better gear, worse recordings

With the rise of the CD and the technology available in our components the quest for sonic purity has been the goal. This seems to be what we thought we wanted. As someone who has gotten back into audio gear i can see that many people feel that this isn't what we wanted after all. I believe our equipment should serve up a compelling big picture, not show us the music through a microscope. This is probably why LPs are big now. They had a huge impact on several generations and today's pure digital sound isn't the same. This may be why tubes are big now as well. Of course, both LPs and tubes have a retro feel, but it may be the sound that is the real reason people prefer these mediums.

For another perspective, think of film vs video tape. Video tape can be said to show a more pure visual image, but it is not as interesting as film. Film is grainy and, to use an audio term, adds its own color to the imagery. We prefer this over the image of video tape.

In updating my equipment I've heard some equipment that allowed every sound to come through, but in the long run this was tiring. It was interesting for a moment, but was fatiguing in the long run. I want to hear music in the large sense, not someone coughing in the background of a sonically pure CD.

Thanks to all for a thought provoking thread and especially to Fineberg for a real breath of fresh air. Having begun my chequered career as a symphony and ensemble player, I listened to recordings in the beginning for the absolutely faithful reproduction of live music. This was unimaginable back in the 60s and so gradually my interest changed from listening to the music to listening to the sound--and that led to listening to the assortment of parts and pieces littering my listening room floor. I stayed on the trade-tweak-buy-sell treadmill for a good twenty years and it was fun at the time.

Now, either because I've matured or my hearing has begun to fade or because I'm bored with the quest for the perfect preamp, I find that I'm back to listening to the music.

One of the joys of finally owning a really superb set of speakers is the quantum leap in low level resolution. Now I can hear what those violins wayyyyy in the back are doing. And this leads me to what I experience as the biggest disappointment in relistening to older recordings of orchestral music: the really lousy quality of a lot of the second-desk-and-beyond playing. Just about every player and teacher I know acknowledges that the overall quality of symphony players today is light years ahead of the glory days. And, man, you can really hear that. Makes me ponder the frustration that the old conductors used to experience.

Do you know the ancient story about Toscanini right at the end of his career conducting a regional concert with a local cello soloist? After two hours of frustration, when it had become obvious that the cellist simply could not play the notes, the old man turned to her and exclaimed, "Madam, you have been your legs the most beautiful object that God ever created. And all you know how to do is scratch it!"

With today's equipment, you really can hear stuff that was formerly buried in the fog. Not all of it is pretty.

Will

wow, been away, didn't know my thread would generate this much discussion! good to see

I have always tried to only make upgrades where they contributed significantly to the musicality of my system, it's taken a while but I am really happy with the tonal qualities, musicality, imaging and vibrancy of my setup

I find some recordings are made to sound sharp on mid-fi systems and thus are a little bright on more revealing equipment. Two examples that come to mind - Steely Dan Two Against Nature (the sampled percussion is way too hot, why not a real drum track?) and Suzanne Vega's Nine Objects of Desire (very bass heavy). SOme recordings I have to listen to in the next room because they are a little bright (having a concussion from a truck hitting me 2 years back doesn't help my over treble intolerance)

Now with my upgrades to a refined musical system, when I get an incredible recording the rewards are really there, and one gets lost in the music. I listen to a lot of old seventies rock and 50's-60's jazz. I love buying the upgraded remastered discs (those original cd issues sounded flat). THere are artists whose work sounds simplier when you can distinguish all the notes etc (Stones, some Beatles,Dylan,80's synth pop, etc). Things that are less refined and separated out on old cheap vinyl playback or a mid fi system, become less engaging when you can hear things in a more revealing manner. Other artists work gets even more depth and engaging (Yes, Genesis, Steely Dan, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young). Anyway it's a fun ride, and I am enjoying it, even if I think some recording engineers need to pay more attention to keeping it neutral and musical.

thanks for all the comments

tom

(only kidding). Actually, there's a cornucopia of excellent insight in this thread, but I'd just like to remind you guys that every pop album (and many jazz and classical albums) you have ever listened to have been through an equalizer...of sorts...often not once, but many times, for individual instruments and vocals and then again in mastering (I own a small studio). This is hardly a new thought, but keep in mind that on the recording side of the equation every microphone, microphone cable, microphone pre-amp, pre-amp-to-board cable, board, compressor, gate, effect, monitor, yadda, yadda, yadda, has its own sound signature. One size will never fit all.

I further submit to you that aside from the issue of resolution (which I regard as the hallmark of high-end -- sound stage, imaging, etc. being its derivatives), the fundamental thing we're talking about here is tonal balance.

No, it will never be possible to change the tonal quality of an individual instrument in a recording without changing the tonal quality of the other instruments in a recording unless you have access to the 24-, 48-, or however-many-track master tape, but it certainly would be possible to change the overall tonal character of the 2-channel recordings we all listen to with -- dare I say it -- TONE CONTROLS!!!

Some of you call them "cables", which, you claim, should NEVER be used as "tone controls", (sorry, I realize I'm ranting), and others eschew the infamous destroyer of high-end systems, the EQUALIZER, but if the perfectly transparent EQ existed for a song, would you buy it? Hmmmmm.... Can we conspire to instigate a revolution?
Steve

... Also, I own Pro Ac Response 3.5's, Totem Arrow's, Sound Dynamics (both of the models recommended by Harry), Energy's, Snells, a Radio Shack boom box as well as myriad electronics, Quatro fil's, etc., etc., etc.
If you think it's hard to balance sound in your system, try balancing a recording in all the permutations of the above.
Steve