High Performance Audio - The End?

He's also into increasing his Youtube subscriber base, and the majority of his listeners are probably in the $5k-$20K range, so his topics may be tailored to gather the most listeners on the bell curve.  He wants you to relate to his site--I like him.  

douglas_schroeder,

But that's the point isn't it?

Either the Magnepans mentioned by Steve or the Quads that I heard are either not even good enough to play back mediocre recordings on - or they might just be too good, too revealing in showing up studio trickery that perhaps the monitors originally used in production didn't show up so ruthlessly.

On the Morrissey tracks I heard, various weird mixing desk / phasing effects could be heard that didn't seem to stand out with all the other speakers I have used.

For me, it's an important issue because 95% of my listening includes popular  music recorded between 1940 and 1990.

At what point in the hi-fi resolution chain does the music of the Beatles, the Kinks, Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin, Bruce Springsteen, Louis Armstrong, Elvis Presley, the Incredible String Band, the Doors, the Velvet Underground, the Sex Pistols, the Smiths, the Pogues, U2, the Who, Nat King Cole, Frank Sinatra, Doris Day, Peggy Lee, Judy Garland, the Mamas and the Pappas, Leonard Cohen, Cat Stevens, Buddy Holly, Paul Simon etc (not to mention the entire UK charts from roughly the same period) all start to sound worse?

Then there's the additional question of why do audio shows so heavily favour well recorded jazz and the like?

Why do they shy away from the stuff that 99% of the world's population actually listen to? 

Perhaps they know the answer already?

If you find that your system, as you increase its quality, makes that kind of music sound worse to you, then the idea that increased resolution of the system is responsible for that is seemingly the only logical conclusion. I get it. I don't doubt for a minute what you say you're hearing.

But, what I'm saying is that if you keep going on your journey toward a better and better system, then what you will find is that this sort of problem will in fact begin to go away - not get worse. If it always got worse, then there would be no such thing as the high end...Everyone would be complaining about it All the time. And they're not - capiche??

Not trying to dog you, just saying that this is not a permanent problem. Don't let your current findings restrict your willingness to experiment.

On a rightfully embed system everything sound better, badly recorded or not...

Resolving power is only one attribute of a good audio system and by itself in no way define Superior S.Q.

The idea that we must pay 100, 000 dollars or even 10,000, to enjoy hi-fi is a myth at best and a lie at worst...Especially if we buy used or vintage mythical good components and takes controls of their embeddings dimensions......

For most audio system between, 1000 bucks and 10,000 dollars the quality controls of the triple embeddings of the system define his working capability to deliver a musical great experience....It is even true for high priced one but less evident.... Upgrading an element before embedding rightfully the audio system is the way to the money pit linked to the without end upgrading pit by endless frustration....

When you cannot change without listening it till it ends most of your cd because they are so beautiful and musical now, you are there...

There will be no end to audio, because the good vinyl, or files or cd are there already, and many people will want to listen to them at their optimal S. Q. without the same gear than today but who gives a dam about the gear if the music is sublime ?

If you believe all "new" music sounds bad it's your system that is at fault. 
"New" music demands a lot from your system that the "old" doesn't. In my opinion the average quality of recordings never been better than today. Guttenberg? Who listens to him? What does he play?