|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.166.121.142
In Reply to: RE: No, you can't have it both ways... posted by genungo on December 11, 2014 at 19:09:34
"Not that I believe it is possible for such a thing to happen, but if any system seems to make all recordings sound good when all recordings are not in fact good ones, then it is not a "good system" - at least not from the standpoints of transparency and neutrality."
I never claimed a good stereo makes all recordings sound good. The best a good stereo can is replay the music as good as possible. And the better the stereo the better it is capable of doing this. And thus all recordings, regardless of quality will tend to sound better.
There's no reason whatsoever to conclude a poorly made recording should sound bad - in fact on a good stereo it's quite possible, inspite of it's obvious defects, it will sound very good.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Follow Ups:
You said (of the "good" system), "Bad recordings will sound better and good recordings will sound better too..." Sorry if I confused that with a "good" stereo having the ability to making all recordings sound good somehow.A system that can make bad recordings sound better might please us but that does not mean it is a good system. A $25 tabletop radio might make certain recordings sound "better", but that does not mean that the tabletop radio is a "good system". It is possible for a system to add or detract things in certain situations but these things would only degrade or destroy performance in other, presumably better situations.
I don't believe that any system can make ALL recordings, no matter how good or how bad, sound "good"... or "better". But, that's just my opinion.
So basically, I believe that truly good systems are judged by how cleanly they can translate truly good recordings, not by how much fairy dust they can sprinkle on bad ones. Fairy dust can do a truly good recording no further good because the good recording already has all that it needs to be good. Fairy dust might be a useful thing (and possibly even a "good" thing) only when all, or most, of our recordings are badly engineered ones. I agree that our systems should *sound good*, TO US, with the majority of the recordings that we like to play. But if it turns out that the system that makes bad recordings sounds better is a $25 tabletop radio, should we claim that the system is a good one? If our system pleases us it does not necessarily mean that it is a good system, it only means that it "sounds good" - to us. IMO.
Anyway, I'm glad that you are happy with the performance of your system. That's all that really matters because, "the rest is just leather and prunella" (as Alexander Pope once said).
Edits: 12/12/14 12/12/14 12/12/14 12/12/14
"A system that can make bad recordings sound better might please us but that does not mean it is a good system."Correct but a bad system can't make bad recordings sound better by the very definition of what better means (more like what was recorded).
"I don't believe that any system can make ALL recordings, no matter how good or how bad, sound "good"... or "better". But, that's just my opinion.
So true it can't make recordings that don't sound good sound good but most assuredly it can make ALL recordings sound better (relative to less good stereos).
"So basically, I believe that truly good systems are judged by how cleanly they can translate truly good recordings, not by how much fairy dust they can sprinkle on bad ones. "
Fairy dust? Come on I'm talking about good stereos designed with intelligently selected compromises.
It's fair to assume that better systems do a better job of reproducing good recordings. However that's only 1/2 way there - if there is not a corresponding improvement in bad recordings one needs to be aware that what they perceiving as "improvements" in good recordings are likely colorations or the systems performance is not up to snuff when stressed by lesser or different quality recordings.
One can bias their system around any kind of recordings they want - be it acoustical or Judas Priest records, that's their choice and it's all good. But little information about the systems overall objective performance is revealed this way - nothing wrong with that as this is subjectivist audio. A diverse reference set does a better job of revealing a systems overall performance than does a narrow one.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Edits: 12/12/14
Whatever floats your boat.
I'm not talking about my boat - I'm talking about the boat. It's a rare bird that can select the best objectively performing audio equipment based on listening - you or I aren't one of them.
The truth here is you prefer colorations - you've told us so in your comments about how a bad stereo can make a bad recording sound better. And by implication you don't seem to care about how bad a bad recording sounds as long as your good recordings sound better - another admission of a preference for colorations. Now that's your boat.
Give me rhythm or give me death!
Don't tip the boat over!
I could hear it coming!
:)
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: