GMA Callisto VS. Merlin TSM

I find this issue of making all of one's recordings sound good very interesting. It is something I look for in components, but probably would not were I a reviewer or designer. However, I don't think about it as making poor recordings sound good, which could be an exercise in covering up. Rather, I think of it as extracting and communicating all the music from all my recordings. Systems that only sound good with the best recordings lead to music collections that are heavy on Brazilian female vocalists accompanied by acoustic guitars and shakers. Puke.

What? Why do you say that about me Bombaywalla? I was merely offering up another way to say what songwriter is saying, and what I think Bobby is saying, in response to Minbean's position.

I can see that. But I've read a lot of reviews in which the reviewer says something like, "as glorious as this component sounds on great recordings like the pablum in my music collection, it will also let you hear every wart, zit, and hair out of place on less-than-perfect recordings." And we've been fed that line for decades and I think that implicit in it is the premise that this is the price one must pay for having great gear. (And conversely, buy something euphonic if you want to listed to old Beatles records.) My old Quad 57's, as musical as they were, were very very fussy about recordings and very revealing of upstream changes (also, I was younger when I had them). Ditto the Thiels I owned recently. But not so much for my GMAs, Harbeths, and ProAcs. If I were a reviewer, I might opt for that greater transparency to what is upstream. As a music lover, I think not. As an audiophile and music lover, I am perpetually conflicted.