Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

How do you determine what "accurate" is?

I think as the hardware improves,we can hear improvents in the accuracy or both vinyl and digital formats.

What does seem to tip the hat infavour of digital is the promised master tape fidelity of hi res digital dowmloads.

I've heard a bit of this, and compared to an extremely more expensive SME 30/12,Clearaudio Strad cart,AR phono and 25 Anniversary,on Sonus Strad speakers and Nagra VPA amps,it was hard to tell if one was any more accurate than the other.

The real fly in the ointment, was that for the first time, digital was as good or better than the full blown vinyl set up in this system.

Never thought a vinyl guy like myself would ever say that, but that's what I heard.

Both mediums are flawed and neither is 100% accurate to the original live event,and I mean event, not the recording of that event.

It's always amazed me at how more realistic and lifelike some of my old mono lp are when compared to even new vinyl releases.

I think minimalism is one important aspect that often is overlooked in modern recording.

If you can, throw in the kitchen sink and go with as many tracks as you can,in other words too much audio techno for techno sake.

The old pros only rode the volume control and yet most of those analog recordings sound very lifelike, and it's amazing when you think of all the time that has passed since those recordings were made.
And how far and advanced(?)modern recording technology has come since then.

But I have to shake my head everytime I listen to a vinyl or cd of music recorded in the last few years and wonder what the heck happened?

This I think is why analog is more accurate if it was done in a minimalist way when the music was recorded.

I think a lot of the "accuracy" is lost the more you veer off the path of simple recording with good mics and even better recording techniques.

The old fix it in the mix and band aid, frankenstein multi studio patch jobs have robbed most of todays music of any shreds of accuracy to the original event.

If you want accuracy , go out and support the live musicians(unamplified is preferable),cause you ain't gonna get it with vinyl or digital.
You may prefer the sound or convenience of one over the other,but accuracy is something that cannot be determined.
There's just been too much junk placed between the musicians and your ears , rendering accuracy moot.

Stick with what sounds best, and forget about the concept of accuracy.

It doesn't apply in this hobby, which is all about illusion and not accuracy.

There has never been now or in the past a hifi system that can even recreate all the dynamics and overtones of a cymbal crash, let alone a whole drum set and orchestra.

Think about the foolishness of someone closing their eyes,listening to a pair of Ls3/5A (No slightintended)and being foolish enough to say that, yes the whole Duke Ellington band appeared in front of me.

Talk about imaginations running wild!
And people laugh at folks who claim to hear power cord differences?

You just cannot get anywhere near the sonic wave attack of live instruments with any home system, no matter how tight you close your eyes, and no matter how much attention and money you've spent on gear and room tuning.
It ain't gonna happen.

I can tell you that when I play bass and stand next to the drummer,I don't have to close my eyes to get the full measure of what he is doing.

You can almost feel it like a presence all it's own.

Also when a live band is playing, the whole room resonates,and not just from volume,we can play soft.
But even at soft ,low volume there is still a lot of air being charged and moved by the sonic waves from the instruments, and let's not forget about how everything in the room including the audience all contribute to fine tuning the wave launch.

Try duplicating that at home, in a small room or a large room with just yourself or a couple of friends.

I think people are quite good at recognition and erroniously lump this in with accuracy.

Most of us have systems that can reproduce a sax well enough that we know we are hearing a sax and not a trombone.
HiFi systems are great at this, that's why it's called Reproduced Sound.
But there is so much missing that it can never be called Accurate sound.

I have also never been fooled into believing I was transported to the concert even when watching well produced 5.1 music videos.
Entertained yes, but even with the added viual cues,there is no comparison.
Being there ,live at the concert can be reproduced,but it's just that, a reproduction.

This is so elemental, I can't understand why people still make claims of the musicians, suddenly appearing in the room.

Yeah, a 20 piece band, and all instruments fit into a bedromm sized listening room.

It's like saying photographs of people and the people themselves in the flesh, were one and the same,indistinguishable.

Live music is an experience involving all the senses.
Listening to reproduced music involves one maybe two at best.

So how can reproduced music ever be called accurate?
How can any medium be called more accurate, when accuracy can't be achieved?

But, enjoyment can be measured.

It can be measured at the concert and in the home, and sometimes the intimacy of a home music session can be more enjoyable than a room full of obnoxious loud distractions.

To me, it makes more sense to search for the music,and the reproducing gear that ups the enjoyment factor,and not try to strive for something that's unobtainable, such as accuracy.

Besides how will you know it if you hear it?
And to what can you measure the degree of accuracy?
The sound of a live musical event?

Nope, sorry, that only happened once, and it's gone and it's just someone's interpretation of that event and it's now a shadow of it's original state.It's been altered, and distorted and shaped to fit someone's idea of what the sound should sound like, and that can not be the same as your idea.

So close your eyes as tight as you can and use your imagination, because in the end that's the best you can do.

Over the years I've come across quite a few audiophiles or psuedophiles, who seem to be on a mission to either prove that their gear and ideas are the best, everything else is either bunk, snake oil or doesn't hold up to conventional wisdoms.

These folks are pretty much against everything that claims to make an improvement.

How can it? Show me the proof!

Yet, inspite of all their objections, they have no experience with the things they are arguing about.

The other observation is that a lot of the same folks have limited experience.

Limited experience, for instance with amplifier designs.

If they use a solid state amp, then all tube amps are flawed.If it's a tube amp, then solid stae is flawed.Add in whatever stereotypes you want to describe the deficiencies of each.

And yet they never seem to get it, that matching the right amp to the speaker and actually listening to the combination is what has to be done before you can make any claims one way or the other.

This applies to the whole accuracy debate,most everyone has an opinion about what accuracy means to them, but there is no clear way to measure what we are hearing.
And no two poeople will hear the same things from the same systems.So is the solid state amp more accurate than the tube amp?Even if they both measure the same?
How come some folks prefer the sonics of one over the other.
If both measure the same can one be better than the other in some unmeasurable way?

Ah, yes, I believe that is the case with all things audio.

Over the years and with experience to different systems and approaches to listening to music(stats, cones, tubes,solid state, SET, class D)you start to understand that there are merits to every approach, that none are perfect, yet any can be enjoyed.

What sets one audiophile apart from another is not golden ears, it is experience, and with that experience comes wisdom .The kind of wisdom that would never say system A is better than system B or is more accurate,. All that can be said at the end of the day is that they were different.It's also the wisdom that was acquired hands on, not read from a white paper and either agreeing to what has been written or disagreeing if something seem outside your frame of reference.
And forgive me for being so long winded,but if the mind is kept closed, and one only limits themselves to limited exposure of "safe" components, then there is a whole world out there filled with people who would beg to differ with you.

So who is right and who is wrong? Digital vs vinyl, tubes vs solid state.

No one will ever win the "argument" that this audio hobby has turned into.

May I offer a little more insight that over the years has led me to where I am at today in this hobby.

I mentioned the great argument, or the great debate,divide that has developed over the years.

Audiophiles all seem to be on one side of the fence or the other.
It wasn't always that way, at least not when I started.

So,when I say that everything is flawed,what do I think you should do?
Throw in the towel and give up?

Some folks do.They sell all the nice audio toys and retreat in defeat to a simple integrated amp system or a vintage pawn shop set up and sing the praises that the Holy Grail was there afterall back in 1970.They've "gotten off the merrygoround" of endless component swapping and trying to find the absolute sound and damned proud of it.They are no longer "audiofools" they tell us, we, who must still be audiofools.

They finally found out that all gear is flawed,and what they decided to do about it was mostly out of anger and contempt because nothing that they had bought at any price made them happy.
So what's left for them to do but lash out at the evil High End and call it all snake oil?

Well they could have done what myself and others have done when we came to the conclusion that irregardless of how well that amp or speakers meet spec, and how well reviewed they were, or how high they scored on the must have scale,something was always missing no matter how much you paid for it.
The gear's not perfect afterall.

Yet the real audio junkies(the folks who are the most educated in specsmanship and flaunt their knowledge of why things can or just can't be)maintain that a perfectly measured amp or component is well, perfect, and that if they just happen to own one, well that's all you need to do to arrive at audio Nirvana is to follow their lead and buy what they have been listening to.Accept their stamp of approval or fall prey to the snake oil salesman.

I like how they care about what you spend your money on.

Their ears have become immune to the flaws and deficiencies of thier system partly because they just haven't heard that many other good systems, and partly because they are so wrapped up in the measurements that listening for flaws just isn't in the equation.Flaws? How can there be any? My system measures perfectly.I have the specs and papers to prove it.

And then there are some folks like myself who have lived with a great deal of components over the years.Tried more than one amplifier technology, owned different typees of gear, and who can listen to vinyl and digital replay and find some good in both.

What some of us have done is to also get off the merrygoround, but where we differ is that we don't exchange one set of flawed components for another and then try to convince ourselves and the world that "my flaws" are the best there ever was or will be things have never improved, only gotten worse.

No we post on audio threads that adding a dedicated line improved the sound of what we had.That a fuse, power cord upgrade made as big or bigger improvement than interconnects or speaker wires.We treat the room, which is now starting to gain approval,in other words we accept the system that we have at the moment, knowing that it is flawed and not perfect(even if it is a perfectly measured kit)and try to make improvemnts to what we have.

This is to me the more logical next step in the game and makes more sense to me than chuking out good gear every six months looking for the next "fix" as a mentor of mine from years ago so apptly called most of his customers "audio junkies".

But ,try and post that something that can make something already perfect more "perfect" and you set off the next flame war.

You'll see every reason why(mostly quotes from years ago) such tweaks are nothing but snake oil.
Yet the posters supporting this side of the debate seldom if ever have even seen never mind tried the device in question.For most it's the first they've ever heard of such a thing, but "my years of study in electronics tells me it just can't be so" is usually the trump card.

Or so they would like the nebies to think.

This was as still is a great hobby.
It's filled with great surprises and you can improve your sound and in so doing improve the listening experience.

My advice is to try some of the things others talk about and decide for yourself if something so small and insignificant as a fuse or demagnetizing an lp or cd really works.
All you have to do is to try it.
You only have to buy it if it works for you.
And forget about "you can't trust your ears"from the debunkers,because they are the only two things you can and should trust in this hobby.

And when you do, you'll understand that topics like "which is more accurate"really are just a starting point for everything that polarizes this hobby.

Better to think about how can I make vinyl or digital more accurate in my system.

To me that makes more sense.

My first listening experiences were as a two year old listening to the 78 rpm vinyl that my parents played on a console tv set in the early 1950's.

Years later when I stsrted to learn how to play, i used the same system ,but the records were 45's and 33 lps.

Maybe it was because the amplification was tubes and the sound of vinyl that left a lasting impression on me to this day.Maybe just nostalgia,but I was very happy with that system, but it was the only one I had experience with.

Yes I can appreciate the music for the music's sake on any cheap system.A goodsong is a good song, you enjoy it.

But the big difference, the time when you have an epiphany, is when you hear that good music played back on a system that just does it better.

This was my experience, and after hearing new stuff on a favourite lp that I never heard before, I set out in this hobby.

The main purpose was to get all the music I was paying for.
In other words I wanted 100% of the musical content from the lp,not the 35% I was mostly getting with inferior gear.

Skip ahead several decades and finding some other fellows in this hobby and discovering different tastes in music, different system configurations and upping my knowledge of music reproducing systems.And changing my preferces in music and the gear that reproduced it.
It was great that I had knowledgeable friends in audio who were will to spend the time demonstrating what to hear and what to listen for so that I too could make buying decisions that would move me forwards and not back or sideways.Some dealers actually cared that you spent your money on something that was better just not different.
Some were quite opinionated and aliented a few customers,but like one audio dealer friend said, he wasn't into the hobby just to move boxes.If he was he would have sold more than just 2 channel audio.
And this was back in the mid 90's, well before the fashion of today.
I learned a lot about this hobby from my weekly visits to his salon.He was also an expert at getting great sound at audio shows and was a system set up expert.

One particular audio friend has a cost no object system,I could drop names, but let's leave it that just the cost of the Scarlatti digital set up is an idication of what lies thereafter.In all fairness I should mention the turntable is SME 30/12, SME5, Clearaudio goldfinger cart.We both prefer the vinyl rig, but which is more accurate?Who cares, both are amazing.

Now this is a system that only a few of the top audio salons can assemble.

This was the system that led me to what sonic improvements to already great components can be made when you start to address the power going to your electronics.

Great sounding gear was made to sound even better when power issues were addressed.
Power issues that some folks with mid level gear feel aren't necessary because their gear is perfect and doesn't need anything but a stock power cord into the wall.

But as much as the electronics disappear and leave just the music behind in this system,it still doesn't fool me into making statements like the "musicians were in the room with me".But it is fantastic at retrieving in both formats what is recorded in the black or silver discs.

And I've heard a lot of other very good music reproducing system of all stripes that also are great at reproducing the music but that can't duplicate the actual live experience.

Again I stress that most decent system can reproduce but not duplicate a live musical event,and you don't need golden ears, you don't have to be a mucician, or concert goer to tell the differences.

And you don't need to be any of the above to appreciate a decent hifi set up either.Even newbies can distinguish good sound from bad.
It is then left to you to decide whether it is worth the investment to move from where you are to the next level.

You may be quite content with earbuds and MP3, some of us are not, but no one can say any of us have the ultimate system giving us the ultimate pleasure of recreating the live event.

We can assemble hifi systems that are the eqivalent of the best High Def televisions of the day, or we can still be enjoying last centuries cathode tube tvs.

We will both laugh at the same jokes,still get the gist of what's going on, but the latest tv's will allow us to view the entertainment with more detail retrieval than ever before.

People seem to embrace the extra detail when presented in a visual manner, and yet some reject the extra detail when it comes to sonics.

I read a lot about folks who are put off when the details get in the way of music, making it sterile, fatiguing etc,and prefer more rolled off forgiving romantic types of sounds.

Yet I'll bet they wouldn't trade in their HD tv's and go back to what their parents owned in the 60s.

The newer tvs, and electronic of today have progressed,I would say everything is more accurate, more detailed,than what came before.

So why the backlash? If you are looking for accuracy it's out there in today's gear.If you want nostalgia and romance it can be found new and used.

But I will bet the farm that just as impossible as it is for the best of todays tv technology to duplicate what you see on the screen and bring it to life in your living room, neither can or will a hifi system duplicate and bring the musicians in full scale into your living room.

And yet we can be entertained with things just as they are.

Acuracy in anything can only be gauged against two things, one that is superior to what we have experienced and one that is inferior to what we have knowledge of.

In other words, based on our personal experience,we only know what's worse or better than what we have knowledge of.

Until you hear a system that does everything better than your own system you will think that what you have assembled is pretty accurate and leave it as it is.

When you do hear a superior system, if you can't buy the goods, then find ways to make what you have sound better than it did and narrow the gap, and as the fellow said"keep tweaking till you get it right"

I like your part about tweaking the cartridge and about how subtle changes in tightening the mounting bolts affects the sound.

That implies to me how much you can veer one way or the other from accuracy with just a few twists of the wrist.
How will you know you when have it perfect?

You won't.

You weren't there to hear the sound of Bob's harmonica to know what it sounded like before the recording started.

Then again let's talk about the harmonica's you both own.
Even if they are the identical brand, and age of manufacture, they won't have been played the same so the rate of reed and metal fatigue will differ.You will both blow it differently.
Also is your living room where you listen to music identical to the recording studio?

Not likely, so your room will introduce colourations different from the recording studio.

How can you make statements like you make and say that your system makes Bob Dylan's harmonica sound just as real as when you play your harmonica?

I'll bet even if you used the same recording gear as Dylan used the two would sound different.

And this is the gist of the debate.

On a superior system YOU should be able to hear the differences.
To not hear the differences means the system isn't capable of the levle of resolution and realism need to distinguish between so many disparities.

This isn't meant to say your system sucks,it's just that this is the misguided thinking of most audiophiles.Because they like their systems and it sounds to them like the real thing,never having heard the real thing in real time in a real space identical to their own.

It's the concept some of us are trying to convey in this thread that some folks find hard to grasp or just don't want to believe.

Yes we would all like to think that we have assembled the most realistic system, and pat ourselves on the back and say "we're here, it's finished", alas, some of us know we are still very far away, and I don't think I'll live to see or hear the day when music or video is really duplicated in the confines of my personal space.

