If you were serious about sound you would...

@lalitk I don't understand this

//“How is it possible to get better sound than the best recording studio gear? ”

For starters, buy a better preamp and amp and not settle with mid-fi gear like PS Audio. //

Can you explain to me how you can record something with a poor sounding preamp then use a higher quality preamp and make it better? This is why I've spent millions on my recording equipment over the years because it had to be the best, if a piece of equipment down the line could make the recording better I couldn't have charged so much for my recording equipment originally. 

I apologize because i misinterpreted your intention...

We think the same it seems...

@mahgister Perfection in sound has nothing to do with this, I’m saying that the signal can’t be better (more accurate) than the original. There is a limit to the accuracy of the playback the limit is the quality of the equipment doing the original recording and mix. Audiophiles often spend several hundred thousand easily on equipment but if you look at it in terms of using top recording studio equipment anything above a few hundred K is wast. I’m not talking about looks or room acoustics of course that has nothing to do with playback I’m talking about 170K$ audiophile preamps that are probably much better than any preamp that was used in the recording originally therefore wasted money. Hope that makes sense.

 

Many newer smart tvs apply very sophisticated digital image processing  in order to get the most out of their devices and in a/b comparison I have observed the results can be more eye catching than the real thing.  
 

Apply some effective digital image processing and most any picture can be made to do certain things better than real life.  
 

Same true with modern digital audio.  Anything is possible.   Merely reproducing the source accurately leaves a lot of possibilities on the table.  

 

@donavabdear , I don’t think you understood my post correctly.

Perhaps my fault.

Look, the premise of a $5k preamp with $100k speakers (add whatever multiplier here you’d like) is ridiculous.

My experiences in a recording studio were many, many moons ago. Think early ’90’s. I’m sure things have changed, but the premise stands.

 

I looked up Flood Studios and they’re using Focal Studio Monitors w/ Be tweeters for mixing tracks. Not cheap, sure, but surely nothing like what you have listed.

It seems Abbey Roads now uses Bryston as well as some older Classe amps. They do seem to have a lot of B&W home speakers in some of the rooms, but they’re also using studio monitors in the booths as well. Certainly nothing in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, though.

I dunno, not a recording studio engineer.

I DO know that the recording/mixing is done on monitors because they are analytical and unforgiving. They’re not designed to sound pleasing, they’re designed to be accurate.

I do think there’s an art in there somewhere. Something professional engineers know and can do, that makes the sound on the a$$ end of the recording sound excellent. It doesn’t sound that way in the studio, though, or when you’re mixing it down. That’s why they get the big bucks.

I would argue that the end result most certainly CAN be better than the original equipment it was recorded on.

It’s why some people prefer tube pre’s, amps, and warm speakers in their house.

Depeche Mode sounds great on a tube setup. One of my favorites.

Also why upscaling, digital filtering, etc...on many modern players is so desirable on older copies of recordings.

DSOTM sounds excellent on SACD.

JM2CW. You do you, man. Enjoy the journey! Happy Listening.