Mrtennis wrote:
(a) If you answer definitely yes, then you can conclude that, to you, improvement is largely a matter of increasing ACCURACY to the software. Because making system changes that result in increased accuracy, I believe, makes bad recordings sound worse.
(b) If you answer definitely no, then you can conclude that, to you, improvement is largely a matter of increasing MUSICALITY as you define it. Because making system changes that result in increased musicality, I believe, makes bad recordings sound better.
(c) If you answer it depends on the recording, then you can conclude that, to you, improvement is largely a matter of increasing TRANSPARENCY to the musical event. Because making system changes that result in increased transparency, I believe, makes some recordings sound better, others worse, depending upon the particular flaws of the recording.
In this way, the question in the OP is a kind of litmus test for judging what system characteristics you prioritize as an audiophile. For example, Gawdbless wrote:
Its worth pointing out that Im NOT saying that accuracy, musicality, and transparency are, necessarily, mutually exclusive characteristics. But budgets are limited, and no system can do everything, so audiophiles are forced to prioritize which characteristics they value the most, especially when changing components with the hope of hearing "improvements." This, I believe, accounts for many of the differences in the systems they assemble. It also accounts for the different answers to the question in the OP.
That's my theory, anyway.
The issue is what is meant by "improves" and what is considered a "good" system i believe that audio is a subjective hobby so what constitutes "improvement" is a matter of personal taste.To a large extent, I agree with this. I believe that how you answer the question in the OP tells you something about what you consider an improvement. Specifically...
(a) If you answer definitely yes, then you can conclude that, to you, improvement is largely a matter of increasing ACCURACY to the software. Because making system changes that result in increased accuracy, I believe, makes bad recordings sound worse.
(b) If you answer definitely no, then you can conclude that, to you, improvement is largely a matter of increasing MUSICALITY as you define it. Because making system changes that result in increased musicality, I believe, makes bad recordings sound better.
(c) If you answer it depends on the recording, then you can conclude that, to you, improvement is largely a matter of increasing TRANSPARENCY to the musical event. Because making system changes that result in increased transparency, I believe, makes some recordings sound better, others worse, depending upon the particular flaws of the recording.
In this way, the question in the OP is a kind of litmus test for judging what system characteristics you prioritize as an audiophile. For example, Gawdbless wrote:
Absolutely NOT. How can a system be viewed upon as 'improving' when it makes ones cd's sound worse?I would conclude from this that Gawdbless prioritizes musicality over accuracy, at least when making "improvements" to his system.
Its worth pointing out that Im NOT saying that accuracy, musicality, and transparency are, necessarily, mutually exclusive characteristics. But budgets are limited, and no system can do everything, so audiophiles are forced to prioritize which characteristics they value the most, especially when changing components with the hope of hearing "improvements." This, I believe, accounts for many of the differences in the systems they assemble. It also accounts for the different answers to the question in the OP.
That's my theory, anyway.