To put things into perspective,years ago I was quite pleased with my tv, and my stereo.All class A rated, top shelf.
I thought you couldn't get any better than this.
If everyone felt the same way as I did, then we would still be using all the same technology and systems today,
(some folks do).

Time passes and things did get much better.

Two things to clarify.

New strings or a new harp are not mandatory when recording.
Certain things develope a "sound" when they've been played awhile(like components-that's another days argument).

But it's an individual thing,does Clapton buy a brand new fresh from the factory guitar everytime he records?
Does a jazz bassist buy new strings everytime he records?
Not if he is looking for that "mellow" or familiar tone sound.

I play in a band with a blues harp player.He has several harps, and plays in several scales, and he has several blowing techniques.
Not once have I ever thought that his harp(even a cheap Marine band) sounded anything remotely like Dylans.

We can recognize a harmonica for what it is, and we can recognize the sound and differentiate one instrument from another,,most of our systems are quite good at this.

But there are so many subtleties involved in reproducing music that are missing when we sit down to listen.

My point is that we shouldn't be dillusional and think that we have arrived at the greatest level of resolution.
Because if we did arrive there then all the differences between your playing of a harmonica and Dylan,would be more than obvious, no matter where either of you fall on a scale of great harp players.

Playing exactly the same notes in the same fashion and even thru the same tape recorder in the same studio,you should still be different, and a great sound system should be able to reveal the difference.If you both sound the same, then something is wrong in the chain.

This is one of the problems I have with a recording system that eventhough it sounds great, it substitutes bits of the music with repeated bits of what it thinks is good enough to fill in the spaces.
Upsampling is great, I've heard some ripped cds that sound better than the original cd did.The system was reveling enough to show the difference.

Yet digital recording puts a ceiling on the high frequencies and in so doing a great deal of musical information is MIA.

Analog rolls off the lower freqencies so that bass notes won't jolt the tone arm off the record,and it too relies on RIAA standards.

Neither system is without it's flaws,all systems are flawed, and nothing today sounds like the real thing.

There is too much missing information and a lot of important musical overtones and harmonics ,present in real life, are not in any recording that was designed to limit what it is recording.

Here's about the simplest example I can give.

Have someone stand in front of you when you blow your harmonica(Or horn or any live instrument)and ask them if they feel the air striking their face.The sonic impact, the pressure, the visceral whole body experience.

Then play a similar recording of Dylan and ask them if they physically feel any of the above.

The differences between live and recorded are still vast.
However improvemnts have made the listening to reproduced music much more enjoyable that it used to be, and some exotic systems can fool some folks into thinking that the musicians were right in the room.If they only ivolve a few of their senses. As stated the impact of a symphony at full blast, exactly recreated in a listening room isn't going to happen is it?
Then why say that it did?

Especially thru small mini monitors.

Well I would partly agree that the listener felt a sense of the recorded venue and a sense of the dynamics of the event, but it is so far removed from the event as to render such statements as misleading at the least, and more as wishful thinking at best.
The musicians ,or I should say, a part of them was in the room.
The parts that todays technology is limited to reproducing.

Vertigo, I used the harmonica only because that seems to be what you are most familiar with.

I also said that you could substitute a trumpet for example.

This makes more sense,have someone blow a trumpet in your room, full tilt.

Did you cover your ears?
I am saying you would, the sound of the trumpet all on it's lonesome will blow you out of the room.

Now play any trumpet recordings you have, Miles, Mangione, Terry,does the recording overload the room?

Not like the sound of the real thing is it?
You can get loud and distorted and use a couple thousand watts, you can get the volume levels loud enough, but,does it sound anything like the real thing?

I know it won't, just like I know that the sound of the harp player in my band can alter the sound of his Marine band harp just by using different types of microphones, and if he runs it thru the PA or thru amp and then into the PA, like everything ,the more you mess with something the less "real" it is, and the further away from what the real thing is.He can make his Marine band sound completely different.It's just a marine band,like yours and Dylans, but you would not recognize it as such.

Recordings are not real.
Dylan's harp doesn't sound like your marine band.
Neither does John Mayals( I saw him live in concert last nite).

It has been altered in the recording process ,so it sounds the way the engineer wants it to sound, and how your equipment and room want it to sound.Dylans harp was mastered and mixed probably on big old studio JBL, or Altecs or whatever the engineer had.
You would have to have the exact same playback chain as the engineer to even have any clue of the sound of Dylan's harp at the time of the recording.
Which is saying that the sound of his recorded harp was as real as the best recording gear of the day could achieve and how the engineer felt it should sound,when listened to thru his refernce monitors.
So how can you say that your harp sounds exactly the same as Dylan's?
Nothing is the same anywhere in the chain.

You are only hearing a partial reproduction of the real sound.Sorry there is no absolute sound.
At least not in the context of listening to recordings.

A four inch cone can only move so much air , yet a Roger's LS3/5a can sound pretty good even when asked to play back a large symphony.
But the scale is ,obviously, nothing like the real thing.
Yet many people are quite pleased with the reproduced sound that the Rogers is capable of even on this demanding music.

Speakers compress the information, the impact, but they do enough things right to please us even with all their limitations.
The speakers have been and continue to be the weakest link, the biggest road block to recreating the real live performance in the room.

Strings--,ok, go find a jazz bassist, who plays an upright and ask him if he changes his strings when he does any recordings.

Strings especially bass strings all loose some of their life at different stages.They don't all go flat or dead the same.New bass strings usually are a bit on the brite and jangly side, but some electric players like this type of Guitar type snap and clarity.

So when the strings break in and they are all playing together , one not any brighter or less brite than the other, then things are fine, no need to change for a recording.Changing strings for a recording is a personal thing.Some would, some wouldn't.

I've seen some groups where the electric guitar player has several different guitars ,each voiced for a specific tone he is trying to get.
The very adept guitarist, Rocky from Mayall's band used one Gibson Les Paul, and got all the tone anyone would ever desire,using it's tone controls, foot pedals and his own technique to great effect.

Put Rocky or Clapton in your listening room and have them play some riffs that have also been recorded, and it should be obvious that the difference is nite and day.

Or put Jay Davenport in your room and let him pound out a beat,there again the difference between a real set of drums and the reproduced sound of the drums would be huge.

The point of all this is that the more complex the music the harder it is to accurately reproduce.Quite simple, but the same can be said for simple things like harmonicas and even acoustic guitar.

The differences are there none the less,a microphone, electronic recording gear and playback gear can only reproduce a fraction of the live sound.

There is a lot missing,stuff that can't be measured, and it's not just volume.

With enough watts and large speakers I'll bet I could flap your trousers with a recording of Bob's harmonica.
But is that real?

One last kick at the can.

I'll bring out old Humpty Dumpty and try to use him to better convey my thoughts about this topic.

Well after he gave his best rendition of Blowin in the Wind, he toppled off the wall and fell into a bunch of pieces.

The techies of the day patched him back up as best they could,and to most folks, yes he looks as good as new.You recognize him as Humpty Dumpty.
Until you take a closer look and see that, he is no longer a whole entity, but is now a patchwork of his former self.

Now I would like to address another issue, and bring up quality control.

Are todays Marine Band harmonics the same, better or worse than the one Mr Zimmerman was using back in the day?
A lot of folks would say that most modern gear isn't.
Pre CBS has a lot of cache when it comes to guitars and amps.
Also,how close to spec does one Marine band measure to the next?
I'll bet that no two are alike,and that the way that they are played and how often will also affect the sound, including the timbre.So no two harps will sound the same even if they did sound the same when manufactured.Different blowing habits and extended use will alter the sound or timbre if you must.
I've known guys who can blow the reeds out of their harps.
And some prefer the build of spittle sound to one's that are cleaned.

Each muscian knows the sound he is going after,that some musicians don't bother with highend audio,is because they know it just doesn't sound as real as when they are playing.Which is a shame.

I remember seeing Buddy Rich abruptly halt a performance of Norwegian Wood because he didn't like the sound of a particular cymbal, and threw it to the ground and stomped on it.
This was down the road from the Zildgian plant so I think there was just a bit of showmanship antics involved.
Yet a visit to the same plant by my drummer back then(quite the treat and not open to everyone)disclosed the fact that there are different quality levels of Zildgian cymbals and that the ones that end up at your local music store are not the cream of the crop,which is not to say they are no good, they just are not the same quality as the ones that the "name" A list players have at their disposal.

