SQ vs. Music

The two are totally separable.
I only listen for the SQ (and a select number of albums) when I am in the process of updating something (maybe a month or two every 4/5 years - especially now with the lockdown).
I don't care for SQ if I listen to Bob Dylan, the Clash or Coltrane. The car system will do just fine. Music which in most cases is of much much much inferior SQ to stuff that is produced today.

Then let the excellent be spoiled !

I agree with tomcy6. I listen for the music that I'm in the mood for, but I have to admit that that is partially influenced by the quality of the recording, but not always.

The pursuit of perfection sometimes spoils excellent...

No matter what anyone says, the lure of sound for sound’s sake is huge in this hobby. It’s almost a definition of it.
However, for most of us, I believe the greatest pleasure in the world is to be happy at how much the music we’re enjoying also has good sound, not the other way around.

@nicktheknife,

"There’s good advice to be had on some of these forums but imo reading them too much can result in the audiophile neurosis that people talk about. I think that was happening to me. Listening to my gear and not the music.One piece of advice I took from a poster was this:If you want to enjoy your system and music, then stay off the forums!"


I'm beginning to suspect you're right.

Maybe carelesslyreading too much about our passion isn't actually a good thing!?

The best thing for me is to get together with friends and just listen to new music with conversation centering around that but not exclusively limited to just that.

For some of us this past year has been an incredibly slow and the social aspect has been much missed. Yet I've also spoken to some people who say they've enjoyed it!

Although audio remains seductive, I have tried to restrict my urge for better sound quality to primarily seeking out the best masterings of favourite albums. This in itself can be a complicated busines due to the whims of the recording industry and what they think will sell.

I also try to pay increasingly less regard to what reviewers may say though I do have a few favourite YouTube channels - audioholics, cheapaudioman, parlogram auctions and stereo review X to name a few.

These guys all seem to tell it like it is and unlike many magazines with their over the top reviews, don't seem to trigger my own personal audiophile neurosis.

Please, not that. Never again!

I get a weekly Audiogon Discussion email and occasionally look at the topics. I used to be a regular on Audio Asylum years ago. Specifically, vinyl asylum.

There’s good advice to be had on some of these forums but imo reading them too much can result in the audiophile neurosis that people talk about. I think that was happening to me. Listening to my gear and not the music.

One piece of advice I took from a poster was this:
If you want to enjoy your system and music, then stay off the forums!

I’ve pretty much adhered to that advice. I have limited time to ’really’ listen to my music on my main system so I don’t want to waste it by posting and reading on the forums.

As I said, I still check those emails I get to see if there’s a topic that interests me and if I have a question that pertains to my system or a future purchase. Too many knowledgeable folks out there who have plenty of experience to not squeeze them for some of it.

I did get a kick out of the Schumann Generator discussion. 😁
I actually may be interested in one but more so for my sleep issues than my system. But, I would try it there as well. WTH?

My first thought was to dismiss the premise behind the question, but on reflection it is a valid query.  I listen primarily to Classical.  There are many classic pre stereo performances in my collection and I do listen to them.  Restoration techniques are excellent—some of these recordings are nearing the century mark and, such as the Rachmaninov/Stokowski Second Piano Concerto that sounds amazingly vivid-yet even when enjoying it I feel a little niggling unease that I am missing something sonically.  Now, most of the Classical repertoire has been recorded so redundantly that one can find many recordings that do not require music and sonic compromise on the part of the listener.  I learned Beethoven’s Ninth from my parents 78s of Toscanini and the NBC SO, but now I have to be in a special mood for that one, even though it has been restored to a much higher degree to what I heard back in the day

Good question!

I personally distinguish two separate joys when listening to a recording. I may enjoy  just the sound, sound quality, how different instruments are recorded and reproduced, and of course I mainly enjoy the music I am listening to. If the music I like is well recorded then I enjoy double, in fact the dependence is not linear perhaps even it is exponential. Lately I find myself that often I tend not  to listen to music that I like but which is not well recorded.  At the same time,  for such recordings, I try to choose appropriate equipment or even listen to that recording in my car where the imperfections become less notable. Then you just enjoy the music and "forget" about sound quality. 

I admit that too much dependence on sound quality is not good - a "weakness" that we acquire with good audio gear. At the same time, good audio equipment makes possible to appreciate fully the music you like. 

