Isn't it really about quality of recording?

Many good recording studios know how to make good recording from their experience. They know which microphones and equipment sound better from a recording after recording. Those good sounding equipment are usually few decades old. Some old microphones cost few thousands. And some are refused to sell their mics because there is none better. Many these mics and equipment were made by individuals in companies. The quality of these mics and equipment are depended on these individuals’ ears. Same as the quality of NOS tubes are depended on individuals in tube companies. It is an art that these individuals made their things decade after decade and found what makes a good sound. There are many great audio/studio gears we call master pieces from 50-60th. They still sound great among modern audio pieces. I don’t think there are any master piece produced in modern gears after 80^th. It is happening because audio manufacturers relay on computers. Audio manufactures must use more ears than computers. 

Back to subject, those good studios make good quality recordings and we should enjoy them. Forget about bad quality recordings. These studios with super expensive modern recording equipment will not help them but scouting famous faces is their real business.

aewarren

 A good system will not make a bad recording sound good. In fact, the better the system the more it will reveal the flaws in a bad recording and pinpoint what those flaws are.

True. However, a real great system will reveal what is recorded. Nothing more or nothing less. If the recording is unlistenable, the system is flawed usually. Not the recording. 

skyscraper

Some of those old 1950’s jazz recordings in particular have been pleasant surprises.

I agree.

boomerbillone

It's true that a really fine system will reveal all the flaws in a poor recording.

I am sure there are more flaws of own sound system than flaws of recording. Many audiophiles believe their system is close to perfect. But I know even world most expensive digital play back system is flawed from where it pick up the digital data from CD. That makes the sound is already broken from the very start. I know the system you mention is not that great.   

johnk

 A great system can reveal the soul of the performance if the music is good but it was recorded poorly.

Do you know this great system can be $5 transistor radio? It is true that this $5 radio can sound better than $100k system. Even though parts are low grade, the radio is less flawed than thousands parts of big system. The fixing radio is very easy and quick. I can listen my humble sound system for many hours. I don’t want to listen even world greatest sound systems ( > $1 mil.) for few minutes. They sound unreal and broken to me. Their sounds hurt and numb my ears. I can’t hear hammering the concrete rock sounds for long time. I rather fix this small radio quickly and listen than usual $100k systems.

rdcollns

No use forking out $50,000 for speakers to reproduce sound that was captured on a $100 mic, or $1,000 for cables to playback music that was recorded using basic patch cables.

Good recording studios are doing fine even with cheap equipment because they are dealing with the best source possible. Live (real) sounds. Don’t worry about recordings and make a good sounding system to enjoy. 

jumia OP

In my eyes the best systems have the simplest circuitry with the best parts 

And done RIGHT. 

bigkidz

 How do we manufacturer a product that pleases everyone?  Well you can't.  The difference for us is that we can customize our products for every system.  So that is where we settled.

Thank you your honest and I don't blame you! Like "they will not hear the difference." Right? Therefore, there is no true improvement in hi-end audio in last 100 years. It is the time to make a difference.

Alex/Wavetouch

Let us not forget the performance. The most critically acclaimed conductor's interpretation of a symphony may not sound as good to some people as a lesser rated performance by a different conductor. Next matter the recording and the equipment including the room.

I am still shocked/amazed at how dynamic and colorful many of my recordings sound (CD and LP) with upgrades in cartridge/SUT and DAC/transport in 2022.  My former Benz Ruby 3 didn't match well with SUTs and I lost dynamics.   The Zesto Allesso and a cheaper Dynavector 20X2 L is a perfect match.  My extreme DAC and modest cost upgraded transport makes so many 1980s CDs come alive as good as analog.  My own engineered recordings are sufficiently good to publish now that I hear them back at such a high level.   I agree with 85% average, 10% great and 5% stinkers as far as recording quality although some eras/engineering were usually great (e.g Bob Fine/Mercury) or mediocre (late 1970s Decca/EMI/DGG).   With 42,500 records and CDs, I have my share of sonic clunkers (but oh, those great 50's & 60's jazz and classical recordings).  

@fleschler

Wow… you should post photos of your system and collection! I have 4,000 albums.. about half and half vinyl and CDs. I am giving away my CDs… just no point with streaming. But my albums take up a wall… that is a lot of physical media. You can see most of my media on my virtual systems photos. You have over ten times my collection… that is amazing.

@ghdprentice  I have 7,000 CDs.   At least 1,000 are Romophones, Marston and Biddulph.   Unavailable for streaming.   The alternatives are buying LP versions or the 78s themselves (if possible, $1millions in cost and then there is the playback speed/stylus issues).   I also have ethnic CDs, private recordings by me and others which cannot be licensed for public play, etc.   About 40% of my CDs are available for streaming   So, I'm never giving up my CDs (or rare 78s).   Most of my 28,000 LPs are not streamed and most original tapes are just gone with no ownership or out of existence (remember the Universal fire as well).