Is Upgrading Degrading?

What seems to me a possibly related question turns on the issue of "naturalness" as the most sought-after attribute in a fine stereo system.

To what degree do audiogioners agree (or disagree) that approximating a live performance ought to be the highest goal? If a violin sound is pleasing to us but significantly enhanced through technology to the point where it is no longer a close equivalent to a real instrument, is this an abomination or a natural extension of our abilities to play with sound to an almost endless degree? After all, many recordings are heavily edited to remove performance mistakes and artificially create a performance that may not be duplicable in "real life."

Marburg, editing a recording to remove a mistake doesn't seem to me to be the same thing, or done for the same purpose, as an enhancement "through technology to the the point where it is no longer a close equivalent to a real instrument".

For example, Glenn Gould spliced tape to get the most perfect expression (in his view) of the music as it was written. I believe him to have been a bit compulsive about this but I'm not arguing with the results.

The goal of high end playback technology is similar in nature although the expression is not the same in kind. What playback wants to do is alter the original recorded signal as little as possible.

That has to be done with a grain of salt when we are remastering Alan Lomax's recordings of Jelly Roll Morton, for example, since the recording technology produced a signal with speed variations.

I guess this is where your point seems relevant to me. We can all agree that a musical sound is more natural when the recording and playback systems don't change the data or introduce artifacts. Some of us can hear the imposed data better than others, but all of us can hear some things.

Hi Tobias,

Yes--I pretty much agree with all of your points. I guess the issue seems relevant to me at the moment as I've just supplemented my system with a new Rel sub bass and have spent hours fastidiously playing with its position in the room, cross over point with the main speakers and volume adjustments. I'm sure I'll do a lot more tweaking.

At the moment however, the sound is decidedly NON-natural, if by natural I mean scrupulously duplicating actual orchestral sound. The sound is richer in the low end in an unnatural, but nevertheless, deeply intoxicating way. Again, you'll accuse me of lumping different issues together and that's true. I suppose we'd like our components to reproduce the recording as faithfully as possible, prior to any downstream processing, but it's at this point things seem to get tricky. Perhaps Stradivarius would have been thrilled by a violin sound modified through electronics in a way that no earthly violin could quite get? Is it heresy to attempt to go beyond duplication of acoustic instruments to try to actually improve them?

Say What?

Ebm, it's this: are you allowed to make your system do things to the music that no real-life instrument would do? Beef up the low end with a sub for example (calling Dr. Velodyne!), or add euphonious coloration (the Linnie phrase for tubes) in the mids.

Marburg, I strongly suspect that all or most all new owners of RELs go through a honeymoon with their subwoofer. I am considering a T5 for my mini-system, myself...