So how can a great system solve less than great recordings

A great system should naturally make everything sound a little better or a lot better...sort of the point.

How does the great system know which recordings to make sound a lot better, and which to sound only a little better? And how does it know what is better?

"Some of my best recordings are from the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s. They knew how to record and master back then, today it is mostly a lost art and most remasters suck in my opinion."

How right you are Audioguy85!!

Me too, give me an original Decca or EMI pressing every time.

Today's problem is digital offers producers and engineers the opportunity to tinker.  They just can't resist it.  So in most cases everything that was good about the original recording is corrupted 'we need a bit of heightened this or toned down that'.

This applies equally to today's new recordings in which the digital desk is ever present under the hand of the engineer who loves to fiddle, thinking that such tech wisdom as he may have knows better than the musicians who created the performance.

JUST LEAVE IT ALONE.

A live performance (at least of acoustic instruments) doesn't contain any engineer corruption.  So, if you want to reproduce it accurately, dump the engineer, or at least tie his hands.

@audioguy85,


"Some of my best recordings are from the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s. They knew how to record and master back then, today it is mostly a lost art and most remasters suck in my opinion."



Good points.

It had to be an art back then because of the huge number of variables involved.

All the way from different studios, microphones, mixing desks, tape decks, cutting lathes etc.

Year after year superficial reissues and remasters keep on coming with great fanfare but eventually the usual consensus settles on the originals being the best.

There's hardly ANY reissue today that doesn't suffer from some compression of dynamics. 

They just cannot help but tinker and as a result something valuable has often been lost.

How many times is it the case that the 'period feel' of the recording is the first thing to go.

Do we really want Caruso, Callas, Crosby, Sinatra etc to sound as if they were recorded yesterday?

Thank you very much but I want my music to sound the way it was intended to. As much as I admire the Vic Anesini Elvis remasters they don't sound sound like the Elvis I grew up with.

Close, but not quite.

So just how many reissues of the Beatles, the Kinks, the Doors, Dylan etc do we need before they actually deliver an actual all round definitive improvement? 

Until they actually do this, all that ANY system can do is to increasingly highlight this tinkering.

It's hardly surprising that so many music demos feature a carefully chosen but rather limited repertoire, is it?

Even worse, this tinkering is hardly ever designed for high performance audio systems.

Is it also any wonder that once the novelty has worn off that mounting disappointment gradually brings home the reality that so many of the 1980s CD transfers are still the best along with the original vinyl transfers?

Put simply, it's rather pointless to flog a dead horse.

The recordings matter more than the system, and the considerable  differences between them can only be magnified by better playback gear.

Sinatra recordings are quite good, beatles sadly not that great at times.  Kinda disappointing they didnt do better.  
My older system did better with beatles but the speaker cones decayed ........

revealing systems dont do well with highly mixed older tunes like the beatles.  

Thanks audiorusty,
I have always shied away from any signal processing. Even tone controls. I don't even have a separate phono stage using the one built in to my preamp. K.I.S.S.

jumia;

"It seems no matter how good a system is, the quality of recording quality takes priority".  

"Good" according to whom???? 

You can assume that the more resolving your system, the more it will reveal the differences between recordings and highlight both the good and the bad. 

You are the one who is going to be listening to your system and only you know which music is most important to you. There's little point in assembling a system that sounds sublime for genres you don't care about but is disappointing when it comes to what you really love. 

For example, I've found that DACs vary enormously in this regard.Some are so resolving that all sense of the "forest" is lost because each "tree" is artificially hyped. . .never mind each tree--  more like every vein on every  leaf!  A lot of people seem to really like this effect. I'm not one of them. Maybe you do, but if not, there are other ways to go. That's the double-edged sword of this  obsession... er, I meant, "hobby"-- there's a lot of gear to choose from. 

There are also trends in recording. In the 80's, it was "cool" to make drums sound like trash cans being pounded inside a cement bunker. 
Good luck making those sound good. Or maybe you like that... if so, I don't mean to insult you-- this was merely the first example that popped into my head. The fact is, whatever your tastes, you are bound to encounter CDs that do not please your ears, for one reason or another. Finally, "remastering" is not necessarily an improvement. Check out the Steve Hoffman Forums for discussion on the relative merits of different versions of any given CD. 