The good players fortunate enough to buy direct and cherry pick their cymbals can hear the difference.
Most in a live audience would just be able to distinguish that yes indeed he hit the crash and it sounds different than the ride.
At home on their rigs ,maybe they might be able to tell the difference,but could they tell the difference between an A cymbal and one bought at a store that is not grade A?

I seriously doubt they could even at a live event.
They would recognize the timbre of the cymbal but not be able to differentaite much beyond that.

Even less chance of distinguishing a quality cymbal from a cheap one thru most hifi systems, and I would go further and have to say,all systems.

Once Humpty has been broken up, no amount of repair can ever re-create the original.

I've been in recording studios and made a few recordings with local bands,and some local airplay on a PBS blues station.

I have a decent stereo, in fact I've had several cutting edge systems since the mid 80's,and I have a friend with a system that is not just as expensive as a couple of new homes, but also sounds very realitsic,but the owner ,an avid concert goer, says that even this is nothing close to what he hears in a live event.But he hasn't given up on his quest to further improve his sound.But he isn't fooled.
I stopped trying to keep up with him.
The advancements he's made are too expensive for me to indulge in, so I'll leave it up to him fight the good fight.

I've listened to this system evolve over the years, and even his full blown Scarlatti digital set up and his SME 30/12 fails to make a recording of a Marine Band harmonica become anything more real than what it is, a recording of a harmonica.

Any recording of a harmonica and the system playing it back adds and subtracts so much information from the original, that,the better the system the more you can distinguish, live from reproduced. Or so you should.

This is perhaps what you find so troubling, that the closer you get to reality, the more you can hear that the reality you are hearing is indeed a reproduction.

For example the less resolution a photo has of the real painting of Mona Lisa the more the two will resemble each other and be harder to tell what is real and what is the reproduction.

As it is in audio, the more resolution of the system, the more you hear into the recording, the venue and all the other things that make it so much different than what you would hear in your own home , and you can use any instrument you may have at your disposal.

I've heard some high res downloads at my well healed friend's(yes he's big into this now)and the results are very good on some material.

I could easily hear that Neil Young was playing a harmonica on the Massey hall cuts,just like I could tell that Perry Mason was played by Raymond Burr back in the 50's. on my parent's first TV.
The fact that I could tell it was a harmonica and not a trumpet would be quite apparant on any system.
Now was it a Marine band? Perhaps.
I know it wasn't a Lee Oscar, they weren't available of course.

But was that harmonica right there in the room with me?Did it sound just the same as it would if my friend played one of his harmonicas?
No it sounded like the harmonica that Neil Young played that night in Massey hall as recorded by his tape deck and played back thru a hifi system.
Even with hundreds of thousands of dollars in a well set up room with all the bells and whistles of exotic power cords and wires and conditioning, it wasn't real, and neither of us were buying that it was.But we enjoyed it, even more as we discovered hidden details that made it perfecrtly clear that this was a recording.

Now here's a few examples of how people were fooled in the past.
The old live vs recording contests done back in the 1950s.
AR speakers I believe ,they had a great many people convinced that what was actually recorded music was real live performers.The gear was pretty primitive compared to todays reproducers as far as accuracy goes.
Also remember the adds for cassette tape from TDK, the sound was so real, it would blow you right out of the chair.
Again, no where near the resolution of todays gear, and yet the folks were fooled, or so the ads would lead us to believe.
Just a couple of examples of how low resolution can fool us into believing it's the real thing.
I am saying that high res systems do the opposite.
They expose the details that distinguish between a live musical event and a recorded one, and that makes it easier to tell the differences.

Now some folks prefer to be fooled.
Some folks find it more pleasing to the ear to listen to systems that are not revealing,they want the music to have soul,they want it warm and romantic,they find systems that reveal the music warts and all to be too sterile and find it fatiguing.
In other words they prefer to listen to music without all the added information and find systems to match their preference.
These people mostly prefer vintage gear, because it is not as resolving of all the inner detail that the better new gear is capable of.

No one is or should be tied down to either preference.
One is true to the source, one is not.One is true to the heart, the other true to the ear.
You choose what speaks to you

Now back to my listening session with the high end goodies.
You could hear the faint echo of the hall, the sound of the harmonic in it, the sound of the faint tape hiss on his stage tape recorder.
All that was there in the hall to hear was there in his system, and yet it still wasn't real.
It wasn't as imediate as the sound of a harp played back in his living room.There were differences, and many of them.There were a lot of clues that revealed this is a recording, it's not real.
The same as there are a lot of clues when you listen to an unrecorded instrument,or the lack of such clues would be a better way to put it.A lack of the effects of the recording process that are absent live which are there when recorded and played back on a hifi rig.
A resolving system doesn't blur the lines between live and real,it only puts them into sharper contrast.

However, what we heard was the sound of his harmonica of whatever make, being reproduced by a microphone, perhaps Shure 57 or 58, and all the cabling into the tape recorder.I was perhaps more there at the venue than he was there at my friends.
Which was pretty good considering the time of the recording and how it was recorded
So let's forget about all the electronic circuits adding and subtracting from the "real" sound of a harmonica,let's focus on what the engineer and old Neil himself felt about the sound of those raw tapes.
Should we add some more reverb and make the sound of the venue more pronounced, should we take some away,and make his harp sound larger that it is in real life?

Probably added a little of this, take away a little of that, and there you have it, their take on what the Marine Band harmonica as played by Neil Young should sound like.

So we really don't have a pure sound of what that harp sounds like do we.It's sound has been altered , the whole recording process alters it, the hall altered it, and my stereo, my friend's stereo, and even your stereo is altering and distorting it even more from reality.

So I am not doubting that to you thru your system,you can hear no difference between a recording of a Marine Band harp and your own live playing of it.
You 've stated that you do, in fine fashion I should add.

All I am saying is that I can't say the same about any of the systems that I am familiar with or have ever been familiar with.

I have never in my experience, ever been fooled by a recording thinking that it was a real event.
Perhaps it's knowing what goes on behind the scenes that skews my perception, but I also trust my ears, and so far, live is live and reproduced is reproduced.I can hear the studio trickery, and gimmicks that aren't there in real life.

And the better resolving the system,the easier it is for me to tell the difference between live and recorded.

This is the paradox.The more we seek reality and higher resolution, the less we are fooled into believing that what we hear is real.
It's the dirty little secret some folks don't want you to know.

In musical instruments, no two are exactly the same.The timbre/tone were different from day of manufacture,let's look at guitars.

I've known a few guitar players who took great pains to find the "perfect" strat, yet to most they would all sound the same ,substitute tone or timbre, take your pick.
Vintage strat,Mexican vintage, far east,new USA manufactured, all sound differnt even before anyone starts to put their sonic signature to it, or start to play around with tone.

In each case some were warmer sounding , some thin, and a lot in between.Depends on the wood, the windings of the pickups the way they were set up,so many variables that make each Fender strat different from the next, never mind how they will sound when played by Hendrix, Clapton or Richard Thompson.
Each artist's style will then impose another colouration, and then in a recording session, so will the effects and electronics used to record the instruments alter those sounds even more.

I just finished reading Harley's last post in TAS, he mentions some of the flaws of modern recording process that I have eluded to before in this post and in others.

These flaws are more evident in todays recording than in the past.The better gear will accentuate these flaws as I said,lesser gear will make them more platable for the masses.

I hate to play the age card, but I grew up back in the mono record lp and tube/vinyl only period, and all my stage amps were orignally tubed.
The solid state bass amps had a lot more punch and volume, but lacked the roundness of the tube amps,now I settle for a Hybrid .Solid state amp, with tube pre section.

So for me,when I hear the way most recordings made today sound through a good hifi rig, I can hear the difference between it and the old purist recordings.

The tone of an old 50's Selmer sax,is much easier to discerne on the early recordings, as compared to some of the newer sax recordings which have been processed to make a sax sound like whatever the producer wants it to sound like.

So how can you compare anything recorded the modern way with any real instrument?
You have a better chance with older 'less'processed recordings, but you still have a lot of the sound of the real thing missing.

This is why the pursuit of accuracy can only be a pusuit to reproduce the accuracy of the recording.
And few if any of us will ever know when we have achieved the same accuracy as that of the master tape from the final mix listened thru the monitors in the studio plus the sound of the studio itself.

