Pre amps cost vs. value ... what I discovered last month.

Actually, isnt most “audiophile” equipment overpriced for what you get inside the box anyway?  From what I understand, good studio equipment conducts, transfers, etc the sound with as little noise, distortion as possible. I never understood audiophiles knocking Outboard equalizers but look for components  ( even wires and cables) that have a certain sonic charater ( bright, warm, bass heavy, etc). Personally, i like neutral sound as close to the source as possible and I can add flavor ( eq, tone controls) as I see fit. 

Brian quick question. How do purchased Cd’s or dowloads sound on your studio system ( ones you did not produce)? 

In other words, would a great sounding album you purchased perform better in your studio vs a top home audiophile set up. 

Hi Brian, I just want to follow up on dynamic range. I agree that judicious use of compression can add some punch to an album and I know that bringing the bass up in the mix will reduce dr while possibly improving the sound of an album. But a steady blast of in your face sound like the Stones recent "Blue & Lonesome," dr 7 and an otherwise fine album, just gets tiresome.

Loudness in music, especially live, has gotten out of control and has led to hearing loss in musicians and people working in the recording industry. That may have something to do with why albums with wider dynamic range sound dull and old to you and the artists. Music that is too loud and has no dr hinders me from connecting with the artist. But I guess people like me are in the minority. I know this won’t change your mind, but I had to put a word in for more nuanced, less in your face music while I had the chance to speak to a real mastering engineer.

Tomcy6,
I don’t believe that your views of music compression/loudness is the minority you think that it is. If it is that doesn’t diminished the validity of your comments. I respect Brian’s stance regarding this topic however I’m certain that there are other Audio/Mastering engineers of similar talent and experience who share your concerns regarding compression and dynamic range.

Recordings that preserve dynamic range hardly sound dull to me, to the contrary is the case. Even amongst the professional audio engineers there’s definitely different points of view. Not every engineer has succumbed to this recording technique.
Charles

As far as DR, please do not blame the ME, we are service providers. We are not running the show on DR. My comments are based on the reality today, not my view on it per se. My chain adds punch at the DA and the tube EQ and can sound great at low DR thanks to the elements in it. So again, I have some loud records that are punchy and not obnoxious. 80s CDs were lame, 90s were overcompressed. I don’t compress as a rule, unless it’s needed. I limit and EQ all day long.
As far as DA (yes I love the M7 verb for mixers) I have 2 x M1 SE DAs. As said above, I helped them to tune the filtering 4 years into it’s market life, hearing some issues with it the immediately fixed and that are not sold as standard, with free upgrades to all past owners. Bricasti is a great company. I was happy to help them to master their DA if you will.
As far as how do things sound here vs there, no idea what you have there. Yet who cares No two systems are ever alike as was said, and there is no perfect anything, including the perfect system.

Further point since we are way off topic ... I have no issue with 16 bit audio and no issues with 44.1 when the converter and engineering are great. I print 44.1 with the Pacific Micorosonics AD for 15 years. The whole HD market is like the remastering market, mostly BS to make money and evoke fear in audiophiles that they are missing out. Remastering is a huge topic on it’s own. Most of it is not great IMO. Sample rates also a huge topic. Higher rates alter the presentation of frequencies and the details up top are greater, but details are not music and higher SR do NOT ALTER THE QUALITY of a converter. The box is the box, Clock, Chip, Analog path, Filters. Those 4 don’t improve at higher sample rates. A cheap AD can sound better at higher SR but a great AD at 44.1 or 96 is still great, just a different layout of energy. I prefer 44.1 for the low end density, actually. Mastering is about the gear and the engineer not the SR ... this is a massive marketing myth that is taking up too much time in too many lives, IMO. When you have very dynamic and very spacious music then the details up top matter more, but for 99% of the music out there, pop types, it’s not a real thing. And even for highly spacious and dynamic musics the converter and the engineering are WAY WAY WAY more important than the SR. Men like to measure, and are plagued by fear of not measuring up. Yes, I mean that in every way. SR is a red herring. Higher quality is not found in more samples per second.  What you want to buy and hear is the SR and bit depth of the mastering session, not higher, not lower, not more, not less, just the file that was done in the room. That is the ONLY THING that is true to the source, and even then, it’s always new in your room.  P.S. there is no "improving" that approved master file.  MQA is beyond BS, it's a near criminal enterprise, looking to take over the audio market for streaming income.  People who are dead in the water on the video market, here in 2018.