The gold standard for recording quality recognition is The Absolute Sound's (TAS) Super LP List, that was created by Harry Pearson, the man who was responsible for the birth of high end audio. (Or, at least, he was quite likely the strongest voice to determine the path of high end audio...) The TAS Super LP list has been the audiofile's software Bible for generations, a guide for reference quality recordings.
A much lesser known reference guide is Arthur Salvatore's list, which overlaps TAS Super LP list only to a small degree. The difference in opinions shows that any such list is not objective / absolute, and bear strongly the mark of the reviewer. We all have very subjective opinions on what we consider as absolute, best, or reference. It is not only about personal preference: it also reflects the reviewer's system, as depending on the reproduction system the recordings will show different aspects and potential.
You will find that I will have recommendations that appear in either or both of HP's and Salvatore's lists. Yet, I will have several recommendations that appeared on their list and while they gave highs scores, but I gave it a "meh, I'm bringing this to Goodwill" rating. All the lists in the world are but suggestions, to help you navigate the world of recorded music. They are to guide you, to help with measuring sticks along your audio journey. Ultimately, it will be up to you which ones you find as the best for your ears, for your own music taste. There are plenty of superbly recorded recordings that never made it to any recommendation list. Despite good sound, I prefer to play and keep only those which resonate with me, and the rest can find someone who appreciates them more than I do even though their sonics are superlative.
Arthur Salvatore has excellent suggestions on his site that I cannot recommend highly enough. Check out his list of "Supreme Recordings", you will find plenty of treasures, which are arranged according to sonic superiority. He also shares his many decades of experience as a high end audio salesman and avid vinyl collector and connoisseur. If you have not run across his site yet, I guarantee you will be lost there for weeks.
For me, reference equals a very high motivating potential for personal growth. Most reviews for audiophile reference recording suggestions tend to focus on recording / engineering / pressing qualities alone. When very high standards for those qualities have been met, it's declared as a reference recording. True, such a record is a good test of the abilities of your system to reproduce SOUND. An EMPTY SHELL. For that purpose, it is an absolute reference. Sure, it will help in a" quest for the best", but these recordings will back you into a dead end. While they are a superb tool to calibrate and compare your system to other systems, they are useless in your pursuit and understanding of music. In fact they can be quite harmful for your music education, by creating a strong bias towards an unbalanced piece or performance just because it was recorded in a superb fashion. Sonic merits should be always of secondary importance to interpretation and the intent of the recorded event itself, as the recording quality is but the wrapping around the package. The real deal is the package contents: the music content that was recorded.
Comparison: imagine a high definition close-up made by the latest 200 megapixel Hasselbladt camera from a nose plastic surgery. While it's a truly exceptionally resolved photograph, and will arouse professional excitement in medical circles, most lay people actually faint or even throw up when they see a nose flipped open. Unless you are a medical professional, it's not going to be of any benefit for you. So, while it's of reference quality, it's still not recommended outside the medical field, for home use. Now, consider a decent photograph of the Mona Lisa. Even at 8MP resolution, the Mona Lisa will bring value to your life, and inspiration to set your mind on a new track. It is a highly recommended photograph, but it will not be sufficient quality to use in creating a perfect replica that would pass the inspection of art experts. Finally, in case you find the 200MP Hasselbladt photo of the Mona Lisa - now we are talking about recommended reference!
I'll be presenting recommendations for such references in the audio world. These might not be all the 200MP analogy, some drop to 30MP, but all are well above the average of the era they were recorded in, and represent an outstanding sum of performance quality & recording quality. In addition, I will also give my impressions on a wide range of material, including what I deem as less than desirable or just plain average or sub-standard recordings or performances. If I list only the very best, and not the entire range, how can you get any indication of what my frame of reference is? My listening impressions reflect the experiences of a music-lover. You get a snapshot of what it is like to actually listen to a wide range of recordings, instead of living in an artificial deflated bubble of select few recordings made mostly of contemporary works, focusing on technicalities, yet more often than not failing at substance, deeper context, and the capacity to deliver MORE THAN JUST AN EMPTY SHELL OF SOUND. There is tremendous joy in discovering music that is not in the limelight, and it's the best way to broaden your horizon and develop your appreciation for performers, composers, and the hardships and challenges that the recording and mastering engineers (and of course, the playback system designers) face.
