Using Bad Recording to Evaluate a System


Once I went to a dealer to audition a speaker, brought a few CD's. One of them was a CD of a group I like but has rather low quality recording.
Well, I put that CD in and cued up a track, and when the music ended the dealer asked why I was using such a horrible sounding recording to audition. (I think he looked kinda slightly pissed. Maybe because the music sounded shrill and irritating the whole time???)
Yeah, why?
Here's what I think: an audio system should make listening the music a pleasant experience. The better your system can reproduce, the more enjoyment you get regardless of recording quality. Saying that 'my system is so good I can only play my audiophile discs' is basically saying something is wrong with my system. Yes, nowadays I tend to play my 'audiophile' CDs much more than regular ones, but that's because of the music AND the excellent recording quality, but when I play my regular or lower recording quality CD's, I find that, although the shortcomings are more obvious, my system can reproduce the music as an enjoyable presentation, and I enjoy it more than when I used to in prev. lower-res/quality/musicality systems.
yr44
Many of my favorite recordings sound rather mediocre so I'm in full agreement with your observations. Playing mediocre recordings forces one to deal with that old analytical/musical conumdrum, finding and keeping the perfect balance can be very elusive! Its relatively easy to make audiophile recordings sound good, much more difficult to make the mediocre ones sound good.
In my experience, the best systems reveal EVERYTHING on a recording--the good, the bad, and the ugly. If you have a system that makes everything sound good--even the worst recordings--IMO it's probably grossly colored.
Well, let me (sorta) take Yr44's side: I think it is useful to play bad recordings when evaluating a system - as long, of course, that you also use some really good recordings. Why? I think that there are many systems that sound fine on really good recordings, but exaggerate the flaws of bad recordings. For example, a system with a peak in frequency response around 10kHz may sound very detailed with excellent recordings, but make some bad recordings sound totally awful. So, I don't think this is necessarily about picking a system that "editorializes" but about getting different perspectives on what it does.
I think you may be on to something here. The never ending upgrade path has been an interesting journey, where, at first, improvements made good recordings sound so much better, but bad ones became worse. But as I drastically improved my digital source, good recordings sound even more detailed and refined, while at the same time, the bad ones become more enjoyable, less harsh. There is a very interesting review here on Audiogon that really addresses this issue in a review of Triangle Volante speakers.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?rspkr&1116803821&read&keyw&zztriangle
Yr44, I like your method. I assume besides the 1 bad CD you also take a good one. For me, the music has to serve me. I don't want to be limited to Rebecca Pidgeon/Spanish Harlem/Chesky or the like. The best 2 words I could use to describe my taste would be "relaxed detail". I think someone could write a story about Goldilocks and the three stereo systems. This one is too bright, this one is to dark, etc. We all go for the middle one in regards to our own ear. Even if I thought yours was the brighter one, I bet we could make it brighter or darker but it's in the middle for you and that's all that counts. Viva la difference! Good luck.