[apconhf]

This is something I think about a lot but it's never occurred to me to just ask.
 
I have what I like to think is a fairly decent system [Schiit Bifrost & Rega RP6 w. Dyna 10x5--> Dyna P75 mk III --> Leben CS300xs --> Harbeth P3ESR/Audeze LCD-X] and when I put on well mastered music it's just an amazing experience. However, the majority of what I listen to isn't coming from MoFi or produced by someone who spent hundred of hours considering engineering... it's stuff produced for earbuds on iphones. About 50% of what I listen to is low quality rap mp3s from Soundcloud  and another 25% is just whatever albums are big the current week on Pitchfork/Resident Advisor/Tiny Mix Tapes. Whenever I listen to the stuff I enjoy to listen to musically - rather than critically - I find myself making notes about where my system is weak and thinking about what I can do to improve it (music sounds veiled, there's sibilance, vocals are congested and cramped) but as soon as I listen to a reference record I realize that those problems aren't innate to the system but rather what I'm using it for.
 
Knowing all that my question is this: at some point do you need to accept that garbage in results in garbage out or are there marginal gains to be had with better equipment even on low quality sources? Even if the albums I'm listening to are never going to sound spectacular can I improve what I'm hearing? I'm not looking for buying advice as much as I'm just trying to figure out how to think about this. I know my digital stuff sounds markedly worse than my analog stuff and I've been thinking of upgrading my DAC but I can't figure out if I've reached a ceiling and I'm just throwing money at something that doesn't have anywhere to go. 
 
Thoughts? Does anyone else have this issue? What's your approach?
 
----
Sorry if this isn't the right forum. I can't exactly tell what this one is supposed to be used for and I guess I don't have enough posts to put this in summit-fi

 

[bierdc]

  Knowing all that my question is this: at some point do you need to accept that garbage in results in garbage out or are there marginal gains to be had with better equipment even on low quality sources? Even if the albums I'm listening to are never going to sound spectacular can I improve what I'm hearing?

 
I've found that poorly mastered or low-quality sources often actually sound worse on higher-end systems, as they only tend to bring out more detail about where the source underachieves. For example, way back when Winamp would stream satellite radio (which sounds horrendous), despite liking some of the programming, I wouldn't even bother listening to it unless I was using my laptop speakers for mere background listening. Anything else would emphasize how compressed the stream was, and would constantly irritate me, convincing me to switch to local files. Of course, you're talking about deficiencies at the mastering level, which is a much higher standard than that which I've exemplified. But I believe the same principle applies.
 
As with most things, I think it mostly comes down to personal preferences. The law of diminishing returns certainly exists--it just depends on the user to decide where the curve is located.

 

[PleasantSounds]

The downstream gear cannot improve sound and fix the flaws. It can only make things worse, but some kinds of worse can actually sound better with poorly recorded music.
I wouldn't recommend getting gear that will mask the flaws, as it will do it also for the well recorded music. But depending on your setup, you may be able to get a somewhat less objectionable performance selectively, only when needed.
What I have found out, the heavy tube-like sound tends to mask the flaws quite reasonably. In my setup where Foobar2000 is the main  source, I have deployed the Voxengo Tube Amp (free VST plugin), which does the job for me. If your player supports VST you could easily try it.