The eternal quandary

Jimjoyce--I'm afraid that I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.

As one moves up from boom-box to mid-level system, I would think the sound should steadily improve. But there has to be a point, an "elbow", somewhere on this line where, as the resolving power of the system continues to increase, it will start to show up all the particularities and peculiarities of each recording.

An analogy: put a polished pebble under a microscope at lower levels of magnification and it will look good, but as magnification increases, at a certain level you'll start to see roughness and pitmarks not visible to the naked eye.

As far as classical recordings are concerned, I would think many musicians would be more preoccupied with the performance (phrasing, dynamics, intonation, pace, etc. etc.) than with how well the recording happens to reproduce the acoustic of the space that the recording was made in.

Noticing what can sometimes be a large variation from recording to recording is surely a sign of the resolving capacity of the system, as labels, recording engineers and mixing engineers all have different philosophies, which they implement with greater or lesser success with each record.

Twoleftears,
I have to agree with you right down to your every word. Your experience is also mine, but it took me quite a couple of years to understand what was going on, I must say.

Mike--I totally agree, but as you say, it's a mental trick that may be easier for some of us than others. Even if one starts out a session in mental mode #2, something can happen that jolts you out of it. That's the experience that started this thread. You may just want to enjoy the music, but when you put on a particular recording (especially one that you don't know), something may happen sonically, good, bad or just strange, that attracts your attention sufficiently to knock you from #2 to #1. And that's when the second-guessing may begin...

Twoleftears: I'm not sure how your comment responds to mine.

Of course there are differences in how recordings sound, depending on what the recording engineer is trying to do, what is emphasized, etc. And of course, the more resolution in one's system, the more these differences will stand out. The question is this: When you hear something that doesn't sound good (sounds harsh or distorted), is this the fault of the recording, or is it the fault of the system?

What I am talking about are recordings about which one instantly says upon playing it, "That doesn't sound good, and the reason is that it is poorly recorded." For example, one or more of the instruments appears to be distorted, or the sound of one or more instruments is harsh. ---I am sure that all of us have had this reaction from time to time. I have said it many times myself about specific recordings. I have also been witness to it first hand in the living room of a very highly respected audio manufacturer.

My sense is that the better one believes one's system to be, the more likely one is likely to pin the blame on the recording, rather than on one's own system.

And the question is: Which is it? My sense is that there are very very very few recordings as to which, during the mixing process, the recording engineer heard the bad things that you heard, but somehow unaccountably pronounced it good and ready for pressing. And the question becomes: Why did what sounded good to him end up sounding bad to you or me?

Mike60: It's interesting that you choose the "best" recorded material as the way to challenge your system. I think it's equally useful to choose material that you think is "poorly" recorded as a way to challenge your system. My guess is that one very good way to measure improvement in your system is when the sound of the "poor" recordings changes from poor to good.