Sure we'll recognize the timbre of the trumpet,we can get that right in a recording and playback chain, but we've been able to do that for a long time and in fact,as Harley will support,we did it better in the past than in the here and now.

What I am saying is that when you assemble a system with the utmost care and believe me no stones were left unturned by my friend, and as far as synergy goes,synergy doesn't come by luck. He constantly improves his gear ( 40 Anniversay pre)as the gear improves he investigates how it will better his enjoyment and if it does only then is it added.
His system sounds the way it does because of the time effort and money that he spent putting it together, and it's all been about the music.

But like I keep saying, it's a double edged sword,well recorded music sounds great, poor recordings sound just what they are.
The system doesn't sugar coat the truth, it tells it like it is.

Somepeople may not like a system like that.

I do.
I don't mind listening to poorly recorded music if I like the music I can get over the way that it was recorded,but I regret that most of my favourite music has been poorly recorded,especially the music of the last couple of decades.But things do improve and some newer vinyl re-issues are worth the added cost if they stay true to the orignal and aren't over processed.

Getting back to tone and timbre,most systems even entry level do a great job at preserving both pretty much the way they were recorded, otherwise we wouldn't be able to tell if it's clarinet solo or trumpet solo.

How musicians and recording engineers can alter the tone so much kind of makes timbre seem irrelevant as far as I am concerned.
The timbre of the instrument as stated is fixed, the tones are not.They are as varied as the imagination of the artist and the producer wants them to be.And they are slaves to the recording and playback chain.

We listen to recordings, and whether they are digital or analog they are not accurate to the sound of a live unamplified, unrecorded instrument.

The deeper you get in resolution, the more you can recognize real from recorded, which doesn't takeaway any of the fun of listening to music.At least not for me.

If a system has the resoultion to let you hear the clues and studio artifacts, then you are that much closer to recreating the way the music was recorded at the time and in that space.
You are getting a better reproduction of the reproduction, warts and all.
That it is an altered form, different from how an instrument sounds in the "wild" as it were,doesn't matter to me.I accept it for what it is,and as such I know it's not the way the instrument would sound if it was played in front of me and I don't care that it doesn't.

Like I said it's a paradox,we were all brainwashed into thinking it should sound like the real thing in real time and space, when in reality, if it sounds like that in your system, it can't be real.Or in my perspective, it's not a real reproduction of the way that instrument sounded live before the air from the instrument(sax)struck the microphone diaphram and started down the road of distortions and alterations, far from the way it sounds in real life.

Again I have to state systems that do this are my preference, and this isn't the type of system for folks who just want to enjoy the music and relax.
It's mostly for the folks who take great pains experimenting with cables and power and room interaction, and it's not about just throwing a wad of cash up into the air and hoping for the best.

It's also something that evolves over the years, usually when one gains experience with a variety of components and interaction with systems better than their own, and being honest with themselves and admitting that" my system may not be the best there ever was or will be."

Can my friends system be bettered?
I am certain that it could, as certain as I know my system can be bettered,and so can everyone's.

But we all have to stop someplace,I can't speak for my friend,but I am almost done and I am indebted to him for shedding light on areas that needed to be addressed which I never considered as relevant.

Having learned from his experience,my system improved beyond what it was and now shares the same basic concepts as his.Granted to a lesser degree.

And as such,they are not accurate to the original instrument, and on a revealing system the differences are there

Vertigo I am glad you have picked up on some of my thoughts, and are beginning to understand what I must be poor at explaining.

I did say that the less resolving, mid fi systems and most vintage gear, have a way of sounding more "musical" to the folks who like to use that term.

I try not to use that term,it means something different to everyone with a system.

Read some of the non professional takes on most high end gear and you will see that a lot of folks don't like the sound of high resolving gear no matter how much synergy there is.Too much detail, fatiguing, non musical, are some descriptors that I've read.
Give them an old 12 inch driver in an untuned particle board box and Sansui receiver and they have found their musical nirvana.
And good for them if that's what makes them happy.
But sorry that's not my idea of a good time.
If it doesn't sound "musical" or nice to their ears, then it's not very good.
Musical to them and not musical to me,and vice versa.

We both know what we like, and settle with the sound that we like.

My preference is to enjoy at 100% the recordings that are well recorded and sound that way thru my system.
I am perfectly content with the fact that this may only account for 40% of my recorded collection.
I would rather be content enjoying the differences than never being able to know that there are any.
Or in other words, I would rather enjoy a small percentage of my collection to the max than to enjoy my whole collection at a lesser degree.

In other words again, I don't want a system that drags the good recordings down to the level of the poor ones.

There's no pleasure in that for me.

I will still enjoy the musicianship and the music on all the recordings, just not the "sound" of those recordings.

And this is why I can't enjoy systems that are low in resolution .To me they make everything sound the same,and I know that's not how it is in the real world.

If the system makes some recordings less pleasurable because for the first time the music is being heard thru a system that isn't rolled off in the treble or seriously compromised in high frequency retrieval,then it's not the fault of the gear.

The gear is only telling it like it is.
So what is more realistic?
A system capable of distinguishing between recordings and studios or a system that homogenizes everything with no distinction between well recorded music and poorly recorded music?

Again, check out Harley's take on the sound of the early jazz recordings or even some of Chet Atkins early mono lps and tell me they don't sound more "real"(for want of a better term)than most everything recorded in the last few years,using analog or digital.

Until a person hears how uncluttered and unprocessed this music is,they don't have a clue about what I or Harley is talking about.

I once had a debate on this forum with someone who flat out told me I didn't know what I was talking about, because I said that early 50's and 60's jazz lps sounded more "real" than most of todays recordings did.
He said we have progressed and a lot of advancements have been made.
I stated, that the old engineers were masters at capturing the sound of the instruments in the room they were played in more accurately because they didn't rely on audio processing and gimmicks and "fixing it in the mix" or even post production work on pro tools.

So when I say that my friend's system reveals these differences even more than mine does,it doesn't mean that the music is any less enjoyable thru his system.
In fact I enjoy it more.Because it gives me a clearer picture about what is going on behind the scenes.

It only demonstarates how many differences there are in recordings, how much the quality varies from studio to studio, label to label and in the amount of processing some recordings get.
It's very easy to distinguish between purist recordings and the ones that aren't.

In other words, his system and most of the better system pull this off, but it's not the perfect cup of tea for the folks who want to have a nice warm and fuzzy relationship with their music and hifi system.

So like I"ve mentioned, there are two ways at the least for folks to persue this hobby.

It's often mentioned that folks who invest large sums of money in the gear are just gear heads.
Partly true, guilty as charged.

But it's all for a good cause.The ultimate enjoyment of recorded music.Which for me is the enjoyment of hearing the trail of reverb at the end of a Dylan harmonica recording that just isn't there in my room or any place else, outside of that studio.

When you are a musician, you can give up and just play the music and forget about the quality, because you know it's not real.
Or you can strive to build a system that at least gets you close enough to "real" to know it when it ain't.

Don't give up Vertigo,and please don't regress.

It's is a bit of a shock when you hear a really superb system and discovering how great all the music sounds,but that the system is revealing all the flaws as well.

But this is the direction that I want to travel further towards, and as I've said ,doing things about the power to my gear and treating the room, really has gotten me closer.

Not closer to reality, but closer to the reality of the recording and playback process which if you really think about it is reality.

It's all an illusion, but the better the illusion, the more I enjoy the music.

Somefolks don't enjoy this type of realism, and rather enjoy systems that cover up some of the nasties of the recording chain.

To me if it sounds like a bad recording , then that is what it is,I don't want it to mask the impefections,because if a system is good at that it is also masking great recordings.

It's like grading all the smart kids and the less smart ones, lumping them altogether and giving the class one big C .

If I have some grade A recordings I don't want them reproduced at a C level.

Sure everything sounds alright, just like all the kids get a pass, but is that the way we want things to be?

It's just breeding mediocrity, and sorry for the preaching, but this seems to be where society is at.

But why settle for it if you don't have to.

Assembling a truthful system isn't hard or even that expensive to do, if you pay attention to a few things that some folks describe as snake oil.

Well snake oil to them is nirvana to me, if it gets me a system that is revealing of everything there is about a piece of recorded music.

