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
Here's my thoughts (yours may conflict, or not - so caveats apply):

Improving a system does include inproving it's ability to resolve the music. I believe that many interpret this to be lightning quickness and knifelike precision. I don't. I believe that an increase in resolution means improving the palpability of the instruments. A guiter should have a wooden body ALONG with the metal string sound. A piano has a form and a resonating texture that is usually not portrayed on many systems.

I don't particularly like the new trend in metal or diamond tweeters. They sound too sharp and brittle to me. And in order to keep up with their overly quick nature, the midranges are following form, with ceramics and such. All speakers I've heard with this formula, even the expensive ones, are incredibly quick. But they don't portray the body of the instrument to my satisfaction - it isn't believable, it's too Hi-Fi.

This may be where your problem lies.

Enjoy,
Bob
In my audiophile journey, I've found that a revealing system can be both good and bad. What I enjoy is revealing MUSIC, the type that draws you into the experience and transports you to another place.

Whether a revealing or musical system accomplishes this varies from system to system, but mostly depends on the person listening and how they interpret it.
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).
Everyone who has responded "gets it" which is very encouraging indeed.I wish all of you many years of musical joy and happiness.I suppose in a perfect world you would'nt even care after purchasing your equipment what it was or wasnt doing properly...it would simply dissapear.Like life itself all that would be left would be the illusion of real.
Brucegel,
Thank you for distinguishing that musician (drummer) in me that wants to hear it all, from the sustain of guitar strings to the creaking of the piano bench. My SET-based system answers to that desire.
And Simon, thank you for reminding met that each of us not only hears differently, but that each of us also looks to hear different things.
Great thread, everyone.