My living room review system is not a typical showroom setup. As Nelli said "it does not sound at all like an audiophile system, it just plays music incredibly good." I consider it musical, that is, it has a natural tonality geared towards unprocessed (pure and direct) sound. According to my ears it adds no sharpening nor contrasting processing to the musical content: does not employ tricks to boost detail level, pop out vocals or boost midbass, no tricks to get artificially boosted resolution or highlighted frequency bands. Yet, it allows me to hear very low level details, and has quite remarkable dynamic range quite beyond current high end. I use exclusively tube amplification, as to my ears solid state amplifiers create distortion artifacts in the high frequencies. In addition, their information wash-out in the midrange is fatiguing and jading on the long term and gets in my way of relaxing and connecting into the music. My system is definitely not mushy, slow, colored, nor compressed. I consider it musical and revealing, as we would find a live event musical and revealing as opposed to limited, distorted, or cold / lifeless. It does not sound anything like a brittle hi-rez system with over-inflated sonic envelopes. Also, I'm not sure I can attribute a specific sound to it, as different recordings do sound drastically different as if completely different systems are playing them: with one recording your heart is literally skipping beats, and another one sounds just like a cheap AM radio. When I walk into a showroom even from outside the door I can tell the signature "audiophile" color of the sound - that it's not real music, but there's a very advanced high end system playing. There is a level of unnatural intensity to it, that comes through no matter what is played. This is not happening to my system, and that's why Nelli says it does not sound like a typical audiophile system. There's no default coloration that comes with the sound.
Outstanding recordings soar and give the feel of live music connection or literally take you into another reality. Yet, mediocre recordings are still listenable, but in comparison they sound as if it was recorded music (which it is). I can hear the editing, the mixing, the differences between pressings show up as striking differences that can be spotted even by non-audiophiles. Some recordings show up as lacking bass, making me think that these amps/speakers have no midbass, and on the next LP the drum kick just punches through my guts or the subsonic material makes the marrow buzz in my bones.
My setup does not have ridiculously overpriced elements by today's standards. I have spent about 20 years to develop it, and there's still a very long way to go, mostly limited by my severe lack of free time and the amount of money I can dedicate to it for now. It's been in a constant flux, the product of my time, imagination, and limitations. I could say that the effort that went to its development is beyond extensive, on the order of thousands of dedicated actual hands-on hours. Many components are built (some designed) by me, and certainly every single component (that was purchased, most often as used) has been modified or rebuilt to different extents. It is in a constant state of flux, however through the past 15 or more years it has had roughly the same sonic signature (musical and revealing), with increasing level of textural, harmonic and dynamic resolution to let outstanding recordings truly shine - and best of all, to get much, much more out of average and poor quality recordings than anyone imagined. The mantra, that the best system cannot play poor recordings is BS. When you have a system that does not process the sound, but gives you the the recording as it is: that will allow even poor records to sound much better than you ever heard them before. Now I'm at a stage where I have a main system, a bedroom system (aimed at zombie-tired-level movie night, when you fall asleep at the end of watching something from the bed) and a dance floor / guest room system, which has only vinyl and tape front end, uses Loftin-White SET and single driver speaker. All of them are in a constant flux. (And I want to set up a mono system in the garage.) I am very happy with my vinyl setups, but my digital sources can be considered rudimentary at best, extremely outdated and mediocre by any onlooker, yet, musically very engaging, well-balanced, perhaps truly shocking. Satisfies me more than any mega priced wonder DAC currently in production. Those somehow fail miserably at harmonic presentation. (I cannot speak for all DACs though, but what I heard makes me excited but not excited enough to consider them.) Makes one wonder what truly makes digital tick. In my experience, digital is a most sensitive format, and requires balance and PATIENCE & LONG PATH OF REFINEMENT to get it right.
To me, a reference recording has to have SUBSTANCE, not just the packaging. I call the recording quality the packaging: it's the wrapping that accompanies the main content, which is the music itself. If we stick to fidelity and playback quality alone, in my opinion that's a completely worthless pursuit, as it prevents you from getting to the depths of music, by keeping you on a side track where you get tangled up with mediocre interpretations. If you are obsessed with the sound of a guitar, then get a real guitar! It will cost a fraction of a high end system's price. All a million dollar system can strive for is to more or less approximate a superb 10K$ guitar. So, get a small collection of authentic instruments instead, and have your friends come over and play in case you have no music background to play the instruments! Will be cheaper and BETTER than a million $ stereo. Yet, it's quite unlikely that your friends play as good as Johanna Martzy or Emmanuel Feuerman.... and that's where audio starts to make sense: to bring these magnificent long-dead musicians, these beacons of light into your home.
