Quality system, make poor recordings sound better?

I share Syntax's view. Humans are attracted to music and respond in an emotional way. If the components can't convey the soul and emotion of music what good are they?

Todd Rundgren has released a number of great music/horrible sound combinations. He frequently gets harsh sound in the upper midrange thru brightness regions and accompanying sibilant vocals. The sound sucks to varying degrees depending on the playback system.

Some very fine systems will highlight the sonic issues and others will soften the blow. I have heard Nearly Human on a Merlin VSM via Pathos amp and CD player rendered virtually unlistenable. Substitute SF Cremonas and things get a bit better. Switch out to Verity Parsifal Encores and they're better yet.

However, other less than stellar recordings do not behave the same way. Bottom heavy, dull recordings often sound better thru the Merlins. Donald Fagen (to double down on Steely Dan) sometimes let's the bottom end run away from him. His solo material generally fares worst on the P/E and best on the Merlin.

My own take is that some quality systems are less forgiving of particular sonic ills than are others. I think it's tough to generalize.

Just MHO.

This may go against the grain of many of the folks that frequent this website, and others of its ilk, but I read the following software review with an appreciation of the author's content and biases:

http://www.monoandstereo.com/2014/06/daniel-hertz-master-class-review.html

As such I have decided to purchase the product in hopes that it can ameliorate, if not completely eliminate, the recording anomalies that have rendered too many of the rock and roll tracks in my CD collection nearly unlistenable on the main rig.

We shall see, but Mr. Levinson assures me that I will be more than satisfied with the results.

GLR

Gl,

Can you provide one or two good examples of r&r tracks in you CD collection that you find unlistenable and why?

Just curious. A little digital remastering can go a long way, whether done well by a pro or at home. However, the details of how to correct best might vary largely track to track.

Mapman

Skynyrd, Audioslave, VH, Soundgarden, Stone Roses, the list goes on. Frankly I expect the recording quality for a lot of my rock tracks to be less than stellar. And as I alluded to in my prior post, I have no prejudice against using EQ to benefit the listening experience. I am in the camp that the problems with digital (at least with the rock that I listen to) is as much an issue (and probably more) with the recording/mastering process as it is with the hardware we use to listen on. Whether this software that Mark Levinson has developed is the real deal is an open question but one that I will have my own answer to over the next month or so.

Frankly, it was the review that got me very interested in the product. The reviewer's explanation of his physical reaction to digital recordings somewhat mimic mine, and his explanation of his reaction to Mark's software felt to me like something of the holy grail for folks that listen to rock recordings a majority of the time.

I don't necessarily believe that this software will render expensive audiophile equipment obsolete or that it will fulfill the promise of "perfect sound forever". But for the relatively small investment it requires, I am hoping that I have stumbled onto a fabulous product that is currently way under the radar. At least mine anyway....