Isn't it really about quality of recording?

Are people with severely impaired vision and no corrective eyewear enthused about visiting a fine art gallery?

1970's  Lps,  Jbls, Altecs.  Was pretty familiar with the sound of my records.

Now have a good hiend system, listening to some of the old stuff one can hear the limitations of the older recordings, then some of these older recordings sound great on newer equipment. Always when buying new stuff never pay more then what you can resell it for quickly, just in case its not to your liking.

Contrary, I'd say the content is more important than the recording quality.

So you like Elvis, and the recording quality back then was limited by the type of equipment used in the 50s/60s.  No matter what fancy digital mastering techniques, they can only do so much.

And now, your playback equipment is high end enough to bring Elvis "back to life" and appears he's singing in front of you.  That doesn't change the fact the recording was really not up to today's standard, but who cares?  Your toes are tapping!

Enjoy the good music and not worry too much about the logic or technicalities.

To me it’s, to borrow from math and data science, Garbage in, Garbage out. A bad recording will probably sound bad on a good system depending on how resolving it is.

+1 sns

Most recordings are good enough. Don’t blame the recording if it doesn’t sound good to you. It’s probably your system that isn’t set up well (in your room). No matter how much you’ve spent on cables. :)

Genesis - Trespass, is a very good recording. Bowie - Heroes, not so much (but there are good parts). Bowie - Lazarus, great great great!

Thanks for the Purple tip.

@ghdprentice  I have 27,500 LPs (about 2,000 duplicate operas) mix of classical, jazz, vocal, opera, ethnic, etc.   I also have 7,000 78s.   I am 66, collecting since 3.  I live in Los Angeles area and have had many great stores to purchase from, some collections, some donations and still some good stores although the price of good LPs has inflated whereas CD prices have deflated.  I've never been to Arizona but have purchased 100s of records at record stores in Las Vegas, NYC and throughout CA in the past.

I have long time friend, guy had first high end audio system I ever had the pleasure to hear, how I became addicted. Anyway, he eventually became audio engineer and now owns a sound reinforcement company. Over time he left audio hobby for the production side of business, great audio equipment morphed into great recording equipment. He's got the best of best of everything, I've been to a number of concerts he provided sound for, by far the best sound quality I've heard at a live show, and I've been to literally thousands of them. The few studio projects he engineered are also best of best. And this work with jazz, reggae, rock, experimental electronica, electronic dance music, many genres. If only all recordings and concerts were done with such care!!! Audiophile production people sure are rare breed, wonder why no audiophile has ever started a school or mentoring program for people wanting to get into audio production, Perhaps too old school a thought when home recording equipment so ubiquitous, and probably who you know rather than particular talents to work in recording studios.

And I've yet to be convinced that ever increasing resolving capabilities are detrimental to recordings of at least low side of mediocre. I play plenty of these quality recordings, some may even label them as poor quality, and they only sound better as the resolution of my system increases. I hear the warts, but the continuing and ever increasing sense of real live performers in listening room far outweighs the warts. And this not some new sensation such that the novelty of newfound resolving capabilities  has blinded me to the warts.

Since I"m solely into streaming these days, vast majority of upgrades in recent years have been in streaming equipment, and believe me, plenty of opportunities with upgradies in streaming. My digital sounds more analog over time so the added resolution has gone hand in hand with a more natural timbre, this makes the lesser recordings sound better on two fronts. I presume this two handed improvement will continue over time which means there would be no downside to increasing resolution. I should add, my system is not coloring or obscuring recordings in the least, my dac uses ESS Sabre 9038 pro chips, many would characterize sabre chip dacs as highly resolving and clinical. I hear the resolution, not the clinical. Point I'm trying to make is my system is not hiding warts.

I believe with the right combination of equipment the vast majority of recordings can be made to sound better with higher resolution. I'd hate to believe a higher resolving system would make more recordings unlistenable, I'd quit trying to evolve my system.

@fleschler 

Amazing. I used to shop at PDQ Records in Tucson. Unfortunately, the closed a few years ago. Been there? 
 

Are you a record guy… Don’t care much about the system… or both. Love to see what a collection like that looks like.