@ejr1953 ,

I could not make it thru the first track of the original "Born to Run" CD, as the "highly resolving" system being demonstrated brought out all the rough edges in a way that was not at all pleasing.


The story behind the recording is pretty epic. A killing amount of rerecording resulted in an album with a sound that Springsteen hated.

According to his biography he initially felt crushed at the outcome. Time proved his concerns unfounded but no one will ever claim it’s a sonic masterpiece.

Various attempts at remastering over the years have made it a little more presentable. My 1993 gold cd disc version sounds acceptable and the 2014 Bob Ludwig 30th anniversary is about as good as it possibly will ever get.

inna,
Good point about different conductors.  I have several versions of the Beethoven symphonies, some seem to be faster (though the track times are not), some seem more "dynamic" than others, etc.

When I was visiting dealer after dealer, auditioning speakers, it really bugged me when I'd bring in a stack of CDs for my audition and the dealer insisted on demoing with music I would never listen to, but that made the speakers shine.  I'd deliberately include a few older CDs, back in the day when the mastering equipment was not the best, to make sure I'd be able to listen for extended periods of time; I could not make it thru the first track of the original "Born to Run" CD, as the "highly resolving" system being demonstrated brought out all the rough edges in a way that was not at all pleasing.

Same orchestra playing same composition. Different conductors. In one case the performance is spectacular and in another so so. What is going on ? Same sounds and combination of notes and silence, even the same musicians. Conductor is our hi fi, without the conductor it's nothing, just outlines.

I select the type of music and then the artist/group l like listening to. I try to rotate equally among all of the records I have of the artist, but there are a few that get skipped over or artists with only 1 or 2 albums that never seem to hit the table. It’s nice to play something I haven’t listened  to for years that I enjoy and remember why I bought it. It’s disappointing to pull one of those out that sound terrible & remember why I never play it. Luckily there are only a handful of those.

if I am looking for a little treat, I’ll put on a UHQR of the group I’ve selected. I don’t keep them sequentially within the main record groupings they fit in. They are also my reference point when I change something in my system. I know I am a little (or a lot) OCD about my records being organized perfectly. Think about the guy from the movie Diner. My wife has never touched a record. One time I thought a record was missing (Changesonebowie) that I don’t play much and it drove me nuts. Somehow it got embedded into another record which is hard to do if you use outer jacket sleeves, but it happened. A couple weeks went by looking for it and I was unnerved the whole time.

I never put on a record just because I want to hear something that sounds good. It’s a den, not a stereo store demo room. If I don’t like the music, I will not buy it just to see how good my system can sound.

Many moons ago I listened to music on a cheaper stereo.  And enjoyed it.  My financial circumstances improved causing me to go down the rabbit hole searching for perfect sound.    Spent years listening to SQ.  Upgraded everything from fuses to room with acoustic treatment and stopped when SQ finally became reasonably good.   Now I listen to music BUT hardly.  Having listened for  hours every day for years to tune SQ I find my music boring. Tried streaming new stuff but the thrill Is gone .   But I have a great system should require 

After suffering the slings and arrows of relatives’ braying about how I’m just "listening to the equipment" I began to catalogue all of the things that I listen to besides the music and equipment: noise; vinyl quality; vocal quality and timbre; acoustic instrument resonance even to the extent of trying to identify the piano by its sound; sound of the hall; effectiveness of the mic setup; conductor’s control and interpretation; my room’s acoustics; there must be many more. If all of the above perform optimally you’ve got some "SOUND" to evaluate, whether it’s music or equipment. You could run it through an old NAD integrated with a pair of almost any modern speakers or phones and you’ve got excellent sound!
 Report this

Wise man speaking...

I concur with you.....

After suffering the slings and arrows of relatives’ braying about how I’m just "listening to the equipment" I began to catalogue all of the things that I listen to besides the music and equipment: noise; vinyl quality; vocal quality and timbre; acoustic instrument resonance even to the extent of trying to identify the piano by its sound; sound of the hall; effectiveness of the mic setup; conductor’s control and interpretation; my room’s acoustics; there must be many more. If all of the above perform optimally you’ve got some "SOUND" to evaluate, whether it’s music or equipment. You could run it through an old NAD integrated with a pair of almost any modern speakers or phones and you’ve got excellent sound!

No time or interest for listening to low quality recordings. Alright, maybe some Ziggy Stardust once in a while.... 

