Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Why would anyone opt for an "utltra revealing" system,when music isn't recorded perfectly? This would limit my music only to audiophile recordings.
Reader "dr.d" asks: "Is it better to have a decent system that allows all recordings to sound good, or to have a system that might make some not-so-hot recordings no fun to listen to?" What's your preference, a system that always creates beauty or one that can reveal the ugly truth?
Unvarnished truth would, in my opinion create beautiful music most of the time. Sometimes recordings are glaringly bad, though if I love the music itself, I'll just suck it up and deal. If a system makes my old punk albums sound as pretty as a Bach suite, I'm not interested!
The measure of a system should be how well it makes your worst recording sound. How many of you would prefer your woman without makeup, your food without spices, herbs and condiments, your home with interior decoration? Beauty enhances every aspect of life. Why should audio be any different? There is, however, no denying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Out of respect for the artists, you must go for the truth. Many instruments do not always sound sweet & lovely as the artist/ composer will express the whole range of human emotions via their works. All which, respectfully, must come through any decent high fidelity system.
I'd like to know what's there, for better or worse. The truth is, I can't afford a super-revealing system anyways, so I'm getting some form of veiled beauty. As the saying goes, "the grass is always greener on the other side." I'm sure if I had a megabuck, super revealing system, my opinion may change. But, for now, the truth shall set you free! I wonder how many more cliches I can fit here...
For me, a beautiful system reveals the strengths of a recording without adding undue emphasis in the high and low frequencies. It also maintains good dynamic range. However no system can make up for the deficits of a bad recording. While some hardware may "cover up" the faults they also have trouble revealing the strengths of a good recording. This is true if a system is geared for "truth" or "beauty." However, if you want Truth and Beauty, visit Steve Roach dot com. It's a good album.
Truth or as close as I can get to it. Lesser recordings might not sound as good, but they are far from unlistenable on a revealing system. It becomes more a state of mind than anything. If I know the recording is sub-par, then I can excuse it on some levels. But if a recording sounds good only because my system has made it sound better because of some shortcoming or oversight, then it's harder for me to excuse it. Why not strive for a revealing AND musically satisfying system. Hardly mutually exclusive, at least from where I sit.
Having had both, I prefer a system which lies a little, but not a lot. Analytical sound is fine with terrific recordings, but I find that it limits what I want to listen to. A system that softens harsh recordings a bit allows me to listen to a broader variety of music for a longer time without fatigue.
I want the truth even if it hurts. After all, I work as a tester for a major player in the industry and though I don't work with the actual sound-quality tests I'm one of the guys giving a input based on wanting utter truth while others may want some coloring on some products.
Great question. I find that I've always preferred higher quality recordings, so I guess I side with the "unvarnished truth" crowd. I know that there are some good records out there that, had they only been engineered well, would be absolute joy to listen to, but, because they sound like nails on a chalkboard, I don't get the pleasure from them and just don't listen to them.