@ghdprentice  I have 7,000 CDs.   At least 1,000 are Romophones, Marston and Biddulph.   Unavailable for streaming.   The alternatives are buying LP versions or the 78s themselves (if possible, $1millions in cost and then there is the playback speed/stylus issues).   I also have ethnic CDs, private recordings by me and others which cannot be licensed for public play, etc.   About 40% of my CDs are available for streaming   So, I'm never giving up my CDs (or rare 78s).   Most of my 28,000 LPs are not streamed and most original tapes are just gone with no ownership or out of existence (remember the Universal fire as well).

@fleschler

Wow… you should post photos of your system and collection! I have 4,000 albums.. about half and half vinyl and CDs. I am giving away my CDs… just no point with streaming. But my albums take up a wall… that is a lot of physical media. You can see most of my media on my virtual systems photos. You have over ten times my collection… that is amazing.

I am still shocked/amazed at how dynamic and colorful many of my recordings sound (CD and LP) with upgrades in cartridge/SUT and DAC/transport in 2022.  My former Benz Ruby 3 didn't match well with SUTs and I lost dynamics.   The Zesto Allesso and a cheaper Dynavector 20X2 L is a perfect match.  My extreme DAC and modest cost upgraded transport makes so many 1980s CDs come alive as good as analog.  My own engineered recordings are sufficiently good to publish now that I hear them back at such a high level.   I agree with 85% average, 10% great and 5% stinkers as far as recording quality although some eras/engineering were usually great (e.g Bob Fine/Mercury) or mediocre (late 1970s Decca/EMI/DGG).   With 42,500 records and CDs, I have my share of sonic clunkers (but oh, those great 50's & 60's jazz and classical recordings).  

Let us not forget the performance. The most critically acclaimed conductor's interpretation of a symphony may not sound as good to some people as a lesser rated performance by a different conductor. Next matter the recording and the equipment including the room.

Many good recording studios know how to make good recording from their experience. They know which microphones and equipment sound better from a recording after recording. Those good sounding equipment are usually few decades old. Some old microphones cost few thousands. And some are refused to sell their mics because there is none better. Many these mics and equipment were made by individuals in companies. The quality of these mics and equipment are depended on these individuals’ ears. Same as the quality of NOS tubes are depended on individuals in tube companies. It is an art that these individuals made their things decade after decade and found what makes a good sound. There are many great audio/studio gears we call master pieces from 50-60th. They still sound great among modern audio pieces. I don’t think there are any master piece produced in modern gears after 80^th. It is happening because audio manufacturers relay on computers. Audio manufactures must use more ears than computers. 

Back to subject, those good studios make good quality recordings and we should enjoy them. Forget about bad quality recordings. These studios with super expensive modern recording equipment will not help them but scouting famous faces is their real business.

aewarren

 A good system will not make a bad recording sound good. In fact, the better the system the more it will reveal the flaws in a bad recording and pinpoint what those flaws are.

True. However, a real great system will reveal what is recorded. Nothing more or nothing less. If the recording is unlistenable, the system is flawed usually. Not the recording. 

skyscraper

Some of those old 1950’s jazz recordings in particular have been pleasant surprises.

I agree.

boomerbillone

It's true that a really fine system will reveal all the flaws in a poor recording.

I am sure there are more flaws of own sound system than flaws of recording. Many audiophiles believe their system is close to perfect. But I know even world most expensive digital play back system is flawed from where it pick up the digital data from CD. That makes the sound is already broken from the very start. I know the system you mention is not that great.   

johnk

 A great system can reveal the soul of the performance if the music is good but it was recorded poorly.

Do you know this great system can be $5 transistor radio? It is true that this $5 radio can sound better than $100k system. Even though parts are low grade, the radio is less flawed than thousands parts of big system. The fixing radio is very easy and quick. I can listen my humble sound system for many hours. I don’t want to listen even world greatest sound systems ( > $1 mil.) for few minutes. They sound unreal and broken to me. Their sounds hurt and numb my ears. I can’t hear hammering the concrete rock sounds for long time. I rather fix this small radio quickly and listen than usual $100k systems.

rdcollns

No use forking out $50,000 for speakers to reproduce sound that was captured on a $100 mic, or $1,000 for cables to playback music that was recorded using basic patch cables.

Good recording studios are doing fine even with cheap equipment because they are dealing with the best source possible. Live (real) sounds. Don’t worry about recordings and make a good sounding system to enjoy. 

jumia OP

In my eyes the best systems have the simplest circuitry with the best parts 

And done RIGHT. 

bigkidz

 How do we manufacturer a product that pleases everyone?  Well you can't.  The difference for us is that we can customize our products for every system.  So that is where we settled.