Short answer. No.

Whatever you put into the system, will come out the other end with with wonderful clarity. Worts and all will be presented in their full glory. The better the system, the more obvious the shortcomings of the material is. 
Put a cell phone in the bathtub (dry tub preferred), play some different tracks. Close the door and stand outside.  It will all sound equally crappy… 

OP. I'm going to disagree with you. I say that you know your system is great when mediocre recording sound "good" and great recordings sound great. I had a Krell KPS20i way back when. The system it was connected to was so good most CD's (not bootlegs of course) sounded at the very least enjoyable. I remember The Turtles sounding like I was in the studio with them. I no longer have any of those components. The Turtles haven't sounded the same since. Joe

Nothing to do with "great systems", but I have a double pole, double throw switch to bypass my sub crossover.  This allows a lot of harmonics to be added to make up for how horrible many old LP's sound.

To help old Millercarbonfootprint understand my point, I think a great system helps everything you run through it...if a recording is simply poorly done, it still is given its best shot and being made aware of the issues with a recording is an important thing. Get it? You do...good boy!

For my analog only system, by getting more out of the groves, each upgrade improves my enjoyment. Surely, even unlistenable LPs prior sound good now and, yes, good recordings sound even better.
This is the case for front end and other upgrades.

As a philosophical matter, I take issue with the word truth. I am of the POV that there is no such thing as knowing the truth. We can only know more of the truth. We can get “truthier”. It’s a never ending search.

Audiophiliacs are what we call those people who are obsessively connected to this search through their ears.

That aside:


As others have already said, the best that a good audio system can do is to reproduce what is in the recording (and, in my case, in the grooves) with the greatest accuracy as possible.

As a general rule, this makes almost all records - at least in my system - sound “better”: or, different, in the direction of having more information being revealed. As we all hear differently, it sounds “better” to me, but maybe you don’t like the information being revealed, so maybe not to you.

If the system is “good” enough, you can hear the decisions of the engineer, “good” or “bad”, and the limitations of the technology that he or she was using. I’ve learned to regard this as often than not as part of the charm of the recording, but that usually means that the content itself is not much more than a curiosity and I’m not listening to it that much.

But if it is a poorly engineered/pressed - or simply not to my liking in some manner - record that is a favorite, especially if it’s one from my youth (I’m thinking Beggars Banquet by the Stones as a prime example, or Canto General by Theodorakis/Neruda), I’m a non-purist black cat white cat as long as you catch the mouse sorta guy. The engineer in the studio makes decisions: if he made (subjective) decisions that I don’t like, I have no problem making the decision to try to correct them on the playback end. I have a “phase alignment correction” thingy and a consequence of kicking it in and dialing things up or down is that it adds dimension, depth, and presence. I’m also able to dial the cartridge one way or the other at the preamp stage in order to reduce harshness.

Because in the end, for me, since there’s only “truthier”, and because the recording engineers decisions are subjective, and because we all hear differently, and because the stamper might have worn out, etc etc yaowzza, the “search” is not for the truth, but rather for the most enjoyable experience of the artist’s intentions that I am able to pull out of the grooves. In other words, I think the search is governed by Freud’s pleasure principle rather than Plato’s objectivity. And if we all here are honest with ourselves, I think that’s what most of us through this hobby are actually searching for as well: a pleasurable truthiness (or rather, a truthy pleasure).

fi·del·i·ty/fəˈdelədē/
1 - faithfulness to a person, cause, or belief, demonstrated by continuing loyalty and support. Eg: "he sought only the strictest fidelity to justice”.
similar: Loyalty allegiance obedience constancy fealty homage staunchness
2 - the degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced."the 1949 recording provides reasonable fidelity"
I don’t see much in the way of truth here. You can be faithful to a lie, as our political culture has resoundingly demonstrated. So, as a general rule, what purpose does a conflation between loyalty and “truth” serve? 

I would guess you need two systems. Or atleast an EQ.
The better system you have, the worse those crap recordings will sound.