My current setup gives me 100 percent music choice for what I want to listen to.

edcyn,

I’m 1000% in agreement with you.
As Mahler himself said, his symphonies are “worlds” in themselves.
Mahler can move me like almost no one.
It’s just that he, sensually, creates worlds of his own as well.

rv piano -- I might be the only one here who thinks this way but, for me, I don't primarily listen to Mahler because his stuff has the potential of being an audio spectacular. Instead, I listen to Mahler for the tunes, the emotions and the worlds he creates. For me, more than any other composer, Mahler conjures up universes that I find myself living inside of. Universes that I can reach out and touch. I remember putting on a Mahler LP for a makeout session with a girlfriend. It was sometime in the 1970's.  She'd never heard of Mahler and, of course, had never heard his music. She said the same thing. Yeah, I really liked that girl...

Just one final word on this subject from me.
 As so many have pointed out, simply put, music IS sound.
 The ear is titillated from wonderful and varied sounds.  But it’s also so much more than that. The psyche and soul somehow get involved in the combination of notes put together by great composers’ minds and performers.  This is the aspect we must not forget about.

I don’t need my good system just to listen to music. I have many ways to do that. But my good system is always the most enjoyable. You guessed why....the sound quality! It’s the only one that sounds like live music and not just recordings  to me.

Has someone already used the old adage that audiophile buy music to listen to their gear?

When it is work, almost always it is about SQ, which is probably why when it is pleasure it is pretty much all about the music, unless I perceive their is something wrong with my system, and then that must be addressed until nirvana is reached again.

Having listening to a ton of live music, and music as it is being recorded, though, it has become for me more and more about the performance, and less about "perfection" though I do appreciate a good recording. I have only purchased audiophile media of any sort when I already liked the music, never just for the sake of the SQ. That gets boring really really quick.

Conversely, in college there was a band we all liked live. The songwriter was creative, the musicians impeccable, the energy always stimulating. Album comes out flat. Just doesn't sound good. 30 years later took a date to see them. She says,"why aren't these guys big name, best band I've heard in ages"
Guess I'm saying SQ does it for me, particularly if I'm going to just sit there and focus on the music. Why in the world would we listen to music that doesn't sound good? 

Interesting question, isn't it?

Ties into a recent search for a replacement cartridge for my system.  Got down to a few makes/models with some described as having an ability to make older recordings 'sound good', while others that are very neutral and to a point approaching an almost sterility in the reproduction or closer to that as close to what is 'there' as possible.

Reminds me of a friend I had in the 80's who would invite people over to his house and play them back marching band music.  Not just some brief listen . . . . long periods of intense but 'very' realistic marching band music.  He became a bit of aficionado on it, even knew the stories of many top notch bands in North America, but many of us cut back on those visits to his uber-$$$ system regardless of how well things would sound.

always both happening at the same time, they are simultaneous, inseparable acts

i take in the whole sound of the music, the flow, and if there is something specific about the presentation that calls out a particular strength or issue, then i will switch to some ’test tracks’ to confirm or understand better

listening to the music this way, the characteristics of how a system or component inserted affects the presentation will become self evident after some time immersed

snilf,

First of all I don’t have a piano in my RV. I don’t even have an RV.  Those are my initials, and I am (or was) a pianist.
I agree with your choice, btw, of the Furtwangler Brahms 1st, especially in the Pristine.com pressing. Your point about Mahler is also very well taken: It is so much about the sound.  Which speaks to the question so many have addressed here.  I think I (we) get in trouble when I turn the set on looking for sonic wonders.
Again, as so many have said, if the initial motivation is the song or piece of music, the result is much happier.

To paraphrase - it's the sound, stupid.
Anyone can play whatever, try to make Amati or Stradivari.

So here is something... my wife and I sat down to listen to a bit of Norah the other day.... (some of you might get that) anyway, my wife is singing away doing her thing, I’m sitting there noticing a little sibilance here, a pop there... I’m asking her, “did you notice that?” “Do you hear that?” etc. Flat out, she looked at me and said, it’s a record that’s what they are supposed to sound like. Well ding. Sometimes I think we try too hard to find fault, and forget to simply enjoy...

I think it was Frogman who asked what you first go for when you first switch on the machines...a particular piece of music or sound quality? In any case, it's a very good question. As for me, I almost always start off with a yen for sound quality.  From then on I just let it happen.  Do I want to dig into my scratchy, distorted old 45's?  Do I want  to cruise Primephonic for an obscure performance of Beethoven's Second Symphony? Or how 'bout that Boston Pops Shaded Dog on the record shelf?