Thank you your honest and I don't blame you! Like "they will not hear the difference." Right? Therefore, there is no true improvement in hi-end audio in last 100 years. It is the time to make a difference.

Alex/Wavetouch

@jumia 

Thank you. Always my intent.

Since we are rating comments I would like to give a special recognition to rumi for a really nice Industry behind the scenes View.  I would also like to give participation awards for all those who commented herein.  Very much appreciated. And of course a special recognition to ghdprentice who always offers invaluable insights to all kinds of situations. 
 

+2 for bigtwin. +1 for the comment, +1 for the chuckle. 

@sns

I often hear talk about bad recordings and good recordings, but what are the particular qualities that qualify a recording as bad or good for you?

Here are mine. I expect them to differ for others.

What bothers me most about a recording is bad tonal balance. Screechy violins or vocals. Scratchy vocals. Shrieky vocals. Booming or almost nonexistent bass. There are plenty of examples of such recordings, which is why I always have an EQ in my system.

Next comes lack of overall transparency, but that may be redundant, as it’s often caused by lack of information at the frequency extremes.

Imaging and sounstaging? I enjoy them when they are good, but lack of perfection rarely bothers me.

I built both mercilessly revealing and golden glow systems in years past. Golden systems could play only certain recordings, mercilessly revealing system certain others. Choices of recordings played was often imperceptible, it would only be in the long term I'd notice the limited choices made. After having experienced both extremes long term, defects of both eventually become intolerable, at this point I sought  another path.

The problem is not that revealing is inherently merciless, rather revealing CAN be merciless if sound qualities such as timbre and/or harmonic development is lacking or unnatural. I do continue to seek maximum resolution/transparency, but the timbre, harmonic development  capabilities must be top notch as well. I'd evaluate my favorite flavor as being just the tiniest bit warm of neutral, can hear full potential of great recordings, allows vast majority of mediocre recordings to be enjoyable, even low end of mediocre very tolerable, poor should rightly remain in intolerable category.

In my case, SET amps, DHT preamp, high efficiency horn loudspeakers have been the magic elixir. I won't argue subjective pathways others take, all good in my book.

Another aspect of tubes I don't think has been brought up in this thread, is tube equipment usage in recording studios. Some of my favorite sound recordings are from the era of tube recording equipment. This was era of essentially live in studio recording, not all this multi track, recording individual players at separate times and patching together. Some of the old studios were wonderful sounding venues and the natural resonance and harmonic development of tube recording equipment provided wonderful recordings. So many of the best recordings of that era both wonderfully lush, resolving and transparent, have to play some of this stuff every listening session. I often then segue into 60's, 70's era SS recording equipment era, quite a different perspective! And then further segue into digital recording era, yet another perspective. All have unique inherent qualities, yet they still retain difference and hiearchies within those eras.My take is a good system should be able to provide an engaging listen with most recordings from all eras.

A speaker that makes a crap recording sound like gold is really colored! Sometimes not a bad thing if you listen to crap recordings. Cerwin Vegas sound like solid gold comparatively for a lot of metal that sounds downright shiiit on most (all) audiophile speakers …. For example. 

@rumi  A good home system can make mediocre recordings more enjoyable to listen to, and there are a lot of good sounding recordings out there in spite of the record companies' best efforts to avoid this.  We would really appreciate it, though, if you guys would try a little harder to make better sounding recordings.  We'd even be willing to pay a little more for them.

@jumia I think you're in the wrong hobby.  You don't seem to like anything about audio.

After just installing a DAC, I find that the vinyls that sounded bad with the TT also seem to correlate with the ones that sound bad when streaming through the DAC.

@jumia

I have been at this for fifty years. One by one I have switched each of my components to tubed components. My systems have  sounded better and better over the decades… my current by far the best. I would not be even remotely interested into going back to solid state. You can see my systems under my UserID.

FYI. There are two major parts of a system component… the power supply and the main amplifying stage. Hybrids tend use tubes in one and not the other. In my equipment tubes are used in both.

In light of all the hi tech hi end solid-state creations with all their fancy circuitry it's surprising there has been no discussion comparing the merits of tubes and solid state or hybrid (whatever the heck that is, I mean where did draw the line in terms of how many tubes are used before you say hybrid).  I say this because really good recordings can be really screwed up by very sophisticated highly revealing overpowered sound recreation boxes. A big clue to me is how fatiguing it is to listen to music sometimes and I never remember it being this way many years ago.

