Is Recording quality the real culprit?

Well don’t we all need just a little more cow bell…LoL! You want to hear a recording done right…. Check out:

St. James Infirmary by Baba Blues on Glimer of Gold

Interesting on how so many agree on the original post and go into detail on why they agree yet, when you speak about equalizers in your system it's against all "Audiophile" beliefs.   Ask the question about having an equalizer in your system and you will have hundreds jump down your throat that it's not pure, you aren't hearing the music the way it was intended, blah blah blah.

My argument to that for many years has been not all recordings are not engineered well, the engineer isn't in your room, doesn't know your system etc...  Many of the imperfect recordings can be resolved with an equalizer or at least make them listenable which can expand your play list.  

Pretty much the same discussion different with responses. 

YES

"Hal, why did you redo that break at 11:40?  I thought we'd agreed tha..."

"Well, Dave....I was reviewing the previous 5:40 and it seemed to me to not have enough cow bell...."

@ibmjunkman ....I suspected such, but thanks for the low down on exotic waste treatment and the means to do so....

One can apply the same routine with different means to the end with recordings, and it likely happens more often than one might think or even notice in a listening sess.....  The means to do such is not typical except for the most rabid of 'philes, and would require really deep pockets to be able to 'remaster' and mop up the mess one hears to their approval....

Best common example:  Movie sound tracks.

Waiting for AI to be turned loose into those mixes.... ;)

I have some recordings that were made using just one, stereo microphone that sound fantastic. 

@curiousjim , I can think of at least a couple also.  Without going back and looking for others, the two I am thinking of are the Cowboy Junkies first and second releases, Whites Off Earth Now and Trinity Sessions.  

Conversely, a sub par recording can't kill great music. 

Well, it does for me.  But that could be just me.  

Conversely, a sub par recording can't kill great music. 

Your Can't Polish A Turd
 

But you can.

https://youtu.be/yiJ9fy1qSFI

I have some recordings that were made using just one, stereo microphone that sound fantastic.  I also have some albums that were recorded with just a few microphones that everything is just plain off and I can’t get a listenable image of a singer or an instrument.  

Let's be honest.  Who else had to google the definition of "gestalt"? 🤣  But has the point been missed?  An engineer piles everything into the center or worse, takes a trio and places two instruments in each other's lap, right in the center and pins the third in the middle of the left speaker.  The entire right side of the sound-stage is empty.  I don't believe any system can improve these issues in recordings.  I often wonder, didn't the artist listen to the final mix before it was shipped? 

It may sound crappy, but it's still a good musical performance.

Okay, but if you don't care what it sounds like, why spend the $ for good equipment?

The sonic presentation of systems are vastly different given the same source material. If the system is tuned to maximize detail, with a lean midrange to become a microscope on details, then the resolution of the source material becomes really critical, and unless perfect can sound bad. Systems like this tend to lose the music… the gestalt because of the missing dominance of the midrange and as a consequence the rhythm and pace.

A system that appropriately reproduces the audio spectrum and gets the gestalt of the music will not be very sensitive to the recording… the focus on the music not on details and micro imaging. Also, importantly, there are systems at most levels of in investment the can achieve this gestalt (generally tubed) and greater levels of investment do lead to greater detail and imaging… etc, but they are carefully crafted to keep the overall balance so not to lose the music.

This makes me think of using sharpening in digital imaging. Beautiful and emotional images are created using a small amount of sharpening, but more and the image get sharper but attenuates the emotional connection, more and it creates fatigue just looking at it. More and it looks terrible.

I’ve owned systems with spectacular detail, transparency, and speed. Great scientific instruments that completely missed the point of musical reproduction. I would listen to the system and recording instead of being drawn into the music. My systems are now musical first and typically I don’t notice the recording quality unless really bad.

Jazzrausch

In fact, just now I discovered a Jazzraush Bigband album named Bangers only! A German big band mixing jazz with electronics from Germany. Take a listen, very well recorded and good fun upbeat music.

Consider yourself lucky when you mention many artists do things well when it comes to recording quality. In my experience it is unfortunately the other way around. I venture that less than 20% of music recorded between the sixties and today are what I consider well recorded. And I'm very generous. But that still makes for thousands of great albums, it's just a huge undertaking to find them.

BINGO! Blaring Sirens going off. DING DING DING! You win the big prize. Bigtwin is correct and so are you. I have had media in different formats. CD, Vinyl and tape recordings, BUT the most glaring and obvious quality differences has been heard in the recordings themselves. The artist, the sound engineer, the label and many other factors play a role. In fact, some music artists have really spent more time in the studio, think Steely Dan, Boston, Diana Krall, Pink Floyd and many, many others. Think of some great audio masters like Rudy Van Gelder, Lee Herschberg, Elliot Scheiner, Bruce Swedien, Geoff Emerick, Don Landee, Alan Parsons, Ken Scott, Todd Rundgren, George Martin, Quincy Jones, Tom Dowd, Phil Spector, Bob Clearmountain, Bernie Grundman, Brian Wilson, Eddy Kramer, Tom Scholz, Trevor Horn.

It may sound crappy, but it's still a good musical performance.

Poor recording or mastering  makes a good musical performance sound crappy.

You get a good quality system to better appreciate the musical performance.  The recording quality is not the main focus. 

Maybe this speaks to the continued desire to improve the system you have in hopes things might get better and after all it probably is due to Recording Quality not being where it needs to be.

That’s why so many people divorce and remerry all the time. And in the end there’s not much you can really do to fix the problem.

You need good equipment in order to be able to properly assess the quality or nature of specific recordings.

The trap to avoid is thinking that a better system will magically transform all recordings into something you want them to be rather than merely what they are or are not .  

The ability to enjoy details of all recordings and appreciate each for what it is or is not is a big part of the joy of hifi for me.

If only recordings were rated for SQ, like movie ratings are for content (G, PG13, R).  The music reviews in Absolute Sound have separate stars for performance and sound quality, though I have not found these to be close to reliable.

We spend the money on the system because we already know how to find top quality recordings.

I have argued this point many times.  Sure a better system makes good recordings sound their best, but as the saying goes, Your Can't Polish A Turd.  You can only reproduce what's on the recording.  No amount of money spent is going to change that.  IMHO.