If you were serious about sound you would...

@inna There is no way to add sonic information to the recording, it's not a matter of easier or harder to record or playback. With that in mind you can't get any value out of equipment that is significantly better than what was used originally. For instance if you used a 5k $ preamp to record the song a 100k $ preamp to playback the song isn't going to add any quality, it will get you close maybe if it is synergistic with the original preamp, the only way to get the vision of the original recording that the musician producer and engineers wanted would be to use the exact same equipment on the playback system as they did. Since that is impractical If you really cared about playback you would buy studio playback equipment not audiophile equipment. Hope that's clear. 

I guess the best argument against this idea is that the very expensive audiophile preamp for example is more transparent than even the original preamp and that is probably true but the problem with that is what you are hearing is not part of the music. At Skywalker sound they have a button that adds the air conditioner noise of a typical movie theater so they have a good idea of what the mix sounds like in a typical movie theater, all that extra headroom that the boutique preamp gives you is not the information that is being mixed, it's just information your expensive preamp reads that is not part of the vision. Kinda like a car that is never designed to go over 50 mph and your drive it 100 mph from 50 to 100 you have no idea how it will act or what it will do.

donavabdear, I don't think you really registered what I said, you just got stuck in your seemingly perfect to you assumption. And I was not talking about prices.

Alright, I'll stop right there. After this. There is nothing cool about digital. It is junk all the way. Getting a little better, though.

@inna 

I'm surprised and disappointed that you would make such a blanket and ignorant comment.

well modern jazz is real jazz was done before about 1970, that surprises many people but listen to new jazz or smooth jazz

That is very cynical "chronology" and stereotype that will never find it’s ground about jazz or "real jazz" meaning. Yes mainstream was moving towards popularized jazz and towards more and more simplified versions, but that didn’t mean that at the very later times the number of released "real jazz" titles were a lot larger than you might know. In addition to that a HUGE variety of different new jazz directions had been evolving LARGE outside of the mainstream. I’ve been a member of BMG and Columbia House WAAAAY before even entering USA and was ordering records through my uncle. As you may know they would add freebies for you as well if you order certain quantities and the shipping was extremely low or even free in certain cases. Reading articles, researching and thereafter continuing membership I was finding more and more jazz releases that are SUBSTANTIALLY more interesting than Gerry Mulligan or even Stan Getz and every decade those titles increased.

After all it's not by far about jazz. It is about music and for me there are interesting artifacts and scores in every genre you can ever imagine

All Music Mattress.

Sorry for using different word for the meaning that can be flagged for the removal here  

@czarivey Your right I shouldn't have made such a blanket statement, I'm a saxophone player for 50 years I love all types of Jazz, my point is how very well recorded modern jazz is. Jazz recordings today along with modern classical are probably the best recorded music technically and it's expected in those general. As far as music I would say great songs just like great movies don't have to be perfectly recorded or perfectly shot it's the melody and the story that is important. That being said having both should be the goal. 

I couldn't agree with you more. Also very interesting about finding hidden gems of music, where did you find them?