In my eyes the best systems have the simplest circuitry with the best parts and I am leaning toward the tube side which tend to be more old school and less harsh. I've always viewed all the solid state fancy circuitry creations as a way to torture the delicate analog signals. I've never understood why a very reputable manufacture can offer an upgraded component that all of a sudden has found a way to improve dozens of things within their boxes. Really? And why now?

b&w speakers have undergone all kinds of technical improvements and I am perplexed as to what the heck they r doing? And I own some B&W speakers I like them, the newer ones seem dreadful. 

@rumi,  This is exactly why I draw a line regarding how much I'm willing to spend on my system.  I think it is worth purchasing equipment that is one or two levels higher than the typical studio.  No use forking out $50,000 for speakers to reproduce sound that was captured on a $100 mic, or $1,000 for cables to playback music that was recorded using basic patch cables.  Your speaker cables aren't likely to be the weak link in the process.

If it makes you happy to take this approach, then that is all that counts but when you go to a live show the musicians are using cheap cables and most often moderately priced mics and monitors and most venues have mediocre sound systems and yet magic can happen desptte all of that. Likewise in the studio. I have some vwry good recordings from indy bands recorded in a home studio. In fact, the days of elaborate studios among the likes of Abby Road or Muscle Shoals is long gone. But despite the prevalence of home studios (some of which ARE relatively elaborate) some very fine recordings miraculously get made. And an awful lot of crappy ones. 

@rumi,  This is exactly why I draw a line regarding how much I'm willing to spend on my system.  I think it is worth purchasing equipment that is one or two levels higher than the typical studio.  No use forking out $50,000 for speakers to reproduce sound that was captured on a $100 mic, or $1,000 for cables to playback music that was recorded using basic patch cables.  Your speaker cables aren't likely to be the weak link in the process.

@rumi 

Thank you for your post!

@rumi

Thanks for your perspective on recordings. Valuable to hear.

Personally, for years I pursued the latter “good” system… scrape details with lots of slam and over the years switched to the kind that makes all recording sound better… although there were a few early rock that sound like tin… and just cannot be salvaged. But those are rare.

A great system can reveal the soul of the performance if the music is good but it was recorded poorly.

And I would say that there are two kinds of "good" systems - one that makes all music sound considerably good, and one that mercilessly shows you any flaws in the recording. I prefer the latter, because they often also show you all the great things the mixing and the mastering engineers did, while the former often fakes its "good sound", and has actually rather low resolution.

I have been a professional sound engineer in one of the biggest studios in Switzerland for around 30 years, so feel free to ask any questions.

I am often surprised about the beliefs among hifi people and audiophiles about studios and studio engineers.

There are many recordings that are not as good as they can be. Only a small percentage are real masterworks. There are some recording engineers like the late Al Schmidt who really know what they are doing, and a lot of people who do the best they can, politely said. Also, most often the equipment used is mediocre at best. A microphone placed some inches apart from the best spot, wrong mic choice, bad recording room acoustics, bad choices in the mixing and / or mastering stage, all diminish the quality of the outcome, and can sum up to something I don’t want to listen to.

It is ironic that audiophiles often listen to music that was mixed and mastered on equipment that costs a small percentage of what the audiophiles paid for their system. Often, sound engineers say "Give me loudspeakers with bad resolution, because otherwise I will never finish my job".

"With my great system, it now sounds like it sounded in the studio" is a silly audiophile myth.

These are just some pretty random spotlights on "daily studio life".

But yes, recording quality is most important.

It's true that a really fine system will reveal all the flaws in a poor recording. It's good to concetrate on the music and not the "sound."  We keep improving our systems so that when we do get a good recording, it ia a genuine treat!

Keep Smiling!

Just today, Sonny Rollins  -  Saxophone Colossus.  Analogue Productions and QRP pressing, reissue.  Outstanding sonic quality, from a 1957 recording session.  If only all of the 60s and 70s classic rock sounded this good.  Some are great, but most are not.  Fortunately, there is enough well recorded/mastered/plated/pressed music to really enjoy my high-fidelity system for what it has to offer.  But still, I enjoy the music that is not so great in SQ, for the music that it is.  My system allows it to sound relatively good.  I just adjust the volume accordingly (i.e., a bit lower).  