Most systems owners, even those with extremely expensive esoteric systems, have never heard completely flawless sound reproduction.  It is a fantastic jaw dropping experience, and a life changing event.  I've heard a lot of systems but let's talk about "really good" systems then, to be realistic. If you get a crappy recording, you will hear all its defect BETTER.  It might be more objectionable.  You might never listen to an mp3 again.  When you put on a good recording, you will always hear some defect.  Nothing is perfect.  It depends on the resolution of your system.  You will enjoy it more.  So in conclusion, you will throw out more junk and appreciate the good stuff and enjoy it more. 90% of my record collection was junk. Which is more important, systems or media?  Neither. 

Dont think an EQ stands a chance to improve recording quality.  

jumia

Of course not. . . 

.  . . but an EQ might make enough of a difference to move something from the "unlistenable" to the "listenable" category. 

Should this matter to you?

If there's music you really love that's only available in a format with relatively poor SQ, it might. 

I've found the under $200 Schiit Loki useful in this regard. 

@stuartk ,

Agreed. On a couple of occasions I have put tracks through the open source Audacity software to add a little treble to those which seem to desperately be lacking treble.

It’s a bit of a long-winded process of trial and error to see where the sweet spot in adjustment lies - add too much and you start to lose even more resolution elsewhere.

Sometimes, on certain albums, it’s just bewildering how they came to make such appalling mastering choices in the studio.

You wouldn’t want to remaster your entire collection, but once in a while it could be worth the effort to DIY.

cd318

"Sometimes, on certain albums, it’s just bewildering how they came to make such appalling mastering choices in the studio".
 
Yes, indeed. .  . and "remasters" are all over the map in terms of "improvement" in SQ! 

Discs that are truly "appalling" don't stay in the collection.

Having said that, some of my old favorites, such as "Exile On Main Street", "Layla" and "Europe '72" are never going to sound stellar but because I simply cannot do without this music, I've found the versions that sound the least offensive to me and utilize the Loki to make them listenable. 

I've never tried Audacity. Twisting the four knobs on the Loki is about as technical as I care to get!  

   It would pay to do your "homework" as to what recordings sound best for each title you want in your collection. If you primarily spin CD's like yours truly you will discover that Original pressings in most cases are far and away better sounding than "REMASTERED" crapola from the past 30 years. Of course there are exceptions. Steve Wilson, Rhino Records and others are doing incredible work remixing/mastering master tapes from the 70's and 80's but thats less than 1% of whats out there.  Its a pain in the ass BUT it would be worth your while to get others opinions (Like on the Steve Hoffman forums as mentioned above). See what others are saying...then go to DISCOGS or EBAY and find those "best" pressings and slowly build your collection a piece at a time.  If your using a streaming service you arent going to get those original masters/mixes from back in the day. Your going to get the overly compressed/brickwalled/loudness crap that has plagued the music industry since the 90's.  Im sure for music made in the past 20-25 years the streaming services are as good as anything your going to get on physical media.  Always surprised how many people spend a small fortune on gear/cables/stands etc and then feed their systems inferior recordings when better ones are available. Makes no sense to me.

Yes, it was $13K, but the improvement in SQ with the Lyra Atlas SL makes ALL my record collection great. By pulling out so much information out of the groves, I love every LP. Sure, the rest of my front end is a match but a world class cartridge has brought a world class sound.
Now playing one of my two Better Records. Yes, it is a big step up.
OK, they are worth it. Now more than ever! Goes from the sound of humans to the sound of G-d. A religious experience.
But I still look forward to every “regular” record.

Lyra, a 13k cartridge, impressive. I suspect turntable kinda nice too.

Introducing my Woodsong Garrard 301 inspired me to upgrade every other component. It may not be the best but it has a drive and life-like sound that is addictive. Especially now with the Lyra, Triplanar arm and Atma-Sphere MP-1. The $28K MP-1 is among the only uber preamp that was designed to be full featured with phono stage dedicated to the ultimate vinyl playback.
With my AGD Audion mono blocks and Tetra 606 speakers, even with formerly poor recordings, I am in Audio nervana.

