better gear, worse recordings

This could potentially be a very interesting thread if enough folks contribute. It points out the double-edged sword of high-end audio, that an utterly revealing system does not always equate to one that is musically satisfying.

Over the past two years, I've done a pretty complete upgrade of my system, and have encountered this same dilemma: some recordings I've always liked sound better, but others sound worse. The most recent instance was last weekend, when my wife and I had another couple for dinner. This other couple used to be pretty interested in high-end audio, and they wanted to hear some of the newer, re-mastered LP's I've bought recently. After listening to several of them, they agreed that most were an improvement over the previous versions, but not all of them.

Then I pulled out some CD's, one of which was the album titled "People Time", with Stan Getz and Kenny Barron. I've liked this album very much in the past -- it was the last recording done by Getz before he died of cancer, and it contains some very poignant, even searing, music. However, on my upgraded, higher-resolution system, the sound of Getz's sax was often very shrill, nearly piercing. It was hard to listen thru the sharp-edged sound to get to the heart of the music. Barron's piano sounded fine, however. The CD is on the Verve label, which normally has pretty good sound on their jazz releases, so the audio quality came as an unpleasant surprise.

I hope this thread gets some responses, because I'm interested to hear what others have to say. I will take some time today and sift through some of the LP's and CD's that have sounded either worse or better than I remember (as heard on my previous audio systems), and post the titles and an evaluation of their sound quality.

It goes both ways. We have discussed before how CDs that area mixed to sound good on portable units and boom boxes, sound worse as the gear gets better.

The opposite is true. Some of my favorite older CDs today are ones that I thought sounded thin and lifeless, years back in my late 20s, when all I had was a receiver, budget CD player and turntable, and bookshelf speakers.

Now today, the old CDs I liked back then, sound bloated with the echo added to make them sound fuller, not to mention the resulting electronic haze that causes listener fatigue.

What bothers me today, is a lot of recording reviewers are evidentially not audiophiles.

For classical music those "DG Originals" reissues of analog recordings sound worse IMHO than the earlier CD reissues. However, every review I have ever read sais the new remixes are a big big improvement over the older CDs. For example: if it is a concerto recording they are boosting the solo instrument and the violins that play the main melody, so they are very audible. Sounds good in the car, but the rest of the orchestra sounds like they are in another room when played at home. The orchestra balance is wiped out.

We should lobby for record reviewers to disclose what their system is composed of.

I have experienced this as well. My take on it is a bit different than those stated thus far, though.

I think the goal of an audio system should be to reproduce EXACTLY what has been recorded. If you assemble a high-resolution system, you will clearly know the difference between a good recording and a bad one.

I don't believe you should use a less precise system to serve as a bandaid for poorly recorded source material.

As an example of what you're talking about, the late 60s/early 70s and beyond DG and CBS Masterworks recordings and the old RCA Dynagrooves stand out to me. The two former were heavily multi-miked recordings using very hot treble mixes and poor bass, mixed to sound like what the engineer wanted to hear (hence the 20 foot wide piano soloist or larger than life violinist that Sugarbrie so aptly points out) rather than what the orchestra played, which could sound good on inexpensive record players but did not fare well when you got them on a system which could realistically play back what was on the disc. The Dynagrooves were intentionally and heavily equalized by RCA to make up for the deficiencies of the record players of the time; Gordon Holt, I remember, was absolutely incensed about this, particularly considering the great recordings RCA had done in the past. While a noble idea, perhaps, they do not come close to the sound RCA had with its earlier efforts when played on high end or even modest modern turntables. And all those 60s rock records of my youth, of course, were mixed to sound good on a 3-inch transistor radio so that I would buy them (which, of course, as the ultimate consumer I did), so it's a miracle they are listenable at all on a good system (although many of them, particularly the Motown stuff, come across surprisingly well). On the other hand, the Vox and Vanguard records, which in my experience sounded mediocre due to the less than stellar vinyl they were pressed on (I may have heard poor pressings, I admit), are sonic eye-openers on both SACD and the vinyl reissues that have come out. So you're right, it does work both ways. I have tried to gear my system to be accurate but to err on the side of musicality, so that I can enjoy great performances that aren't pristinely recorded. The good news with recent classical recordings is that, in general, they seem to be better recorded on the whole now than they were, say, 20 years ago, when multi-miking seemed to be the rage. Good thread, looking forward to seeing other posts.

i've had similar experiences, especially with rock and r n b / soul recordings ( like some of al green's albums ). this was particularly so when i'm using all solid state gear. since my move towards valve amps, i'm less bothered by imperfect recordings. i've also learned to make allowances cognitively for certain recordings and to play at lower volumes. however, our memory for events/musical experiences is not very reliable and is subjected to distortions. sometimes the recalled pleasant/nirvana-like memories of the past may have less to do with the equipment we were listening to at the time than to other factors ( like the company we had and our mood state at the time etc ).

but within these caveats, i agree that at times resolution and accuracy does come at a cost. the trick is , as sean puts it, to try and strike a reasonable compromise.