As system improves, do bad recordings sound worse?

Thanks for the responses so far.

Maybe the recordings actually were not 'bad'. Something in your previous system MADE them sound bad.

Elizabeth - There's some truth in this, I think. What was paradoxical, though, was that sometimes what made recordings sound worse was an ostensible IMPROVEMENT to the system.

In the OP of a recent thread, I suggested one possible theory for this, namely, that the combination of highly resolving downstream components (e.g., speakers) with less resolving upstream components (e.g., sources) tends to result in the magnification of the flaws of the upstream components. Therefore, when a downstream component is upgraded, without a comparable improvement to upstream components, flawed recordings might actually sound worse.

...as my system improved and the things that were right about the recordings were reproduced with greater realism, my attention would be drawn by that realism to what was right about the recordings, and not what was wrong.

Al - This captures my experiences during the second half (more or less) of my upgrade history, but not the first half.

Bad recordings should sound better but the differences between all kinds of recordings should become more apparent.

Mapman - I agree with this completely. I made a similar observation in another recent thread.

There seems to be quite a difference of opinion so far, ranging from "most definitely yes" to "absolutely not" to "it depends on the recording." I wonder what accounts for the discrepancy. Maybe it's a consequence of different audiophile priorities and the differences in the systems they assemble as a result of those priorities. In the March 2010 TAS, Jonathan Valin said this about audiophile priorities:

...there are three kinds of listeners (though these types tend to overlap): first, those who primarily want recorded instruments and voices to sound like live music - what I can the "absolute sound" type; second, those who want to hear exactly what has been recorded, whether it's lifelike or not - what I call the "fidelity to mastertapes" type; and third, those who could care less about the absolute sound or mastertapes and just want to hear their music sounding thrilling and beautiful - what I call the "as you like it" type.

As I see it, the first kind of audiophile above prioritizes TRANSPARENCY to the musical event. The second prioritizes ACCURACY to the software. And the third prioritizes MUSICALITY as he defines it.

How does this bear on the question in the OP? Here's a theory...

For the audiophile who prioritizes ACCURACY to the software, and who builds a system that reflects that priority, bad recordings tend to sound worse as his system "improves," i.e., becomes more accurate.

For the audiophile who prioritizes MUSICALITY as he defines it, and who builds a system that reflects that priority, bad recordings tend to sound better as his system "improves," i.e., becomes more musical.

For the audiophile who prioritizes TRANSPARENCY to the musical event, and who builds a system that reflects that priority, bad recordings sometimes sound better, sometimes sound worse (depending upon the particulars of the recording), as his system "improves," i.e., becomes more transparent.

Jonathan Valin, for example, seems to prioritize musicality and transparency more than accuracy. As a result, he says:

I've never fully understood why a piece of gear has to periodically make records sound "bad" to pass audiophile muster.

Of course, other reviewers and other audiophiles have different priorities, and the systems they assemble reflect those priorities. That is why different systems handle bad recordings differently. And that accounts for the variation in opinion expressed in this thread.

Thoughts?

Mrtennis wrote:

The issue is what is meant by "improves" and what is considered a "good" system…i believe that audio is a subjective hobby so what constitutes "improvement" is a matter of personal taste.

To a large extent, I agree with this. I believe that how you answer the question in the OP tells you something about what you consider an “improvement.” Specifically...

(a) If you answer “definitely yes,” then you can conclude that, to you, “improvement” is largely a matter of increasing ACCURACY to the software. Because making system changes that result in increased accuracy, I believe, makes bad recordings sound worse.

(b) If you answer “definitely no,” then you can conclude that, to you, “improvement” is largely a matter of increasing MUSICALITY as you define it. Because making system changes that result in increased musicality, I believe, makes bad recordings sound better.

(c) If you answer “it depends on the recording,” then you can conclude that, to you, “improvement” is largely a matter of increasing TRANSPARENCY to the musical event. Because making system changes that result in increased transparency, I believe, makes some recordings sound better, others worse, depending upon the particular flaws of the recording.

In this way, the question in the OP is a kind of litmus test for judging what system characteristics you prioritize as an audiophile. For example, Gawdbless wrote:

Absolutely NOT. How can a system be viewed upon as 'improving' when it makes ones cd's sound worse?

I would conclude from this that Gawdbless prioritizes musicality over accuracy, at least when making "improvements" to his system.

It’s worth pointing out that I’m NOT saying that accuracy, musicality, and transparency are, necessarily, mutually exclusive characteristics. But budgets are limited, and no system can do everything, so audiophiles are forced to prioritize which characteristics they value the most, especially when changing components with the hope of hearing "improvements." This, I believe, accounts for many of the differences in the systems they assemble. It also accounts for the different answers to the question in the OP.

That's my theory, anyway.