I'll take my music, warts and all, over music that's rendered all sweet and gooey.

But that's they way I like it, it's not the way you or anyone else has to like it.

And from all that I've been reading on forums and in reviews, it seems the goo is the more popular.

I guess I am a coffee black type and the others are triple triple lovers.

In the end we are still listening to the music and that's what matters,no matter what it's played back thru.

If I might add a couple of more views.

The joy of discovery is what moves me.

I would presume it to be akin to the archeologist,who after painstakingly rubbing off thousands of years of dirt and debris,discoveries a treasure that was hidden behind all that muck.

Well I like to discover all there is to be discovered in a recording, even if the object of my attention isn't perfect afterall,I can live with that if the object or the music is something I enjoy.
Or in other words, I don't need two arms to fully apreciate what a work of art the staue of Venus is.
That should pretty much sum it up about accepting the warts and all scenario.
Because I am also a musician and realized years ago that I will never achieve the ultimate replica of the live event in my room(I have a constant working reality of how live music sounds)I quit striving for that elusive daydream.

Perhaps this hasn't been presented by me clearly enough.
Perfection for me is the warts and all presentation, and the closer to that the better I feel my system has improved.

If I can't tell the difference between my great recordings and the lesser ones, then my system isn't at the level that it should be.But for others this is just fine, if it lets them enjoy the music.

But who said I am not enjoying the music?
The music is just as enjoyable,poorly recorded or not.
The music doesn't change, just the quality of it's reproduction.

A Jeff Beck solo still knocks me out, even if the recording isn't a high end type of recording.
Talent and musicianship can't be destroyed by a flawed recording process.
When it's there it is there.

I would prefer a poor recording of Jeff Beck than a superior recording of someone several steps below his level of ability.
What good is a great recording if you never want to listen to it because of mediocre playing or talent?

But what is really great is when you have a super musician like Jeff Beck who has been recorded with the utmost care to preserve as much fidelity as possible.
Why would I want to settle for a system that is unable to make the distinction between the two?

If everything sounds great, then what really sounds great has lost it's meaning and importance.
Quality(as it has for the most part in modern recordings)becomes less and less important when you dumb it down and compress it for the sake of being louder than the next guy.
If it sounds good enough in MP3 on earbuds, then what else matters?

I hate to harken back to the old days(yes before I got into music or HiFi)the less they had to work with made for some spookily real recordings.

And when you listen to great systems that reveal even the tape hiss from the recording session,that is a flaw that tells me I am hearing it the way it was and as close to the event of the recording that there is.
IF I can hear the tape hiss, this isn't a flaw to my ears, it's a big bonus, because I know that little else from that recording session is hidden from me.

The decay and ring of the cymbals will shimmer away as they did when captured by the mic,and I will enjoy that right along with the tape hiss.

So for me there is no downside to having a highly resolving system.
It's what keeps me in the hobby , the quest for components and accessories that more finely hone the resolve of the system.

To go the opposite way and settle for less is the road to mediocrity.
Why go there if you aren't forced to?

Why settle for 3/4 of the music you've paid for just because it's easy on the ears in a compromised system?
What about the other 1/4 that is MIA?

Even if that missing 1/4 reveals that the recording isn't the best ever,for me it's just as important as the other 3/4.

Maybe more so.

Why not want to hear it all?

The way it really was,in all it's sonic splendor or inspite of it?

Why does reality, warts and all, have to take a back seat
in this hobby and why has the focus shifted to how listenable the sound is as opposed to how accurate it is?

None of the highly resolving systems that I have experienced ever gave me listener fatigue.

Just the opposite, they lead to extended listening sessions and the quest for more music.

Since you mentioned hospital lighting,the next time you go in for an operation, ask them to do the job by candle lite ,because it makes you feel more comfortable.

I would agree that most audio systems reveal certain aspects of the truth,so it can be said that the most revealing systems should be the most truthful?
I think they are.

Where you want to stop is your choice,as I stated, most people have only heard a fraction of the musical detail that is on the recordings thay have purchased.

And that's just not because they aren't chasing the latest class A components.

It's mostly because they have failed to optimize the system that they have that is the reason why they are being robbed of all of the music.They don't sweat the details, or go the extra mile to properly set up the system, and fail to optimize the power, the room and place the gear on proper stands.
I never felt a stand was anything but a stand until I got my Grand Prix audio rack.
Again, everything matters,you get back what you put in.

Hey I can enjoy music on modest system,because I enjoy the music.
Put that music on an even beytter system and I enjoy it even more.

My first system was a humble all in one TV, radio, record player built into a console purchased in the early 50's by my parents,mono only.

Then I was introduced to a friend's system of separates in the early 1970's and when I heard for the first time background vocals and instruments on my lps,things I never knew were there, I was hooked.

This is why I can't go back.
The old system did it's job of playing music ,it made me want to listen and I could learn the bass parts,but oh my, I was missing so much more.

The added information added to my enjoyment.

This is what intrigues me.

People have embraced High Def TV,and I doubt would ever want to go back to old black and white tv of 1970's quality, yet they long for that old sound of the hifi gear from that era.

So what's so evil about a high def audio system?
Why are the folks who have such systems named "gear heads" and those who don't are called " music lovers"?

Why is one group reviled and the other revered?

Aren't they listening to the same thing, music?

I think the reason for the outbursts of anger for the newer more resolving gear is a backlash at the cost of entry for such systems.

Or it's nostalgia, and that has nothing to do with the music per se, we can be nostalgic about anything at any time in history.Go listen to Archie Bunkers lament about the good old days.

The past will always be golden, the big firsts in our lives can never be duplicated.Remembered, but never duplicated.

70's music played back thru 70's gear may bring back golden memories and warm and fuzzy feelings, but they won't bring back the hair you've either lost or that's turned grey.

It's memories and memories are great and can be relived,but why relive them at the level you did way back then?

When I go back and play some of my music from my youth,I am amazed at how some of those recordings stack up to the best of todays recordings.
And that is from a musical point of view.

Most of the new music of today I find very derivative.
And that's not a bad thing.
Rock and roll is a captive of it's own making.There's only so much you can do within the confines of the style of the music.
And yet it has continued to flourish and never went away as they said it would in the 50's.

Listening to some of my early Chet Atkins lps in mono through the Steelhead reveal how really well recorded those simply recorded lps were.

The music is fresh and lifelike, even thought the style is dated,the muscianship and the sound of the lp is much better than when I used to listen to it back in the day on the old folk's system.

There's no going back for me.

Ever heard the term,"the devil is in the details"?

Or, "you ain't heard nothing yet"?

All music is sound,not all sound is music.

The novice musician can make sounds on his instrument of choice,it takes time and practise to make music.

It also takes time and patience and the practise of trial and error to bring out the hidden details in a piece of recorded music.

When someone purchases a pair of pants, would they be content if what they brought home only had one pant's leg?

And yet this is what so many music lovers,or the folks who aren't concerned about retrieving all the details,would have us believe.

They are perfectly content with the sound of their systems and don't feel the need to push the envelope.

I find the pursuit of details and lost nuggets of musical information to be very stimulating, and as such, a night of listening is a real adventure.

My guess is that the other half are more comfortable with a system that is less than resolving, and less revealing of inner detail.Or a one pant leg pair of pants system.

Well I know we all fly by the seat of our pants when we build our systems,but it seems that the folks who are content with one pant's leg are mostly unaware that the other pant's leg is missing.Perhaps, also unaware that there is a whole world out there enjoying pants with two pant's legs.

So while I seek to stimulate my senses, others are seeking to numb their senses.
A numbing down of society?

Or maybe they have never heard a system that can retrieve loads of inner detail that can also be very easy on the ears?

Someone has mentioned that audiophiles tune their systems and so that only certain types of music or components sound pleasing to their ears.

That's true.
That's why there are so many different companies and components to choose from.Aren't we lucky?

We get to decide.
No one is telling us what to choose.

When I was younger, all that mattered to me was how deep and loud I could make the bass go in my system.So I voiced my system with gear that gave me that.

I've moved on, and discovered that there's a lot of other things that are more important. And that great bass by and of itself is only one aspect of music.There's more to the equation.
Balance is a word that comes to mind, and a well balanced system is lacking nothing nor is there too much of anything.And that goes for detail.

