Trade offs?

Thanks for the comments, and I do understand where Tvad is coming from; however I should clarify, it is through the use of "exceptional" AC power conditioning and isolation, as well as the clarity gained using the CD enhancing fluid mentioned, that I came to this question. As well, I did not say that 'most' of my CDs sound poor- it's quite the reverse in fact - with the efforts I've spent so far more & more Cds reveal the beautiful musicality of the CDs(and I do have a Goldmund turntable as well) and artistic talent of the performers.
My question remains however. Am I reaching the end of the line for CD playback based on the comments I made?

I certainly would not consider moving to turntable use only.
How would I access the 99% of new classical & jazz recordings that are not on vinyl?

Plato, I much appreciate your comments about AC power conditioning. Certainly there is "nobody" out there getting great CD sound without exceptional conditioning and isolation of the digital.

03-15-09: Tvad
Well, I disagree somewhat with Plato. If the majority of your CDs sund harsh, it could be that the majority of your CDs are poorly recorded and your resolving system is exposing their flaws.

I have far fewer well recorded CDs in my system than I do poorly recorded CDs (and the same applies to LPs).

As a system becomes more resolving, it more clearly reveals flaws in source material.

If you want more of your CDs to sound less harsh, then I suggest moving toward a less resolving system intended to please your ears rather than providing the absolute truth of the recordings.

Well said Tvad, I could not agree more. Highly resolving systems point out how poorly a recording can sound. Similar to watching a standard DVD on a 1080p plasma vs. the same recording on a Blu-Ray. If your output is high resolution, you need a high resolution source (recording) to show this. A low resolution recording will be seen/heard warts and all.

Cheers,
John

there is no accounting for taste. i believe our hobby is primarily about enjoyment and not about audio "correctness".

thus, there are many ways to achieve satisfaction when listening to music. there is also no free lunch.

if one chooses to minimize coloration, the quality of recordings will become apparent. the greater the focus the more obvious the warts.

the level of focus is the key. some want more, some less.

you can't eat your cake and have it too.

if one alleges greater resolution associated with less harshness, i doubt that there is either greater resolution or greater ease of listening.

you can't have both. it is foolish to propose unattainable listening goals.

there is a trade off that implicitly or explicitly occurs as one tries to hear all there is to hear on a recording.

i am wrestling with this myself, with my recent purchase of quad 57s. let's distinguish between what is attainable and what is impossible to achieve.

it's unfortunate that designers of preamps do not offer a focus control. such a capability, i believe would solve a lot of problems. it is possible that the issue of tubes vs solid state would no longer be an issue.

most recordings are replete with timbral reproduction errors. it therefore comes as no surprise that a high-resolution system will reveal such errors to an experienced listener.