Speakers that reveal bad recordings? Not for me.


Why is it ever desirable to have speakers that simply reflect whatever they are fed, for better or worse?
I can control the upstream equipment, but I cannot control the quality of the recording, which severely limits my freedom of music choice, defeating the purpose of an audio system. This just seems like common sense to me, and I get annoyed when a dealer or whomever mentions this as sign of quality. (Thanks for reading my rant.)
rgs92
Lokie, Lest you (and others) have read too much into my comments, I'm a long way from having what might in this forum, by many regular contributors, be considered a high res system, I gave up on that goal some time ago, but I do think that what I have cobbled together serves the music that I listen to quite well. In fact so well that I've lost a bit of interest in component aquisition or change. More fun to just listen to the music. If that is what brings Rgs92 to his conslusion he is no more the loser than I. :-)

But if you've got the money, time, and interest, a true well set up high res system isn't a bad thing in itself, its more about how its used I think. I think it takes a lot of time, experience, and money and patience, to put together a hi-res system in an appropriate environment. Too many attempts, including more than a few of mine, fail. Even the best recordings don't sound that great and routine recordings start to sound worst than they are. That is why I presumed that Rgs92's rant was more the result of his own failed efforts or listening to other's failed efforts, than listening to a system of complimentary components competently set up in a good room.

I share the conclusions of others about the improvement of the sound of recordings improving, or at least did not degrade, with the improvement in the resolution capabilities of the components I chose to use, as my experience, and focus on real personal priorities, grew.

For a music lover, I think Rgs92's conclusions are absolutly valid (for him). But for someone who is also and 'audio'phile I think they severly limit the potential for growth and satisfaction.

Sorry for the rant............ :-)
Ahh, the age old debate of hi-fi or my-fi. I would love to own a mirror, in my home, that would make me look thirty years younger, and grow the hair on my head back, and take away the hair on my.........well you get it. I can't, but I can sure have a my-fi that idealizes everything that I play through it. It's a personal decision. Now if one of those tube manufacturers would just make a damned mirror......
I've found as my systems resolution has gotten higher sub-par recording do sound better and exceptional recordings sound even better.

So if you have recording "A" which would rate as a 3 in quality of recording. and recording "B" which would rate as a 7. Years go by and you up grade to higher resolution components.

You again re-rate recording"A" as a 4 and recording "B" as a 9 so the noticeable gap between the two has widened.

This could be perceived as poor recording quality sounding worse.

Just a few thoughts from a lunatics mind.
Elevenmg -- That's a really perceptive way to put it, which I haven't seen said before. Consistent with my experiences that I described in my previous post, but with some clever elaboration.

Thanks!

-- Al
Post removed