How does sound influence your appreciation?

An audio system /room can be an obstacle to what we listen or help the perception...

My system/room dont bother me now, as in the times i was unsatisfied because of my ignorance level...

I listen music 5 hours per day minimum...

I never think : what if i could upgrade...

Before, when i was passive consumers with no experiments, no studies, no increase day by day S.Q. with each experiments, more than 10 years ago, i bought and sold and dream an impossible dream : I want a 100,000 bucks system minimum .. I was a brainwashed  passive consumers...Only dreams were possible i thought...

As you see we change with studying and experimenting ...I did it after retirement 24 hours a day for few years to understand acoustic in my system/room...

My system/room gave now the minimal acoustical balanced satisfaction if i take into account all factors at play..

My taste in music had no relation to sound but as said the OP :

Since I’ve gotten my system to a very good place, I find myself liking the performance of almost everything I hear.

@audphile1 

Thanks for truly understanding my post.

That’s interesting. I can’t say that sound quality has had much to do with my preference for the way music is played by the musicians. The closest match to that I can think of is that it seems my ear is more forgiving of musicianship when I’m hearing it live than when recorded. I used to play in a youth symphony, and while playing, I thought our orchestra sounded very beautiful. Hearing a recording of it was very embarrassing.

@rvpiano ​​Your title stated as a question was “How does sound affect your application?” which many responded to directly.  However, based on your response to @audphile1, you were really questioning is whether the high quality sound from your system has impacted your ability to discern the between the artistic musicality of different performances.  This was posed as a statement IMHO.  Regardless, I now understand your question.  I agree with @audphile1.  I also point to the response from @ghdprentice, and his accurate descriptions of analytical vs. natural systems.  IMHO GHP is on point in that overly analytical systems tend to make me focus on sound, giving me a wow moment, which fades to fatigue.  They do not let me focus on the performance.  Natural sounding systems, that are also highly detailed, let me focus on the musicality of the performance and composition.  As I stated in my first response,  I have the ability to, and I am lucky to have developed a system that permits me to go into a critical listening mode to revel in the quality of the recording and equipment engineering and enter into a relaxation listening mode where I revel in the musicality of the performance.   Too many audiophiles simply focus on the critical listening mode. I also once was at a point where I only focused on sound.  It’s an audiophile trap. So it is good your system is at the point that everything sounds good.   It must be a natural sounding system.   My recommendation is to try to concentrate on musical appreciation and the artistic qualities of the performance…the conductor’s interpretation, the organic and dynamic flows and differences therein alternative interpretations, and the emotion flowing from the musicians rather than the sound.  I do not know how to get you back and as stated by AP1, I am sure it’s a phase that will resolve since you are obviously a music lover since you posed this question and miss this ability to do so.  Do 

@rvpiano

I’ll give you a recent example, which not coincidentally involves two performances of the same orchestral piece.

When auditioning audio components (except vinyl!) I have always used Benjamin Britten’s "A Young Person’s Guide to the Orchestra" conducted by Britten and recorded in 1963 by Decca (London). I don’t use it for vinyl because I cannot afford the prices being asked for it on vinyl, even second-hand!

In my opinion it is a great test, because it was originally an analogue recording, goes through every orchestral section individually, has extensive percussion and builds to a complex climax with different cross-rhythms and themes played full volume. Britten pulls it off at a cracking pace while keeping precision timing.

There are 91 recordings of this work listed on Presto Classical, and Britten’s is the top pick and carries the "Recommended" appellation. Only 8 are recommended, of these three are the same performance with different compilations! One other is a mono Mercury recoding, and one features Australia’s own, Dame Edna. Say no more!

Britten, who wrote the work and surely is an authority on how it should sound, plays it faster than any other version I have ever heard. Is it so difficult that other conductors or orchestra can’t keep up?

Second listed, but not "Recommended", is a recent performance by Sir Simon Rattle, also with the London Symphony Orchestra, recorded live and on Super Audio Compact Disk or high-resolution download. Appropriately enough, given his surname, Sir Simon started as a percussionist, so I anticipated similar precision to the Britten recording.

When the SACD arrived, I played it on my partner’s rather modest system with KEF LS50 front speakers and B&W rears. I was pretty disappointed - this was not going to replace my 1963 version.

When I took it to my place however, with a system about 20x the price, and without having to worry too much about neighbours, the transformation was staggering. To use an old cliche, the better system could dig into the detail. Now the percussion was there in the climax, and not completely obliterated by the rest of the orchestra. Sure, the balance was different from Britten’s, but the better sound elevated both recordings to about the same ’enjoyability’ level.