80s. If you go back an re-read some articles regarding the types of digital recording media used in those times, you would see clearly that they were described as terrible. That is what I am talking about regarding poor recording equipment. Also, go read some audio/music magazines that describe recording equipment in use today and from the 60's and you will see much mention of the quality of the various mikes, from absolutely terrible to masterful. It depends on the experience and knowledge of the master recording engineer. All are not the same. So, yes, you will hear poor recording in your playback equipment's sound. Some equipment mask and some really show it. For example (sorry for the long post), My previous pre-amp was the excellent Audio Research SP 11, which before I upgraded, I compared directly with an Audio Research REF 3 pre-amp. Didn't change anything but the pre-amps. Some recordings using the SP 11 sounded pretty good, but when listening through the REF 3 the same recording sounded really bad. You could really hear the poor recording quality through the REF 3 that was slightly masked with the SP11. but the excellent recordings sounded great on both. I was surprised. And as it turned out, it was typically with older cd's that I heard this. sorry for the long post, but I really thought I was clear in my extreme example regarding radio shack quality equipment vs top of the line. I never said recording engineers actually did this, I was making an example that would be easy to understand.

enjoy

Also, one major issue I have regarding recording quality and instruments is that I am well familiar with how vocals, and instruments are suppose to sound. I played concert violin, sax, and other instruments in band and orchestra. It literally will drive me out of the room if the sound isn't close to what it is suppose to sound like. Take the recording equipment, cables, mixing boards (that included really bad circuitry), mikes, etc. and remember that all of that adds distortion, then take the compression and distortions inherent with bad Cd recordings, and the music just won't sound right. Using electronic drums, electronic instruments trying to sound like real violins, etc. and it hurts my ears. So, yes, in my opinion, I don't really care if I like the artist or not. If it is recording badly or using really terrible sounding instrumentation, I don't like listening to it. I went to a concert a little while ago at Red Rock Colorado (wonderful place) to see the Doobie (spelling) brothers and the Steve Miller Band. Each artist brought their own amplification and mikes on stage when they performed. The Doobie Brothers sounded absolutely great. But, the Steve Miller Band (who I really wanted to see/hear) sounded really terrible. It sounded muffled, heavily distorted and the sound engineer could not fix it. Several of us walked out of the venue totally disappointed. Same is true of recorded music. I don't care who it is. If it sounds bad, I either won't buy it or won't listen to it. It hurts my ears and life is too short for that. I want to enjoy my music, not sit there wondering what is wrong.

enjoy

There was a very nice and interesting interview on KCRW a Los Angeles local NPR station regarding high fidelity, audio quality and audiophiles on 11/18/2014. It was very informative for those that may want to listen.

http://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/design-and-architecture/high-fidelity-with-henry-rollins-ma-yansong-comes-to-l-a

Henry Rollins described how younger people are not experiencing the full range of the music because of the poor recordings and poor quality MP3 and CD recordings and how better systems reveal the poor quality of some recordings. This is to my point regarding poor quality recordings and how some systems will unmask such recordings to the extent that it is almost unlistenable.

The interview also was good in that it described system quality and how moving up the ladder in equipment enables one to experience the music in higher detail and quality. He had I believe at least five rooms in his house with various systems and his master system had over $300,000 of equipment, including the top-of-the-line Wilson Speakers.

One thing that he said that I appreciated, was that he admired and didn't bash McIntosh equipment, but praised it for longevity and quality.

take a listen, it was a nice interview for our love of music and hobby.

enjoy