better gear, worse recordings

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.

I must admit that I am somewhat of a contrarian on this issue. In my experience I have concluded that most recordings I percieved as poorly recorded on lesser equipment are now at least more interesting (musical may be another matter altogether) because of increased transparency of better equipment. Yes, there are downsides to this increased transparency, a harsh, bright recording only sounds more harsh and bright, however I've found few recordings (perhaps 10% of collection-all genres) to be unlistenable because of the increased transparency.
However, I find the more important question to ask oneself is, does this greater interest bring along with it a greater musical enjoyment? I would suggest that increased interest in a recording is an analytical phenomenon, perhaps not musical at all. But then I ask myself, does greater analytical involvement bring greater musical pleasure? In the final analysis I find that analysis is an inherent process to achieving musical pleasure. I've found over many years of listening that musical enjoyment of my systems to be so variable that I have trouble quantifying it. I can only surmise that musicality is purely a pschological phenomenon and analytical interpretations of a listening experience serve to impinge on the purity of the musical experience. I find my greatest musical experiences come when I'm able to turn off or ignore the analytical portion of my brain. Unfortunately this happy state of affairs never seems to last for long. My analytical brain invariably asserts itself, taking away from the muscial experience (audiophilia nervosa?).
Still, I would rather hear all the details (warts and all) that a high resoultion system brings than not hear these details at all. The analytical brain serves its purpose to qualify and quantify the ugly sounds and how one may delete them (through equipment purchases), hopefully bringing muscial bliss. This process replicates itself perhaps endlessly :-(,) for the audiophile. IMHO PURE musical pleasure can only happen if one is oblivious to the analytical process or if one has attained, with full analytical awareness a system that brings muscial nirvanna. I would propose that for a fully aware audiophile this musical nirvanna could only be achieved when one percieved there was no better equipment and/or system synergy to be gained at any price. Or am I just to cynical? Scott