My opinion, there are two aspects of "a recording".  Probably more.  The Technical and the Performance.

There is a YouTube video claiming "the best 'recording' of Chopin...."  Horowitz's performance was impeccable.  The recording was horrible.  A Casio electric piano with its 3" speakers comes to mind. 

A poorly performed piece will never pass.  No matter how well recorded.

Yes, the Technical very important.  But don't forget the Artist's performance.  I may forgive a poor recorded piece for an exceptional Performance.  Lol, but there is a limit to how much I will forgive.

Some old favorite recordings that always sounded fine on my old system really do sound terrible on my much improved new system. I’ve mentioned it before, but when the deficits in the recordings of the original vinyl pressings of Layla and Let It Bleed were revealed on my new system they both were almost unlistenable, Layla being the worst of the two. Other recordings were a revelation on the new system.

So agreeing with jumia, there is a lot of the sound you’re hearing that’s embedded in the quality of the recording you’re listening to. That’s both for better or worse, once the nature of the recording is more accurately revealed. Nothing you can do about it, other than looking for better source material. Replacing the two recordings mentioned above with remastered SACD’s helped some.

Thinking all your recordings will sound better on an expensive improved system is wishful thinking. The bulk of your recordings should sound better though. Some of those old 1950’s jazz recordings in particular have been pleasant surprises.

As a Genesis fan I really like the Trespass LP but the recording quality is terrible. Another terrible recording is David Bowie’s Heroes LP. This can’t be blamed solely on the quality of recording equipment of the era either. Many of the Doors recordings sound really good. Shoot, go all the way back to Brubeck’s, Time Out released in 1959 and the quality is outstanding. So, I think while a good system can get the most out of a recording, it’s the recording itself that makes the difference in the level of enjoyment. I listen to and enjoy Trespass but in the back of mind I always wish it sounded better.

Which is why at audio shows-despite the complaints by reviewers-the same old recordings get played. Nils' "Keith Don't Go" (mocked as "Keef, Don't Go"), SRV's "Tobacco Road, Dianna Krall, Patricia Barber, Dead Can Dance's "Into the Labyrinth", etc. Twenty years ago it was "Hotel California" along with stuff off of Aja and Brothers in Arms. And many others. 

I asked a dealer this question a long time ago when looking for an amplifier. I said, "You know,we spend all this money on our systems but what about source material?" He just looked at me and shrugged. What gets me is the vast difference in recording quality from various artists. As a Genesis fan I really like the Trespass LP but the recording quality is terrible. Another terrible recording is David Bowie’s Heroes LP. This can’t be blamed solely on the quality of recording equipment of the era either. Many of the Doors recordings sound really good. Shoot, go all the way back to Brubeck’s, Time Out released in 1959 and the quality is outstanding. So, I think while a good system can get the most out of a recording, it’s the recording itself that makes the difference in the level of enjoyment. I listen to and enjoy Trespass but in the back of mind I always wish it sounded better.

A friend and fellow recording engineer once said "Digital lets you hear the engineering mistakes much better than analog".

I've heard magnificent Hot 7 remasters and crappy new work on several what to me are pretty good systems.

Always remember: GIGO.

I will go a step further and say a quality system can make a previously great record crap by  revealing how poorly a singers voice is and or poor musician ship.

Many artists from the 70's in particular. 

Just my experience 

..

There’s a lot of truth to the OP’s post. As my system got better I began to hear wider variations among recordings. This is true both with digital and vinyl. With vinyl the variation is greater. Too much vinyl gets issued in crappy shape whether it be from source, mixing, plating, pressing, you name it. When I relied upon CD’s the sound variation was noticeable but now with Qobuz it is more pronounced. I have no way to prove it but it seems Qobuz is affected by variations during the day and week in internet service. Music ripped from CD to my Aurender W20 never varies day to day but the identical album streamed on Qobuz does (or seems to). But all that said, can a great recording make a compromised or mediocre system sound greater than or as good as a so-so recording on a great system? Doubtful. 