How can you have too much detail?
You can't add anymore detail than was on the recording, but you sure can loose a lot of it.

Everything needs to be in it's place,just the way it's was intended to be at the recording session.
If the background vocals weren't integral to the music then why did they bother recording them ?
Why then,settle for a system that will keep them hidden?

It's all music,you paid for it, the producer charged you for it,but you don't care to listen to it?
It's too much information?

If it is then accuracy doesn't matter at all.
Give me meat and potatoes, or so it would seem.
Anything else and it's a waste of my chewing time.

The old bass heavy system of years gone by was lacking in resolution, but it rocked, even if I didn't know there were three guitars four background singers and several other assorted instruments buried in the muck.

When I revisit those old recordings from my youth and play them on my system today, I am amazed at how much more there is to them besides bass whacks.I enjoy them on a completely different level today.

Coming at this topic from a muscian's point of view, there is as much music in the space between the notes as there is in the notes themselves.

If all the spaces and the notes are blurred or indistinguishable, how can the music be enjoyed?If you can't hear all that the recording engineer put into the recording,you are doing him, the artist and yourself a disservice.

If only a portion of the musical information is retrieved, then one is only enjoying a portion of the musical experience.You are denying yourself the full experience.
It's the sundae without the whipped cream and cherry on top.

Which brings up another old saying, "you don't know what you are missing".

Why would you use the Nora Jones lp as a benchmark?

I wouldn't, and as such I don't adjust the sound of my system to enhance one lp over the other.
Even if one lp is 200 gram and the other is the thinnest oil embargo vinyl.I listen to them as they are.
I may prefer the sound of one over the other but I wouldn't try to adjust my system to lessen the difference.

You are dumbing down one for the sake of the other.
That's where I'm different.
I don't have a template or benchmark disc that I try to make all my cds and lps emulateby manipulating individual aspects of the system.
You would never have time to enjoy any music but would be in a constant state of adjustment.
I don't see any pleasure in that.
I know some folks who adjust the cartridge parameters for individual lps.
This can work, but what do you do with cd's?

What do you do if one cd is brighter than the other?
Go out and swap cables and amps etc for each disc?

I wouldn't go down that road.
And yet some folks do.

What happens when you find out it was the speakers that were at fault, and the new speakers make the bass shy system tweaked for more bass to now be bass heavy?
And the reference lp is no longer the reference you thought it was with the new speakers?
Nora Jones now sounds like Tom Jones, or worse yet they both sound the same!.

I do have what I consider well recorded lps, and cd's.

But I don't reconfigure or voice my system to any one or two particular cd's or lp's.

What I have noticed when I upgraded power cords for example, was that all my recordings were improved, not just the well recorded ones.

That's how it works for me.
I am not trying to improve just the best performances, but when they sound even better then I know that the less well recorded music will also be improved.

One is not at the expense of the other as you seem to imply.

The greater the resolve, the greater the resolve on good and poor recordings in all formats.

This is why I can't come to terms with your reasoning.
Perhaps I am not making myself clear enough.

I don't tweak my system to make the poor recordings sound great,that would alter the performance of the good ones and skew them in a direction not pleasant to the ears.

The only thing greater resolution does for me is to make me appreciate the great recordings even more, not dislike the lesser recordings.

What happens is that the differences between fair and great recordings is more discernable, which is as it should be, at least to me.

All music wasn't created equal and wasn't recorded equal, so it shouldn't be made to sound equal by a hifi system.

You can't see the forest for the trees is quite apt,so is being able to see that the forest isn't comprised of just one variety of tree.

If there are several varieties of trees I want to see them all, the tall, the short, the crooked and the straight.I want to be able to differentiate between the deciduous and the coniferous.

This is the performance I expect from my hifi system.

When you know that nothing sounds the same, why try to make it all sound the same?

To do so is just mediocrity.

No more great sounding lps or cds just a lot of OK sounding ones.

Vertigo, I don't know how much clearer I can be.
I think you are starting to get it, as you are repeating things in your post that I first stated.

No I don't use the Fidelity Research,my vinyl set up is a modest Rega P-9, Exact 2, into a Manley Steelhead.

Not my most ambitious Vinyl set up.
In the past I owned the LP12 with the FR arm and cart, An Oracle Delphi versions 1, 2, with an EMT air bearing arm, then a Sota with SME V arm, then VPI SCout, and now the Rega.

My friend's vinyl system is my reference for what a great vinyl system is capable of-SME 30/12, Clear Audio Strad cart, Audio Research Ref phono stage and AR 40 Anniver pre amp,all top flight Siltech cables and all top flight power cords and conditioning.

It was on this system that I clearly could discerne how much more there was to hear on a vinyl recording than what most of us think is as good as it gets.

I can never tweak my gear enough to even come close to this type of resolution, and clarity.
It clearly ditinguishes between great and less great recordings,and his digital Scarlatti gear is a great vinyl/digital comparison.

But I digress,my whole point all along has been that the more resolution, the better, and that the more resolution you have the easier it is to distinguish between the wheat and the chaff.

And in this case you don't have to use one limited amount of "reference' recordings" that you've read about somewhere to prove the point.
It's there on all recordings.
There are great recordings that folks know about( and are bored with aka P.Barber)and some recordings from lesser known groups and labels that can astonish you with their realism.Check out Fidelio,I have several of Rene's recordings and they are very well done, yet not many outside of a small community know about them.Art Duddley does ,but just recently.

But I wouldn't voice my system to them.
A well set up system doesn't need to be voiced to any small set of recordings.

Or to any one type of music.

If it does sound best with one type of music, then that is not for me.
But there are folks out there who listen to string ensembles exclusively and seek out systems that compliment this one style and no harm in that.

I like several female vocalists and Cassandra Wilson and Liz Wright come to mind.Ive seen Diana Krall in a small venue at the beginning of her career, and I also like a young woman by the name of Anne Bisson(Fidelio again)but I wouldn't voice a system around any of them, as good as they are.

Talk about diverse vocal timbres.
Who would you choose to voice your system around?

If you tip the scales in favour of one and voice your system accordingly, you'll do a disservice to all the others.

Poor Norah Jones might get left out in the cold.

The more resolve you have when the system is properly set up, the more you can tell the difference between recordings and vocalists.Or so you should.If they all sound the same then the system is not accurate,it's painting everything with the same brush.
Everyone sounds like Pat Barber.

I have a few old 6 eyes and old Columbis of jazz in mono from the 50's & 60's that can run circles around most of all the "reference" recordings that get all the press.ONe of my faves is the Louis Armstrong plays WC Handy- original pressing, mono.
I believe it's now been re-issued, It's a great primer on how they used to get it right, that somehow has been forgotten.

And yet I never would think about setting my system up around this lp as good as it is.It is only one example of how diverse the music and recordings are and I like the diversity.

Which is what I find so strange about your approach.

When all the components are set up optimally, when care is taken with where and on what the gear is seated and the power to the gear is addressed, as is the room itself, then there's no need to fine tune it so that a few "reference" recordings sound great.

They will,and so will the lesser well recorded material, and you will like everything you play, yet be able to hear quality differences and recording techniques that lesser systems aren't capable of.

If the kick drum in a vintage recording is not as deep as your reference recording is,why alter it ?
Or on the other hand why fatten out all the sound because the kick on your reference is fuller than the old mono disc recorded the kick?

Why try and alter what was the original sonic truth and super impose another set of "reference" sonics to it?

Isn't it better to be able to hear the differnce?

In a highly resolving system everything will not sound the same, as I keep saying, you won't have a collection of all C grade material.
You will have A grade, B grade, C grade, and even F grade.

And you'll love them all for what they are.Because they are what they are and haven't been altered to sound like some "reference" disc.

Most folks never attain this type of resolution or are reluctant to do so because they fear this will render a great majority of their music unlistenable.

It is the complete opposite ,and completely opposite to setting up a system that is optimized to only make a few recordings sound great, aka P. Barber recordings.

A system that is set up properly and that consists of gear that doesn't impose a sonic signature or has sonic limitations,will sound great on any music that is played back through it.Hence no need to voice the system around lite jazz or the squeals of P.Barber.

