|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
|
|
Critic's Corner Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry. |
|
In Reply to: Those posted by E-Stat on March 15, 2012 at 19:17:20:
"The point is that the current state of my system doesn't frame my reference of what can be done."
This is fair enough - doesn't seem to be different than my initial post to NOT base the sound you hear on what you happen to own as your reference system at the time (which I feel most people and reviewers do). But rather an independent reference.
Your choice is comparing to live unamplified music - my choice is compare recordings and the system that reveals the greater degree of difference between them will be the system retrieving MORE information from all the recordings and will in turn take quality unamplified live recordings and make them sound more like real instruments.
All my go to recordings for evaluating systems are single instrument (and voice) unamplified top flight recordings. Most stuff fails outright just making a piano or cello sound like they're the real deal.
However I would not chuck out amplified music entirely because if you have a good idea of the recording engineer and the band's intent and target venue - then you know that synths have no frequency limitations compared to instruments. You can then figure out that the desired midbass drive they intend for a night club (for trance music for example such as what I put in the link) - it doesn't take rocket science to know what sound SHOULD be coming out of the stereo system - if that sound can't be reproduced by said stereo system - then it is failing at reproducing the signal it is being fed.
Hence why I find numerous speakers and systems highly overrated because if it can't reproduce 95% of the worlds most listened to music remotely properly then there is a problem.
The people who dismiss such recordings are the people who owns system's that do such a shitty job at reproducing it they have no choice but to not listen to it. Stuff like the Quad 57 is embarrassingly horrible at remotely accurately reproducing the artist's intent.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Those - RGA 03:33:05 03/16/12 (15)
- RE: Those - josh358 14:04:10 03/20/12 (2)
- Sorry - E-Stat 07:07:32 03/16/12 (11)
- RE: Sorry - RGA 21:01:30 03/16/12 (10)
- Rich, you're missing the point - E-Stat 06:11:02 03/17/12 (9)
- RE: Rich, you're missing the point - RGA 23:22:12 03/19/12 (8)
- RE: Rich, you're missing the point - josh358 14:32:38 03/20/12 (6)
- RE: Rich, you're missing the point - RGA 20:05:24 03/23/12 (5)
- RE: Rich, you're missing the point - josh358 14:25:41 03/24/12 (4)
- RE: Rich, you're missing the point - RGA 01:32:50 03/26/12 (3)
- RE: Rich, you're missing the point - josh358 06:20:25 03/26/12 (2)
- RE: Rich, you're missing the point - RGA 02:52:45 03/28/12 (1)
- RE: Rich, you're missing the point - josh358 19:19:08 03/28/12 (0)
- So what you like is simply - E-Stat 06:32:51 03/20/12 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
