|
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: I disagree, and think it is what your goals are... posted by *Michael Z* on May 6, 2008 at 09:18:11:
"...and I found that when my system had a pallateable feel with horrid recordings, it lacked the inner detail, quiet backround, and top end extension I enjoyed on higher-rez recordings."
Bingo. Exactly. I've always felt this way. I have never heard a system with has the revealing power I like make "bad recordings" any more palatable. The more a system is like that "vanilla system" you described I find it usually sacrifices something to get that versatility.
Some guys vehemently disagree - they maintain that their systems make good recordings sound 'great' and lesser recordings sound 'pretty good too'.
Myself, I agree with your take on things - and I also think this is one of the variables of system performance that makes a lot of audiophiles go crazy with system changes and iterations trying to find that magical "synergistic balance".
As for those who think it's a big deal, it's not. I've always believed that if a person had not one but TWO rigs, one should be geared towards high-res capability for the good recordings, and a more vanilla flavored second rig for lesser recordings that happen to contain one-of-a-kind, hard to find or just darned good music!
Cheers,
Presto
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- You're right on top of a very important audio truism - Presto 05/6/0818:03:06 05/6/08 (1)
- I think you've got it - almost! - Don T 08:20:08 05/7/08 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