I play all types of music and so does my friend.
Neither of us voiced our systems to a specific type of music or to any specific discs.
Both play back everything we feed them.
Classical or rock,Holst's Planets from Fidelio, or vintage Zimmerman from Columbia.
Again this is what I expect from an audio system.
No curtailment at the frequency extremes and great clarity .
Both of our systems accomplish this.

His just plays back better than mine.

And so it should.

My friend you think I am talking about the Rega Cartridge?
You had better go back and read my posts and pay attention and then don't regurgitate what I've said and try and take the credit.

When I talk about a high resolution vinyl playback chain, I never said mine was.
Go back and read carefully.
I stated my friend's system, and so I am not bragging about how good my cartridge is or how much gold it contains.

There's lots of gold in them thar Siltech cables of his also, and if we are talking dollars to donuts his interconnect and speaker wires alone cost more than your system.

I repeat, I am not talking about my set up.Never bragged about my system.

You, however, seem to feel that my system can't give me any resolution, and that only you have found the "secret" recipe for success.
So I will have to go on the defensive.

Well, the secret isn't so much in the components as it is in the context of how those components are implimented.

Nowhere in your posts have I seen reference to what type of room treatment that you use, what type of power cords you use,if you use dedicated lines,balanced power,power conditioning etc.

I do.
If we need to get into a P fight about spending money on gear,my focus shifted away from mega buck components and into the realm of power and room conditioning.
My power cords cost over ten grand , if that impresses you.It doesn't impress me.
If I could have gotten the same results and spent less, believe me I would have.

My friend with the mega buck system didn't just call it a day when he bought the components.He spent large on power products.
He showed me the way.This was new territory for me 8 years ago.Before this all I focused on was speakers, amps, cd players and turntables, sound familiar?

I couldn't achieve his level of resolution because I didn't have the bucks to buy the gear that he has.
But I could afford the ancilliaries that so far you either have neglected to mention or just plain neglect when it comes to your search for the truth.

High resolution systems don't need the most expensive coil on the block to be high resolution system.
And I might add that you perhaps have never heard how good your system is if you neglect the power and the room.

In other words you only think you are nailing it.

You are therefore spot on when you state that you only get it right with a few recordings and on a few days.

It's because you are compromising the gear you have,and crippling it if you aren't doing any upgrading in the power cord, room or even fuse department.

The best MC you can buy isn't giving you what it's really capable of , no matter how much you fool with it.

What phono stage are you using?Do you have ablity to dial in the capacitance and load the cartridge for optimum performance?

I can do that with my Steelhead, even though I don't because I use a MM.
And don't slight a MM, they have virtues of their own, go read about them.No hot rising top end,as some coils have.
I"ll have to read up about your cartridge, but just for a reality check,all coils and cartridges have a sound and impart a sound to the music.

Again, they are not neutral, nothing is.
And when it comes to cartridges you can only like or dislike what they do to a recording.
It's just personal preference.
There's no clear cut winner.
Some are better than others, but so far I've never read about the ideal cartridge yet.
It's all about tradeoffs.

If you tweak your cartridge/system and tailor it's sound to suit what YOU think is a decent recording, (and judging from the recordings you state as reference,you haven't heard much), you are making a mistake that a novice makes.

Years ago when I started out and before you ever came upon this hobby, people only had analog as a source.

For most of us we bought Linn Lp12 TT, or after that I bought the Oracle and fitted it with an ET Two linear tracking air bearing arm and back then a nice Dynavector Ruby coil.

Then along came digital, and we (myself and my friends)spent a lot of time trying to make it sound as pleasant as when we spun vinyl.

But it didn't.So we started to re-configure our systems and in so doing, lost the magic that we had.

In the early years , getting both mediums to sound as good as the other was impossible.
Getting one to sound good, ruined the other.
You almost needed two systems.

So for most of us , vinyl still ruled and the perfect sound wasn't what they said it was.

Today things are different.Digital has gotten very good.
My friend and I both prefer his SME system, but the full blown Scarlatti isn't too shabby either, and in some areas outperforms the vinyl.
No, I am not talking about the absence of snaps and crackles.

He hardly has any and I hardly have any.
If people talk about the inferior sound of vinyl and the noise, then they haven't listened to a proper set up.
And I can get that with my set up, and using the Planar 9, the Exact 2 cartridge and the Manley Steel head phono.

I have no more noise than my friend has, whose cartridge alone is worth more than my entire vinyl set up as mentioned.

So the point is,your cartridge, or anybody's isn't perfect.

There's no perfect vinyl or digital set up, mine, yours or my friends,that is absolutely true to the recording.
Everyone of them is colouring the sound, no matter what you think or how perfect you think you have it.
The hard cruel fact is you are no closer to the truth than any of the rest of us.Perhaps further from it if you seek to compromise your system to only a select few frequencies and recordings, which your list illustrate are mostly studio created altered reality type recordings.

I am closer now than I was before, thanks to my friend.
He has shown me that no matter how good or expensive the gear is, it can be compromised if you don't sweat the details.
I can easily tell on my system as I can on his, the studio gimmicks on most of todays recordings, that are absent on the old jazz mono recordings from the late 50's early 60's.
Which tells me I am going in the right direction.Closer to reality not further from it.
The lines are cleanly drawn betwen the two, and I ,unlike you, do not wish to alter the reality of those recordings.
I want to hear differences, and I have a system that can do this, (more now than it did before), the same as my friends expensive system does.Score one for the cheap little MM.

My friend IS closer than I am, and you are somewhere in between,and unlike you I won't say your system is lacking anything although you think mine is lacking. I will say that you perhaps have some decent gear, but may lack a bit of experience as to how to get the most out of it.

The lesson I've learned thru the decades in this hobby is that there is no substitute for the truth, and that if the truth means hearing the tape hiss from a recording because it's on the recording, then that's better than hidding it.
Because to hide the tape hiss or try to make a sonic bandaid and cover it up somehow with euphonic colourations, isn't striving for the truth.
That's running away from it.
If you are missing the hiss, then what else are you missing?
My guess is the decay and trail of the music, especially on cymbals.
If hiss is on the recording but yoiur system isn't capable of retrieving it or you've done something to hide it because you find it detracts from the music, you've also just lost some of the music.You've lost detail.The hiss is a detail,and take it away you take away subtle decay and any other frequencies that ride in the frequencies of the hiss you find so offensive.
Point- it's not just hiss you are removing.
Or, if you aren't hearing the hiss thru your system(when it's there on someonelse's)you aren't hearing other parts of the music either.

And going back to preaching again, when mediocrity becomes the norm and something to adulate,then all the stuff that is truly good has no importance.

When you allow the slow learners to advance with the smart ones, you aren't doing either any favours.
If no one fails,it rewards the slackers and does nothing to encourage them or those who excelled to excell any further.

The playing field eventually is levelled and the score is average at best.
In other words,more in the lower middle, few or none at the top.

When you kill off the top audio gear and find nothing but fault because it is so good at revealing the truth and distinguishing between good and bad, you breed mediocrity.

It's evident,some don't want this type of brutal reality.

They would rather tinker with it, and try to render all recordings to sound nice than live with the reality that no two recordings will ever sound the same, nor should they.

Some are just poorly recorded.But that doesn't mean that they aren't fun to listen to.
If you like the music you'll like the flaws,and learn to appreciate the better recordings because you have a system that can do that.Not a system that makes everything sound the same, or a system that was voiced around one type of medium(vinyl/digital).

Vertigo has at times in his posts taken my statements out of context and twisted them around to make it appear that my ideas were his ideas all along, which of course they aren't.

I never once stated my aim was to strive for a system where the flaws are masked.And I've stated my system is able to distinguish between good and poorly recorded material.
I've assembled a system that is resolving and not fatiguing, and it sounds good all the time and on all music, good recordings or bad.It tells the truth.It doesn't hide from it.Or try to alter it and make it all sound the same.
I've stated all along I revel in the distinction between good bad and poor recordings, and strive for a system that has the resolution and detail to make this possible.How did Vertigo not get this?Why did he distort my statements?
How did he come to the conclusions that he did?
How could he know how good my system is, let alone my friend's, and is he really that dillusional to think that he has a system that has all the answers?
If he hasn't adressed room issues and power treatment I am certain he isn't even close yet to where his gear could take him.
My friend will tell you, he hasn't even gotten there yet.

I want the truth, Vertigo wants to colour it to his liking, both in his music reproduction system and in his posts.