Bother with a good stereo when your goal is the SUBSTANCE. When you want to learn from, and feel the genius, the mind, the presence of the likes of Andre Segovia, Nacrisso Yepes, or Tibor Tatrai. You can take the finest packaged ("best recorded") modern contemporary guitar recordings and will be awed how they sound. However, the content and interpretation is usually hardly better than mediocre. While latest audiofile recordings go for high "accuracy" feel, and search out players with superlative technical skills - but these performers are most often only technicians, who perfected their playing techniques to impress audience, but have little to no understanding of the pieces they perform. Indeed, they tend to play the notes faster than anyone before, or maybe pluck the string twice as hard to get the biggest shock and novelty factor, or get higher dynamic range, sound pressure, or unusual playing techniques from the instrument. They usually have superb fingering, technique, control over the instrument. Just like pro race car drivers. But their understanding of the piece is shallow at most: while they can drive second to none, they do not have the roadmap, no goal nor purpose. You will be spellbound by the SOUND, but will get you nowhere close to the MUSICAL PIECE and its message. You will be in awe of the brilliance and virtuosity of the performer, the high quality of the recording, and that's where the experience stops. You gained instant gratification, but you have not learned anything that adds to your life, to your humanity. Sound captured your brain, but music has not touched your heart. On the grand scheme of things in life, you wasted a precious hour of your life to get yourself addicted to superficial sound and a hobby (high end audio) so expensive that it will be the ruin of you. The only message you will take home is that I need to spend more money to upgrade my system to sound more like that. And you will develop the attitude of I don't care about the music, just about the way it sounds. This is the greatest harm you can do to yourself. Avoid those systems that shut down your imagination like the plague. When the music captures you, opens the floodgates of your imagination, gets you thinking about life and helps you process tragedies in your life, or it gives you the strength to take action or shows you new directions - then it has served its purpose. This is the point when you have a FUNCTIONAL stereo system and healthy priorities!
There are true genius performers and musicians. I recommend to seek them out, and listen to them LIVE. Use your stereo to connect with those who are already gone. Audio system is the means of TIME TRAVEL.
Quit goofing around with: does it sound almost as good recorded as live... that pursuit is futile, as people always have subjective opinions. While it might be perfection for you, someone else will think it's a load of rubbish and you are off your rocks. Let's just accept reality: recorded music gives us access to a vast resource of mankind, our legacy starting from the early XXth century. It also serves as a yardstick, to measure our present day performers against our recent or not so recent past. You will be surprised, how much musical education and performance styles changed in one brief century! Early XXth century recordings are a wonderful way to re-calibrate your inner compass, but these will be completely useless unless you have a system that can deal with them fairly and faithfully. An average system will play a 1950s mono transfer from 1920s music as barely more than pops and clicks, with mushed and hushed, extremely limited sound. When your system is on point, this same recording will make you sit down and wonder, with clarity, focus, and rock solid image, bringing a long-dead singer or pianist FLESH AND BLOOD INTO YOUR LIFE with presence that is hard to find in any modern recording (as they are over-mastered). I have a number of of 90-100 year old music that convey more spirit than most of currently recorded music. If I do not tell what they are listening to, people would think of some 30s and 40s mono recordings that they are modern stereo demo records. True, today we have greater frequency extension, blah blah blah, but you will not notice any of this unless you force yourself into analytical mode. You will wonder how little we improved with the recording technology in 100 years! At the same time, playback of old and ancient records has improved almost beyond recognition.
My Reference recordings include recordings of performers, performances that have the power to touch my life. These are recordings that had a big effect on me, and whenever I play them I find or learn something new about music or life itself I have not noticed before. They have the CONTENT, and they also have matching recording quality so that the content can SHINE THROUGH the recording on a revealing true high fidelity system. The purpose of listening to them is to get IN TOUCH with the MUSIC ITSELF, and not with the SUPERFICIAL SOUND THAT LINGERED AT AN EVENT.
When I attend live concerts, sometimes I find that it leaves me completely uninvolved. Other times I am so absorbed I even forget to draw a breath, and on rare occasions my heart skips a beat or two. To me a good live performance, a good recording, (and matching stereo equipment) is the one that BRINGS YOU TO THIS HEIGHTENED STATE OF RECEPTION. It does not matter whether it comes from a stereo or a live event.