better gear, worse recordings

wow, been away, didn't know my thread would generate this much discussion! good to see

I have always tried to only make upgrades where they contributed significantly to the musicality of my system, it's taken a while but I am really happy with the tonal qualities, musicality, imaging and vibrancy of my setup

I find some recordings are made to sound sharp on mid-fi systems and thus are a little bright on more revealing equipment. Two examples that come to mind - Steely Dan Two Against Nature (the sampled percussion is way too hot, why not a real drum track?) and Suzanne Vega's Nine Objects of Desire (very bass heavy). SOme recordings I have to listen to in the next room because they are a little bright (having a concussion from a truck hitting me 2 years back doesn't help my over treble intolerance)

Now with my upgrades to a refined musical system, when I get an incredible recording the rewards are really there, and one gets lost in the music. I listen to a lot of old seventies rock and 50's-60's jazz. I love buying the upgraded remastered discs (those original cd issues sounded flat). THere are artists whose work sounds simplier when you can distinguish all the notes etc (Stones, some Beatles,Dylan,80's synth pop, etc). Things that are less refined and separated out on old cheap vinyl playback or a mid fi system, become less engaging when you can hear things in a more revealing manner. Other artists work gets even more depth and engaging (Yes, Genesis, Steely Dan, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young). Anyway it's a fun ride, and I am enjoying it, even if I think some recording engineers need to pay more attention to keeping it neutral and musical.

thanks for all the comments

tom

(only kidding). Actually, there's a cornucopia of excellent insight in this thread, but I'd just like to remind you guys that every pop album (and many jazz and classical albums) you have ever listened to have been through an equalizer...of sorts...often not once, but many times, for individual instruments and vocals and then again in mastering (I own a small studio). This is hardly a new thought, but keep in mind that on the recording side of the equation every microphone, microphone cable, microphone pre-amp, pre-amp-to-board cable, board, compressor, gate, effect, monitor, yadda, yadda, yadda, has its own sound signature. One size will never fit all.

I further submit to you that aside from the issue of resolution (which I regard as the hallmark of high-end -- sound stage, imaging, etc. being its derivatives), the fundamental thing we're talking about here is tonal balance.

No, it will never be possible to change the tonal quality of an individual instrument in a recording without changing the tonal quality of the other instruments in a recording unless you have access to the 24-, 48-, or however-many-track master tape, but it certainly would be possible to change the overall tonal character of the 2-channel recordings we all listen to with -- dare I say it -- TONE CONTROLS!!!

Some of you call them "cables", which, you claim, should NEVER be used as "tone controls", (sorry, I realize I'm ranting), and others eschew the infamous destroyer of high-end systems, the EQUALIZER, but if the perfectly transparent EQ existed for a song, would you buy it? Hmmmmm.... Can we conspire to instigate a revolution?
Steve

... Also, I own Pro Ac Response 3.5's, Totem Arrow's, Sound Dynamics (both of the models recommended by Harry), Energy's, Snells, a Radio Shack boom box as well as myriad electronics, Quatro fil's, etc., etc., etc.
If you think it's hard to balance sound in your system, try balancing a recording in all the permutations of the above.
Steve