Thank you rvpiano (have you a piano in an rv?!) for this question. It goes to the heart of what we're all about on this site, and in our "hobby."

I've currently had some problems with one of my components (30+ year old speakers that I've long loved), so I've been auditioning alternatives in my home: B&W, Revel, PSB, MartinLogan, Von Schweikert. Because of this, I've recently been focused on SQ; I choose things to listen to because I've particularly enjoyed them for their realism, and want to see if these alternative speakers can do for me what my beloved Teslas have long done. Meanwhile, however, I've found someone who was able to repair the drivers in the Teslas, so I'm A/B comparing the competitors against my first love.

All that said, when I'm satisfied with my system (and, to me, the system is a tool, like a computer: not an end in itself, but a means to an end), I mostly listen to the music. Mostly. Will I choose a Furtwängler performance over something recorded in stereo of the same piece? Rarely, but sometimes (the Brahms First, in Furtwängler's monaural recording from 1952, for instance, is still my favorite, despite many, many subsequent contenders with far better sound). But, unless I have a strongly favorite performance that happens to be poorly recorded, I will almost always choose the better recording, even if I have problems with the interpretation. Such is the case with several recent Mahler recordings; they're superlative aurally, but dubious, even sometimes egregious, as interpretations. Still, I'll likely choose them because, for Mahler, the impact of the sheer sound is a very large part of what makes the music compelling. Maybe that's a disingenuous qualification, however, as I'd say the same for Haydn and Mozart: great recordings, if they're also at least good performances, get the nod.

So, to try to answer the original question directly: as many have already written, it's a combination of the two (which perhaps begs, rather than answers, the original question). Listening at home is not the same thing as being present at a live performance. A live performance is thrilling in a particular way even if the performance is second-rate. At home, one has the delicious dilemma of an embarrassment of riches: so many truly great performances to choose from, so many of which are also superlatively recorded. Because the "realism" of the home experience is largely due to the "realism" of the recording, why not choose one that sounds better?

But I'll admit it: I do sometimes play something not because it has much musical merit, but because it sounds terrific on my system. "Mannheim Steamroller" would be an obvious example. A very musical friend, who dismisses all stereo equipment as "fungible," refuses to consider that band to be "music" at all! But, hey: a jingle composer for commercials Chip Davis may have been, but his recordings are deliberately crafted to show off what a home stereo can do. And that can be very exciting!

To me they are virtually inseparable. The music will be the first thing that catches my attention but poor SQ can draw my attention to the wrong place and change the feel of the song or become a distraction to the song. To me SQ is like looking at a panoramic view through a screen or a smudged window, you can see what is on the other side but it lacks clarity and detail and is just not as satisfying as looking through clean clear glass.

I have found it interesting when I have heard some songs that I disliked in the past and after hearing them again with much improved SQ, I have found myself appreciating much more what the artists was doing and in some cases even liking the song. 

In retrospect I think I spent far too much time (and money!) worrying about achieving SQ  as described by the audio guru's. Not so much now - music selection is my only priority (unless something in my system is failing). My system/set up is very good but has no pretension to SOTA and that works well for me now. In fact I'm more relaxed and enjoy it (and the music) much more. :-)

My son once accused me of listening to the equipment rather than the music. I asked him how that is possible since the equipment is the source of the music? I then asked if he were taking a 500 - 1000 mile road trip, which would he rather have? A economical compact car or an expensive luxury car? I've done it in both. The luxury car was MUCH better. Same with the music. 

I listen to SQ when I change something in my system or compare different sources also when new album second or third time playing (determination of record quality) other time just enjoying music. So, I guess 5 to 95% in comparison.

I pick the artist I want to listen to first, almost always. I then pick which album by that artist I want to listen to. Sound quality seldom enters into the decision process. The choice of music wins maybe 95% of the time.

Very good post.... Thanks...

It is the same for me.... And the reason why is simple in a rightfully controlled audio system ALL sound better even the worst files i have....

My goal was listening music i love first and last.... Some music i enjoy because of the sound quality.... But most of the music i listen to i know it for the last 50 years....I only appreciate it better now...One of my favorite is Scriabin and almost all i have is bad russians recordings....But the sound is way better now even staying the bad recordings they are i enjoy them more....