Someone mentioned Flim and BB’s "Tricycle". Now that is a blast from the past. If you Wiki the band you will see that "Tricycle" was one of the first all-digital recordings-the second by the band with the first being more of a digital demo-and that Flim and the BB’s were studio musicians with a side-project bar band. Their albums started with an effort to show off the dynamic range of CD’s. From that point forward for 30 years we audiophiles who ditched vinyl thought DDD was superior thanks largely to "Tricycle". Now for the 15-20 years we same enthusiasts that came back to vinyl are looking for AAA. Strange (some would mis-use the word "ironic"). My dad would have been in his mid-50’s when CD players became affordable. He mothballed his Thorens TD124, gave all of his records to Goodwill, and went with CD’s (only). At the same time he ditched his tubed Scott preamp and amp and bought a Marantz receiver. One of his first acquisitions- Flim and the BB’s "Tricycle". It all ended well. I got his TD124.

I agree with your @petaluman.

I listen a lot with my Susvara headphones and my tube headphone amp, and that really reveals the good and bad of the recording. But yes, even not-so-great recordings are very enjoyable through this, though it's noticeable that it could have been better.... 

In my case, I'd estimate that it's roughly 99.999% about the music itself.  The Gershwin piano rolls and Benedetti wire recordings of Charlie Parker (solos only!) will always be more significant and worth listening to than the finest recording of an elementary school band.

this is a business - nothing personal ..... the dealer needs to sell all the time ...

I like chasing tail. Even managed to catch a few along the way.

<<The dealers don't wanna talk about Recording quality no one seems to want to talk about it and why is this? Because there's no money to be made here that's why.>>
 

Yup,  it’s because they sell equipment and not records?  Just like lawn equipment dealers could care less if you have a nail file.

@jumia - I’ve found that it is very easy to hear a great or good recording on almost any system. However, it is very very difficult to identify a truly poor or bad recording, because every little step up the never-ending chain of system resolution reveals the sustain, decay, and nuance of each and every venue the recording occurred in - the subtle acoustics of each recorded context. Tracks I had once believed were poor recordings have been slowly revealed to be extremely well recorded, over the course of my audio journey - my equipment at each earlier point was simply not good, or sufficiently resolving enough for me to know better. Having come this far, I have simply learned that while good recordings are easily beyond debate, that I know never to assume a recording as poor, because the ‘bad’ ones seem to get fewer and fewer the further along I come.

I hope this makes sense to you. There’s a whole Everest to climb with this adventure we take on as audiophiles - I hope you don’t ever settle for anything less, because with each step up, you’ll hear things you never believed was possible : )

in friendship - kevin

I often hear talk about bad recordings and good recordings, but what are the particular qualities that qualify a recording as bad or good for you?

The only recordings I qualify as truly bad are those with totally quashed dynamics, generally victims of loudness wars. These are mostly 'commercial' recordings, genres I generally stay away from, most from digital studio recording era. Far fewer of these from analog studio recording era. These recordings are the true turds, no audio system can make them sound better.

The other problematic areas can be timbre and/or equalization anomalies. Timbre issues very closely allied to excessive compression, IME, allowing more micro dynamic expression makes up for some of these deficiencies. Freq. anomalies I generally  hear as boosted highs, less often, excessive or bloated bass.

Sound staging and imaging issues can be another area of concern.

With the exception of the totally quashed dynamics recordings, I've found vast majority of other challenged recordings to sound more engaging as my system has improved. Mostly its just sheer resolving and transparency that makes so many recordings more involving regardless of recording deficiencies. I've also found state of mind is important to maximizing listening pleasure with lesser recordings. One has to be ever mindful of individual recording qualities, quit judging the system with the mediocre quality recordings. I find interspersing known good quality recordings with the not so good brings things back into perspective, I'm then reminded my system is indeed capable of totally natural, highly resolving playback. Repeat this over the years and one falls into music loving mode far more easily. Listening in analytical mode all the time ensures dissatisfaction with far more recordings.

Interesting topic as I have discussed this over and over again with many audiophiles.

Gary from Genesis speakers did a demonstration a number of years back where he produced 5 different materials on LP of the same song.  Each of the materials improved upon the other as far as sound quality.

As an audio manufacturer, we struggled with this for many years.  We even built a preamp that where you could select from 5 different resistors to compensate from the different recoding qualities.  I do not prefer metal film resistors but when everyone was asleep, the metal film were excellent at low level volumes in retrieving details in the recording.

How do we manufacturer a product that pleases everyone?  Well you can't.  The difference for us is that we can customize our products for every system.  So that is where we settled.

As far as bad recordings, we believe that we have a good balance in our products so we an retrieve the detail but also produce the musicality some or most people prefer (but not all).

It is sure a balancing act.

Happy Listening,.