In Reply to: RE: This is so simple I really can't believe we are having this discussion. posted by Tony Lauck on February 23, 2010 at 08:47:07:
00 - poor performance poor recording
01 - poor performance good recording
10 - good performance poor recording
11 - good performance good recording
I don't care for poor performances that much regardless of recording. (00,01)
I like good performances and will tolerate a poor recording to hear them. (10)
I really like it when good performances are recorded well. Double bonus! (11)
System quality is important. But so is everything else in the playback chain. The recording is PART of the playback chain - the most IMPORTANT part. Good quality systems may or may not make the poor recording more listenable, depending on the nature of what is making it poor.
Some folks might be able to enjoy their favorite music even if it is recorded horribly. I don't think system quality can fix this, nor do I think system quality is the SOLE element to fidelity. Sure, we can change system quality, but that does not make it the only variable in the playback equation. It's just the only variable WE can change.
The statement "I have a good system, thus recording quality is of no consequence to me" does not apply to me. It may apply to Don Till because that is what he believes. But if one thinks of music being captured, mixed, mastered and put onto a given medium as being part of the journey music takes from performance to listening chair, I don't get how recording quality CAN'T be considered as part of the fidelity equation.
And loving the specific music and artists is another discussion entirely...
Cheers,
Presto
Cheers,
Presto
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- It's a binary thing - Presto 02/23/1011:02:03 02/23/10 (0)