Is Upgrading Degrading?

Marburg, editing a recording to remove a mistake doesn't seem to me to be the same thing, or done for the same purpose, as an enhancement "through technology to the the point where it is no longer a close equivalent to a real instrument".

For example, Glenn Gould spliced tape to get the most perfect expression (in his view) of the music as it was written. I believe him to have been a bit compulsive about this but I'm not arguing with the results.

The goal of high end playback technology is similar in nature although the expression is not the same in kind. What playback wants to do is alter the original recorded signal as little as possible.

That has to be done with a grain of salt when we are remastering Alan Lomax's recordings of Jelly Roll Morton, for example, since the recording technology produced a signal with speed variations.

I guess this is where your point seems relevant to me. We can all agree that a musical sound is more natural when the recording and playback systems don't change the data or introduce artifacts. Some of us can hear the imposed data better than others, but all of us can hear some things.

Hi Tobias,

Yes--I pretty much agree with all of your points. I guess the issue seems relevant to me at the moment as I've just supplemented my system with a new Rel sub bass and have spent hours fastidiously playing with its position in the room, cross over point with the main speakers and volume adjustments. I'm sure I'll do a lot more tweaking.

At the moment however, the sound is decidedly NON-natural, if by natural I mean scrupulously duplicating actual orchestral sound. The sound is richer in the low end in an unnatural, but nevertheless, deeply intoxicating way. Again, you'll accuse me of lumping different issues together and that's true. I suppose we'd like our components to reproduce the recording as faithfully as possible, prior to any downstream processing, but it's at this point things seem to get tricky. Perhaps Stradivarius would have been thrilled by a violin sound modified through electronics in a way that no earthly violin could quite get? Is it heresy to attempt to go beyond duplication of acoustic instruments to try to actually improve them?

Say What?

Ebm, it's this: are you allowed to make your system do things to the music that no real-life instrument would do? Beef up the low end with a sub for example (calling Dr. Velodyne!), or add euphonious coloration (the Linnie phrase for tubes) in the mids.

Marburg, I strongly suspect that all or most all new owners of RELs go through a honeymoon with their subwoofer. I am considering a T5 for my mini-system, myself...

tobias--I'm really enjoying the T5. I know many have spoken of the challenges of integrating a sub with monitors, but have not found this to be the case with this particular item. I'm getting more and more pleasurable sound through extended adjustments but was actually able to achieve a gorgeous, well-integrated sound just by following Rel's setup instructions, in fairly short order.

As I mentioned on another thread, I particularly love the depth, pressure and pregnancy of sound I'm getting, often at very low volume. I was listening to a Ron Carter 24/96 file and was pretty much blown away, not so much by the low freq itself as the definition the sub seemed to contribute. You can hear the bassist's fingers pull the string before releasing it to vibrate. The notes' texture and attack are really in a whole new realm. If you go the Rel T5 route, I'd be very interested in your impressions.