In Reply to: You've been posturing so long posted by E-Stat on March 3, 2010 at 05:49:47:
And the truth of the matter is is that your inability to comprehend my message actually vindicates my position.
"Bad sound can result from bad recordings, bad systems, or the combination of bad recordings and bad systems. Bad sound, therefore, does not necessarily mean that the cause is a bad system. "
I don't completely disagree with your comment above however you fail to include recordings that sound bad because what was recorded actually sounds bad.
Of course if one is in denial about his system quality he will never assign "bad sound" to his system - and thusly recording quality takes on an enhanced responsibility for the bad sound being experienced.
This is just so blatantly obvious to me. If I wasn't aware of how audiophile magazines, ie. especially the American ones, have portrayed this "hobby" I would find these kinds of results incomprehensible.
But knowing the kind of "deep thinkers" who've been running the American audio press for decades it's not surprising so many audiophiles seem to agree that bad sound is a function is good audio performance.
It's laughable if you can break from the crowd and listen to what these people are actually saying.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Without your legalistic posturing it's obvious you still don't get the point! - Don Till 03/3/1007:01:51 03/3/10 (5)
- RE: Without your legalistic posturing it's obvious you still don't get the point! - morricab 01:54:28 03/5/10 (0)
- "sound bad because what was recorded actually sounds bad." - E-Stat 07:50:17 03/3/10 (3)
- RE: "sound bad because what was recorded actually sounds bad." - Don Till 08:26:19 03/3/10 (2)
- It all boils down to what you consider bad - E-Stat 09:01:36 03/3/10 (1)
- Bingo! - Don Till 20:56:28 03/10/10 (0)