EQ's... why doesnt everybody have one?

Jafox,

"So much of my favorite music is unlistenable because the poor recordings sound worse and worse as my system has improved. Quite an unfortunate dichotomy."

Actually your system is not improving if this is the case. Its been my experience that you may be able detect discern flaws in recordings as your system gets better but recordings should not become "unlistenable". You maybe making your system "brighter" (ie shifting its spectral balance) as you "improve" your system. The reason you have so much more "resolution" is because your system is emphasizing certain bands of frequencies over others.

"was then the system had more explosive life on the top. If there is one strength of Purist cables, it is their portrayal of dynamics."

As usual per audiophile rules of masochism the part you so dearly love is the part that is eliminating your enjoyment of so many of your recordings. Maybe that "explosive" exclusive live hf is alittle too much? Maybe ringing in the amplifier and the slight trimming of bass from the cables. etc.

"Quite an unfortunate dichotomy."

yes it is.

Cinematic_systems: Your comments are fascinting and may have some validity to other systems, but they do not apply to my previous statements.

You came to some conclusions that I hope to clarify. The preamp here is Aesthetix Callisto and Io.....these are not at all in the bright zone. The DAC is the Manley Ref DAC....this is even more of a warm presentation and a softer top. Speakers are SoundLab A1...bright? I don't think so! Been there done that with Thiels. Amps are Wolcotts and CATs. The Wolcotts are also a warm sounding amp. The CATs have resolution and dynamic contrasts few other amps can even begin to approach. But they are not forward in any sense of the word unless you pair them with any number of components that themselves are bright and non-linear. And Purist Dominus cables bright? Not! Again, that's Nordost and Straightwire.

As a huge fan of rock music from the late 60s to early 80s, there were a handful of bands whose LP recording qualities stood way out from the crowd: Pink Floyd, Alan Parsons Project, Supertramp, Doobie Brothers, Steely Dan .... even the Robert Plant solo LPs. In the grand scheme of things, I would have rated all these a 9-10 out of 10 in recording quality. The vast majority of the rest of the music I liked so much from this time, I would have set the recording quality in the 6-7 range.

As my system has improved, the recordings that got the 9-10 ratings have retained their ratings. But many that I may have given 6's, 7's or 8's before, I would rate a level or two below. Why? Well it has nothing to do with my system becoming more forward and bright.

The higher rated recordings are even more impressive today than I imagined before. In other words, for those great recordings, I can hear even more information, portrayal of space, ambience, etc., then I ever could have imagined before. And on the lesser recordings, they have not improved to the same degree. If a recording was piss-poor from the start, any improvements in the playback system can not do much to resuscitate it from the dead. And that's the point, against the great recordings now, these poor recordings sound dull and lifeless. Again, they have not gotten worse - the others have simply gotten far better.

My reference point has shifted to clearly confirm what I felt before, but now the differences are even greater. LPs from Jethro Tull, Aerosmith, ELP, etc., have more resolution than before but they continue to fail miserably in the dimensionality and soundstage areas. And thus they fall even farther back from the pack than the phenomenol recordings I mentioned. Once we hear the clarity of the percussion, the separation of the musicians, the sound go way behind and to the sides of the speakers, sax and piano notes decay much longer than ever before, etc., on the great recordings, we realize more than ever what is missing on those other recordings.

Throwing an equalizer into the mix can indeed help tonality issues, peaks and valleys, and ultimately allow other things to become more clear that were previously obscured by obsessive peaks elsewhere. But such devices can not bring decays, ambience, harmonic textures, etc., back to the listening experience if they were not there already.

John

Jafox, you should carefully re-read your next to last paragraph. There's talk of dimensionality, resolution and soundstaging, but absolutely nothing said about musicianship, arrangements or songwriting. It's not your music system, but the value system you bring to listening that is making certain recordings unlistenable. You're doing it to yourself.

Jafox..I have read that certain specific frequency bands, boosted and/or cut, have the effect of enhancing "decays,ambience, harmonic textures" and (one you forgot) a sense of height. I wonder if the recording engineers who made the LPs that you like manipulated their equalizers (which they surely had on line) so as to satisfy your ear?

Well thanks Eld. and Onhwy, for catching on to what concerned me. "Unlistenable" is a strong word if ITS your favorite music, that's like having an ulcer and your favorite food is Mexican.

I don't want to go too far into this if it was just a misunderstanding on the semantic level, but I if your truly reducing a significant amount of your recordings to truly "unlistenable" then I'll expand, because my experiences disagree with what you're experiencing if we are on the same semantic level. Your reply seems to actually fit Onhwy's post that your high standards could be at fault in my misunderstanding.

Eldartford also points out a whole other can of worms.