You have a good system if the sound is no more there,like an obstacle or an impediment, only the music.... This is my experience....

Music is not sound at all, but the relation between sounds,and this relation is not reducible to sound, was written by the great maestro Ernest Ansermet....I read his 1200 pages book.... 😊😎

Like many of the responses here, I find the two impossible to disentangle. A friend of mine hosted a dinner recently. After we spent time sharing music casting YouTube to his smart TV, playing through a sound bar. The sound was painful for me. I wanted to just enjoy the music, but the (lack of) sound quality got in my way. I found this hobby because I was making efforts to enjoy my music more. 

I believe the same parallel can be drawn in the home theater space too. I could watch a movie on a poor screen at a poor resolution. But that would probably be painful. Watching that same content in 4k HDR on a quality screen would add to my enjoyment. 

Love how millercarbon put it. And I'm still new enough to the world of high quality equipment that I'm trying to find the balance. I will put something on just because it sounds fabulous and bask in the glory. And I'll pass on a recording because it doesn't sound as good. Likewise, I'll hunt for vinyl pressings and cd labels that I know sound great. Wow, has this expanded my collection, and taste. 

At this point, it's getting closer to 50/50, I suspect. Or, at least, I'm not just thinking about SQ before I choose something than I used to a few months ago. A friend told me that I'll get to the point where I do listen to SQ more intently for the first couple tracks, and then focus more on the music itself. But I don't know that anyone can so neatly separate the two. In a year or so I'll have more experience, so I'm still learning.

It would be unusual for anyone to spend the bulk of their time listening to sound quality. 90% of the time I am listening to music it is on as background either in the shop or office. For some reason I can not tolerate a music-less environment. As an infant I would scream my head off at night and would not stop. My mother tried everything including not letting me nap during the day. Nothing worked. Finally in desperation she stuck a table radio in the crib with me, tubes and all. She tied a knot in the power cord around one of the dowels. It worked. Nothing like the smell of tubes in the morning.
Even when I'm in the hot seat I spend very little time actually analyzing the system. I usually do that only after I make a change or something went south. A great system does not have to be analyzed, it just sounds great, every recording being a new adventure. Which brings to mind audiophile candy recordings. I can't listen to mundane music just because it was well recorded. I remember back in the day a 45 rpm Virgil Fox organ recording all the audiophiles were slobbering over. Virgil was the Liberace of organists. His renditions of classic organ pieces was to my ear sickening as was this record. That was the last time I fell for any that that. There are so many excellent recordings of great musicians there is no need filling up your collection with records you will never listen to.

@douglas_schroeder I'm sorry, but this is not your choice. You must follow the advice of people on this thread. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. ;-)

Some really probing answers to the question here, many of which I can relate to.
 It’s not a simple matter.

It’s my prerogative how much I listen critically and casually, and I could not  care less how others do so.

I belong to a group on Facebook that focuses on audiophile recordings. Members suggest recordings that have terrific sound. When I first joined the group, I bought several recordings based on the suggestions. Maybe it wasn’t the genre I usually listen to, but I wanted to hear the sound they were so excited about. I did hear what they heard that prompted their suggestion, but I wasn’t crazy about the music. This made me realize that, while I do enjoy good work on the sound board, I enjoy what is being played by the artists more. There is nothing better for me than to have that great mix of good music and good engineering. Steely Dan is a band I have always listened to, but usually in the car or as background music. Now that I have a decent system and take time to really listen to recordings, I find that Don Fagan has a great feel for what sounds good in a recording. I listen to Steely Dan more now than ever because they hit the right mix of great music and great engineering. Dire Staits is another one, Mark Knopfler knows what sounds good. I love how he has instruments playing far off in the distance and off to the sides and how that sound adds to the feel he wanted in the recording. To sum it up, 98% I listen for the music, if the engineering is there, it is especially sweet. I do take time to listen to recordings for the SQ, Metallic Orbs comes to mind, but only 2% of the time.

I have two systems.  The HT system is hooked to my server and has a Sony multi player attached in case I want to listen to a CD.  It’s on at least 40 hours a week.  
When I want to listen with my eyes closed and a smile on my face, I listen to the system in the music room. Probably 20-30 hours a week.

JD

Let’s ask the question a little differently:

“When sitting down to listen, what percentage of the time do you FIRST choose the artist (perhaps based on genre) that you want to listen to and what percentage of the the time do you choose an album simply for its ear candy factor, regardless of who the artist is?”

