|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: RE: That's ok but.... posted by *Michael Z* on May 8, 2008 at 05:58:38:
"Junk in, junk out, and the closer you move to Hi-rez, the more "junk" you will hear. It is not a difficulty concept to understand."
No! The recording doesn't make a sound the stereo does. You can't define the sound quality of an stereo input based on the output of your stereo system.
Sure you can identify characteristics of the recording but if these "sound bad" it's purely of function of the stereo.
As we move towards higher rez more recording characteristics become identifiable - but they are minor details as they weren't apparent on the lesser systems. Why would we suddenly expect them to swamp our perception of the sound of a recording making it less enjoyable?
The cover up of the lesser system has to have a greater impact on our listening than hearing what was covered up.
To me this is basic no brainer kind of stuff. You can tell yourself whatever you want to justify why your system sounds bad - but that's all it is - lip service.
"1)You are confusing synergy with the ability to reproduce resolution"
No. Synergy is how well the strengths of components align with each other and this should align with the system owners preferences. IMO the perception of improved resolution should never trump a systems ability to reproduce a recording as music.
The perception of resolution is often a function of it's character/color.
"2)You are confusing system character with system color "
They are the same. There's compromises at every price point. IMO these compromises should alienate the fewest recordings and this is how I define the best stereos. Others chose to define the best stereos as those that sound the best on "audiophile" recordings without regard for the performance over the range of available recordings.
Either way our perception of a systems performance is directly related to the compromises the designers have made in their components as well as the choices we have made in assembing the system.
"3)What is your standard used as an "average" system. "
I base my comments on good audio equipment owned by people who considering themselves particular about their hifi equipment.
I don't talk audio with non-audio people - like family and friends.
"4.) I never mentioned audiophile recordings (RR's etc.), I never defined a good recording from bad, but more so modern recording from a well recorded piece."
Of course not and I doubt you will. Why don't you provide a list of recordings that sound "bad" on your system? It's doubtful you will and it's also doubtful that you'll be willing to name more than just a few if you do.
It's just good enough for audiophiles to have a collective bitch about "bad" sound. And that's something many audiophiles seem to have in common with each other - bad sound.
"5)Dealer showroom systems? Cannot see the relevance here, but there is always one song that can make even a boom box sound good. Maybe I give my fellow inmates too much credit, however I have never met a fellow enthusiast who built a system around one song, or was not cognizant of the fact that any demo is just that."
Again I don't hear you discussing recordings that which your system reveals deeper truth or realism than the average mid fi system.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: That's ok but.... - Don T 05/8/0807:09:31 05/8/08 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]