Isn't it really about quality of recording?

Some old favorite recordings that always sounded fine on my old system really do sound terrible on my much improved new system. I’ve mentioned it before, but when the deficits in the recordings of the original vinyl pressings of Layla and Let It Bleed were revealed on my new system they both were almost unlistenable, Layla being the worst of the two. Other recordings were a revelation on the new system.

So agreeing with jumia, there is a lot of the sound you’re hearing that’s embedded in the quality of the recording you’re listening to. That’s both for better or worse, once the nature of the recording is more accurately revealed. Nothing you can do about it, other than looking for better source material. Replacing the two recordings mentioned above with remastered SACD’s helped some.

Thinking all your recordings will sound better on an expensive improved system is wishful thinking. The bulk of your recordings should sound better though. Some of those old 1950’s jazz recordings in particular have been pleasant surprises.

My opinion, there are two aspects of "a recording".  Probably more.  The Technical and the Performance.

There is a YouTube video claiming "the best 'recording' of Chopin...."  Horowitz's performance was impeccable.  The recording was horrible.  A Casio electric piano with its 3" speakers comes to mind. 

A poorly performed piece will never pass.  No matter how well recorded.

Yes, the Technical very important.  But don't forget the Artist's performance.  I may forgive a poor recorded piece for an exceptional Performance.  Lol, but there is a limit to how much I will forgive.

Just today, Sonny Rollins  -  Saxophone Colossus.  Analogue Productions and QRP pressing, reissue.  Outstanding sonic quality, from a 1957 recording session.  If only all of the 60s and 70s classic rock sounded this good.  Some are great, but most are not.  Fortunately, there is enough well recorded/mastered/plated/pressed music to really enjoy my high-fidelity system for what it has to offer.  But still, I enjoy the music that is not so great in SQ, for the music that it is.  My system allows it to sound relatively good.  I just adjust the volume accordingly (i.e., a bit lower).  

It's true that a really fine system will reveal all the flaws in a poor recording. It's good to concetrate on the music and not the "sound."  We keep improving our systems so that when we do get a good recording, it ia a genuine treat!

Keep Smiling!

I have been a professional sound engineer in one of the biggest studios in Switzerland for around 30 years, so feel free to ask any questions.

I am often surprised about the beliefs among hifi people and audiophiles about studios and studio engineers.

There are many recordings that are not as good as they can be. Only a small percentage are real masterworks. There are some recording engineers like the late Al Schmidt who really know what they are doing, and a lot of people who do the best they can, politely said. Also, most often the equipment used is mediocre at best. A microphone placed some inches apart from the best spot, wrong mic choice, bad recording room acoustics, bad choices in the mixing and / or mastering stage, all diminish the quality of the outcome, and can sum up to something I don’t want to listen to.

It is ironic that audiophiles often listen to music that was mixed and mastered on equipment that costs a small percentage of what the audiophiles paid for their system. Often, sound engineers say "Give me loudspeakers with bad resolution, because otherwise I will never finish my job".

"With my great system, it now sounds like it sounded in the studio" is a silly audiophile myth.

These are just some pretty random spotlights on "daily studio life".

But yes, recording quality is most important.