How Revealing Should a System Be?


I've heard tales of audiophiles reach a point of dimininshing returns as they upgrade their systems. Meaning, the more revealing the system gets, the more discriminating their system will be of the recordings that are played back on it. Some of you have said that recordings that you once really liked were now unlistenable because your system revealed all of the flaws in the recording. Doesn't that limit some audiophiles to what recordings they can actually listen to? If so, we have gotten away from the thing that brought us to this hobby in the first place.........THE MUSIC! It seems the equipment should never be more important than the music.
128x128mitch4t

Showing 1 response by french_fries

several years ago i bought a jvc boombox for the bedroom on sale (am/fm/cd/cassette). i would play hendrix, led zeppelin, madonna, boston, as well as jazz and classical from time to time.
on rock recordings the stereo imaging was incredible, and
the "heavy rock" sound was really satisfying and fairly clearly rendered. out in the "living room" where my "audio system" resides, i just don't have time to listen to crosby stills and nash's crappy mixing/mastering as much as i love the music, when i can be listening to mozart or bach. there are many killer recordings of jazz (i have a t.monk live done with a 3 ch.analog tape machine on verve) that rivals anything i've ever heard (well, almost). i've tried metallica (the "black" alblum) for fun just to see what my
"good stuff" thinks of it. it's okay, but ponderous, and i get a migraine after about 10 minutes. so maybe i can't put everything on the big system and enjoy it 100%, but that still leaves about 75% of my music collection that i can listen to. plus my tastes have changed- yes and pat benetar are giving way to allison krause and dianne krall (and metamucil).