In Reply to: Clearly you can't break down your subjective analysis into different elements so... posted by Analog Scott on February 27, 2010 at 00:54:22:
"let's take a simpler approach. Does Concrete Blonde sound the same to you on an excellent system than on a boom box?"
No it does not sound the same - it sounds better on what I would consider great stereo systems. In general all recordings sound better if the stereo is truly better.
I would say 1/2 of my recordings satisfy to one degree or another on my car stereo or my portables. I have a Concrete Blonde CD that is one of the recordings I can enjoy on my midfi gear - this one truly does sound better when it goes on a better system.
I have some well recorded pop music, an example would be Supertramp, that sounds impressive even on a good midfi system (say a 3 grand NAD/Polk/Rega rig). I'm not so sure some of these kinds of "well recorded" pop records benefit so much (though they do benefit) as the system improves. This includes stuff like Dire Straights, Eagles, etc. that we commonly find as pop music in audio salons.
At the same time many recordings, including many better recordings, just don't work so well on midfi gear.
Is one presentastion of the same music sonically better than the other?
Sure it's always better with a better system. I would admit that many recordings, usually those musically less complex, might provide some degree of satisfaction on a sonically inferior rig. But such a system certainly alienates many recordings, both lo quality and high quality recordings, from being enjoyable at all.
I have no recordings that sound worse on a higher quality audio system than on a lower fi or lesser quality system. Sure I can better discuss recording quality listening to all recordings on a better system, yet at the same time the music and intent of the music itself becomes more apparent - ie. gets better.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Clearly you can't break down your subjective analysis into different elements so... - Don Till 04:32:00 02/27/10 (10)
- RE: Clearly you can't break down your subjective analysis into different elements so... - Analog Scott 06:28:42 02/27/10 (9)
- RE: Clearly you can't break down your subjective analysis into different elements so... - Don Till 08:07:58 02/27/10 (8)
- RE: Clearly you can't break down your subjective analysis into different elements so... - Analog Scott 08:40:47 02/27/10 (7)
- RE: Clearly you can't break down your subjective analysis into different elements so... - Don Till 08:56:02 02/27/10 (6)
- Now let's go full circle - Analog Scott 10:23:17 02/27/10 (5)
- And your point is? - Don Till 19:43:06 03/02/10 (3)
- I think my point was clear - Analog Scott 20:48:51 03/03/10 (2)
- Sure as a point it was clear too bad it has no relevance to the topic at hand! - Don Till 07:24:14 03/04/10 (1)
- you are correct, other than directly addressing your assertion it was pretty irrelevant. nt - Analog Scott 13:06:24 03/04/10 (0)
- RE: Now let's go full circle - morricab 01:03:04 02/28/10 (0)