More and more I am getting convinced that a difference in recording quality is far more important than the difference in sound quality between high end components. In other words, you may spent thousands of dollars on upgrading your system, which would be a simple waste of time (and money) unless you have
good
enough quality recordings, whereas the difference in sound between a good and bad recordings is much more notable, no matter whether you use 1k, 2k, 5k or 10k or higher price amp or cd player (you still need good speakers though). I think this is an important issue.
As to the quality of the recordings, not always more recent recording have better quality, in general, and many analog recordings, especially classical ones, are better than more recent digital ones (counting good labels). Early (analog) Miles Davis recordings (late 50s and 60s) are far better than late 60s and 70s (analog) recordings, and even some of the 80s digital ones. For my taste, some late Pat Metheny recordings (2010 and above) are worse in quality than earlier ones (from 90s to, say, 2010). Early ELP recordings also sound better than later ones. I am curious why this happens (e.g., did Miles Davis himself did not note this (by the way, he used 70s AR speakers)?)
As to the quality of the recordings, not always more recent recording have better quality, in general, and many analog recordings, especially classical ones, are better than more recent digital ones (counting good labels). Early (analog) Miles Davis recordings (late 50s and 60s) are far better than late 60s and 70s (analog) recordings, and even some of the 80s digital ones. For my taste, some late Pat Metheny recordings (2010 and above) are worse in quality than earlier ones (from 90s to, say, 2010). Early ELP recordings also sound better than later ones. I am curious why this happens (e.g., did Miles Davis himself did not note this (by the way, he used 70s AR speakers)?)