The eternal quandary

I used to think some of the cds I own were poorly recorded, because they didn't sound good on my system.

Now that my system has improved, I know better. Those recordings that previously sounded bad, now sound right.

If the recording doesn't sound good, the problem is almost certainly with one's system, though most of us, I am sure, hate to admit it.

Twoleftears: I'm not sure how your comment responds to mine.

Of course there are differences in how recordings sound, depending on what the recording engineer is trying to do, what is emphasized, etc. And of course, the more resolution in one's system, the more these differences will stand out. The question is this: When you hear something that doesn't sound good (sounds harsh or distorted), is this the fault of the recording, or is it the fault of the system?

What I am talking about are recordings about which one instantly says upon playing it, "That doesn't sound good, and the reason is that it is poorly recorded." For example, one or more of the instruments appears to be distorted, or the sound of one or more instruments is harsh. ---I am sure that all of us have had this reaction from time to time. I have said it many times myself about specific recordings. I have also been witness to it first hand in the living room of a very highly respected audio manufacturer.

My sense is that the better one believes one's system to be, the more likely one is likely to pin the blame on the recording, rather than on one's own system.

And the question is: Which is it? My sense is that there are very very very few recordings as to which, during the mixing process, the recording engineer heard the bad things that you heard, but somehow unaccountably pronounced it good and ready for pressing. And the question becomes: Why did what sounded good to him end up sounding bad to you or me?

Mike60: It's interesting that you choose the "best" recorded material as the way to challenge your system. I think it's equally useful to choose material that you think is "poorly" recorded as a way to challenge your system. My guess is that one very good way to measure improvement in your system is when the sound of the "poor" recordings changes from poor to good.

But I guess the question is: How do you know that the sharpness of the guitar or the leanness of the vocal is the fault of the recording, rather than the fault of the equipment?

I suppose one can make the argument that if some recordings sound good on a particular system, while others do not, then the fault must be with the recordings.

But then again, perhaps the problem is with the system, and a better system would not only resolve the problems with the bad-sounding recording, but also make the good-sounding recording even better.

I believe that most of us who have a deep financial/emotional investment in our systems would rather assign fault to the recording, rather than admit the possibility that the problem is with the system.

Perhaps a "sharp-sounding" guitar comes about because a recording engineer has "pushed the limits" in order to try get veracity on the recording, but this will be revealed on playback only by components designed in a certain way, and not on components that sound great with certain recording techniques.

Perhaps, in thinking we are overlooking the inadequacies of the recording in order to enjoy the music, we are actually overlooking the inadequacies of our systems?

I have plenty of cds whose "problems" (or what I thought were problems) have been cleared up as my system has improved. This has made me less apt to question the recording, and more apt to question my system. So, I think the question is valid: When we assign fault to the recording, how do we really know?