Is it possible that the improved sound quality you are talking about is because your TNT200's were rebuilt? Maybe the recordings are not as bad as you think.
Poor recordings that are now great.
This could be a useful thread. It obviously speaks to the quality of the gear. Since I've gotten my Acoustat TNT 200's and 120 back from rebuild/upgrade, I'm blown away by the fidelity of recordings I've considered to be at the bottom of the barrel; all early recordings.
Beatles,
Stones,
Dylan,(some beyond help)
America,
Donovan,
Leonard Cohen,
Monkees,
Steppenwolf,
Louis Armstrong,
Simon, Garfunkel,
Procol Harem,
Johnny Rivers,
Chris Kristofferson,
Loretta Lynn,
etc.
That typical transient saturation is either gone or drastically reduced with the revelation of information lost otherwise, with a corresponding increase in imaging and sound stage. I remember a few salesmen back in the 70's suggesting poor recordings be used as the yard stick when auditioning gear but I never heard the kind of improvement I'm talking about. Interestingly, the difference in otherwise good recordings is not as apparent.
Beatles,
Stones,
Dylan,(some beyond help)
America,
Donovan,
Leonard Cohen,
Monkees,
Steppenwolf,
Louis Armstrong,
Simon, Garfunkel,
Procol Harem,
Johnny Rivers,
Chris Kristofferson,
Loretta Lynn,
etc.
That typical transient saturation is either gone or drastically reduced with the revelation of information lost otherwise, with a corresponding increase in imaging and sound stage. I remember a few salesmen back in the 70's suggesting poor recordings be used as the yard stick when auditioning gear but I never heard the kind of improvement I'm talking about. Interestingly, the difference in otherwise good recordings is not as apparent.