Everything starts with the source material. Anything after the source material is just masking shortcomings in the original material. While some equipment will help with the overall sound, I think you know how important the source material is. I haven't read all of the posts, but I'm sure people have given SOME good advice!

@riaa_award_collectors_on_facebook

re: "It would pay to do your "homework" as to what recordings sound best for each title you want in your collection".

Very good idea-- not so easy to put into practice!

I've given up on S. Hoffman forums as one never knows what sort of system participants have or what they consider to be good sound. 

I followed some recommendations based on their "shoot-outs" and was disappointed. 

Really, the only truly reliable source of "recommendation" is one's own ears, listening to one's own system. 

Now playing one of my two Better Records. Yes, it is a big step up.
OK, they are worth it. Now more than ever! Goes from the sound of humans to the sound of G-d. A religious experience.
But I still look forward to every “regular” record.

That is my experience as well. When listening to my "regular" records it is real easy to be happy. Beyond happy. They sound wonderful! Especially sometimes when the system is really nice and warm and sounding good, it is easy to think, "How much better can it get?"

But then I put on a White Hot Stamper and instantly, "What were you thinking???!" lol! They are totally better! Even though some like Silk Degrees the noise level on my Hot Stamper is so much worse than my "regular" copy - which actually is a Half Speed Mastered audiophile pressing, and pretty good. But the Hot Stamper is so much better sound quality I just have to put up with the noise, it is so worth it.

My Super Hot copy of Sinatra-Basie is so good the last guy here said it was the best he ever heard anything, anywhere. Well who am I to argue? ;)

It just goes to show how hard this is, how many variables, a lot of them no one would ever imagine could matter. Then you put on two examples of the exact same record and they sound completely different. After a while you begin to realize just how hard it is to even be sure when you say "recording" if you really are hearing the recording, or the pressing of the recording, or the particular copy of the pressing of the recording or....?

I listen to music that I love, not the fidelity of a recording for the sake of its sound. The very idea of Audiophile recordings makes me disgusted. My kit is very resolving with a Brinkmann Balance, OTL amplifiers, and field-coiled loudspeakers. Now do I hear that some recordings are better than others? Sure! Do I wish some of my favorites sounded better? Also, a sure thing! Now I find that say, a line-contact cartridge, setup properly with good SRA and zenith alignment, and having a “right” pressing makes a huge difference, perhaps a decided one, but I never pursue sound over performance and my particular music favorites. Never(.) Often this way of retrieval reduces the noise and dramatically increases the fidelity, but there are no simple and universal answers. Guess that’s why I bristle at the idea of being an audiophile. There may well be more forgiving equipment in its portrayal and yet still be highly resolving, but you can’t fix what wasn’t captured.

@ghdprentice: 

"I have always been very careful to navigate my evolving system towards greater fidelity but to stay slightly back from ultra detailed / revealing. One step to far and many recordings sound bad... there are at least two kinds of bad... lack of dynamics and noisy harsh. I am very turned off by noisy / harsh. I want to listen to the music not the system... I want an emotional connection with the music, not to be sure I clearly hear the 2nd violinist move his foot"

+1 

Mr Sayles
have great respect for your knowledge.  I may revisit vinyl someday but thats a financial rabit hole i want to stay away from.   For now i am staying content with the streaming side.

@r_f_sayles 

"..but you can’t fix what wasn’t captured"

That's just it.

I think thought that digital manipulation of sound is a lot more difficult when it comes to audio than when it comes to images.

However when I took a good look at some initially impressive digitally enhanced family photographs it began to look as if it was more of a case of diverting attention rather than any extra resolution. 

Therefore I'd say that image enhancement works better when it comes to removing damage than it does to actually adding resolution.

Perhaps remastering works on the same way? Once you have the lowest generation master tape - the best you can do is to try to remove damage.

The rest is simply case of diverting attention. A practice which has led to the disastrous dynamics crushing 'loudness wars' as well as sometimes adding gross treble artefacts (new, improved etc)

Here's an article that describes how enhancement seems to work.


https://www.lumenera.com/blog/the-truth-about-enhancing-images-what-s-possible-and-what-s-not