I pick the artist I want to listen to first, almost always. I then pick which album by that artist I want to listen to. Sound quality seldom enters into the decision process. The choice of music wins maybe 95% of the time. However, there are times when I just want to indulge in a “knock your socks off” sonic experience and those audiophile faves, even those with questionable (at best) artistic value come off the shelf. Kind of like that weekly dessert.

I prefer to ask the question this way because I don’t agree that sound quality and appreciation of the artistic merit (the music) are totally inseparable. At least, not to the extent that one needs exceptional sound quality to appreciate the music. Of course, this assumes that the recordings in question are of decent enough quality and better than that of grandma’s scratchy 78’s. We have all heard recordings and/or systems that are so bad that the SQ definitely detracts from the appreciation of the music. However, lets be honest and lets be realistic. For example, the often quoted “revelation” that “I can finally clearly hear that it was an English Horn and not an oboe!” Really? I submit that the difference can clearly be heard on a table radio. The problem is that listener has little experience with live performances.

Of course good sound quality adds to the appreciation of the artistic merit of the recorded performance. However, as soon as the audiophile hat comes off the hook there is a good chance that at least some of the attention will be on the SQ and a little less on the music. For me, it can even become a distraction of sorts, away from the performance. Most of the time I prefer to keep the two experiences at least somewhat separate in my mindset. If a recording that I want to listen to happens to have good sound, that’s great; but the attention is on the performance.

None of this precludes putting a lot of energy into having a great sounding system; nor is it a judgment of how anyone chooses to approach the listening experience. In short, I would say that (for me) good SQ has the potential to enhance the appreciation of the performance (the music) much more than inferior SQ necessarily hinders it.

As I am still getting my new system up to it’s potential, it’s about 90% sound quality, now.
The goal is to switch that over to much more music listening.
But for me, the hobby of being an audiophile means taking an active role in making my system sound good, testing it for differences, adjusting it to see what happens. Part of the fun of being an audiophile is that experimental activity.

And a huge part of what’s been of value in listening for SQ is, as Millercarbon says, that I am learning how to listen. That feeds back BOTH into (a) listening for SQ and (b) listening to music. Without listening for SQ at least some of the time, I stop learning how to listen better.

In other words, listening for sound quality is a permanent and legitimate part of what I am doing. The percent of how much I’ll do either remains TBD, but the idea that this hobby is "just about the music" is laughable, for me. I love sound, I love experimenting, and so the music is never going to be the only goal.

That said, I understand why it could be a worry that one is not listening to *enough* music. The "grass could always be greener" compulsion can be like quicksand, and the question of how to avoid it is a very personal, psychological question that reaches deeper into our drives and needs than can be answered by questions bracketed at the level of audio.

Oh, tough one, sort of. Being a musician I tend to hear differently. Different things stick out, different things are less noticed. Being a drummer the rhythm is what hits me, lyrical content, hardly ever. So what I hear is very important to what I enjoy. However, I would say it is ultimately about the music. I like all of the relatively few albums I own, and all were very specially purchased. But, I usually grab the ones that SOUND the best overall. So both for me...

If I didn’t really care about the SQ and only cared about the music, I’d be content with my crappy computer speakers. I surely wouldn’t spend as much money on gear as I do. I do look to be dazzled by the SQ. At the same time, I turn off a song if I don’t like it no matter how good the SQ is. I will put up with lousy SQ on my computer speakers if I like the music. But who wants to listen to a song they don’t like regardless of how great the SQ is?

When hearing music becomes transcendent the question becomes moot. When listening at a concert it's the music except for distractions, among them poor SQ having some effect generally briefly, the same with superb SQ unless it leads to hearing. From home the same, except when the poor SQ is system related, then generally longer.

I in fact agree with everyone. Sound quality is extremely important. 
With instruments as well. An example. My guitar playing skill is very rudimentary. Once I was given a custom acoustic classical guitar just to try it. I played a few accords and was stunned by the way it sounded. Incredible, even with my good for almost nothing technique. I could play it for hours, anything no matter how primitive, and would still enjoy it. Had to give it back to the owner, too bad.
Most of the recordings that I listen to are average and below average. This annoys me greatly. Better equipment improves it to a degree but still. Well, not much can be done. Unless I start mostly listening what I don't like much but which was recorded well. I won't. I listen to what I like.