Speakers that reveal bad recordings? Not for me.

its been my experience that the most neutral loudspeakers i've heard throughout the bandwidth are also the most enjoyable with all recordings. its no coincidence that many of the ones with dynamic drivers are also acoustic suspension

This is an interesting subject and one not discussed very often in audiophile forums. Are there dimenishing returns for the "muisic lover" with a system that is unforgiving. I think there is. I also think about the question: is this hobby about the sound of your system or enjoying music.

I agree with Newbee regarding choices but respectfully disagree with the notion that only a system that is ultra revealing can appreciate fine recordings. I would also argue that designing a system around those type of recordings is very limiting with regards to enjoying music.

Why is it ever desirable to have speakers that simply reflect whatever they are fed, for better or worse?

I suspect this is because, for a few folks, that is the idea of High Fidelity.

High Fidelity = Highly Faithful = Accurate Reproduction of the recording.

To some people audio reproduction is not unlike fashion clothing - a desire for the most pleasing presentation and to replenish one's wardrobe with the "latest".

I would agree that it is all a philosophy. There is no wrong or right. I prefer to collect music like Imelda has shoes rather than change equipment that way.

No rant here either - it is just the way it is - I equally respect those who see audio systems like fine wine - each to be tasted and enjoyed for a little while and then to move on. Collecting and sampling gear can be a fun hobby and nothing wrong with that. I would say that manufacturers encourage it - ever notice how big name high end speaker manufacturers offerings hardly ever sound even similar! (if it was simply about technology rather than a fashion competition for pleasing sound then I suspect you would find a lot more consistency in a manufacturer's line up)

Lokie, Lest you (and others) have read too much into my comments, I'm a long way from having what might in this forum, by many regular contributors, be considered a high res system, I gave up on that goal some time ago, but I do think that what I have cobbled together serves the music that I listen to quite well. In fact so well that I've lost a bit of interest in component aquisition or change. More fun to just listen to the music. If that is what brings Rgs92 to his conslusion he is no more the loser than I. :-)

But if you've got the money, time, and interest, a true well set up high res system isn't a bad thing in itself, its more about how its used I think. I think it takes a lot of time, experience, and money and patience, to put together a hi-res system in an appropriate environment. Too many attempts, including more than a few of mine, fail. Even the best recordings don't sound that great and routine recordings start to sound worst than they are. That is why I presumed that Rgs92's rant was more the result of his own failed efforts or listening to other's failed efforts, than listening to a system of complimentary components competently set up in a good room.

I share the conclusions of others about the improvement of the sound of recordings improving, or at least did not degrade, with the improvement in the resolution capabilities of the components I chose to use, as my experience, and focus on real personal priorities, grew.

For a music lover, I think Rgs92's conclusions are absolutly valid (for him). But for someone who is also and 'audio'phile I think they severly limit the potential for growth and satisfaction.

Sorry for the rant............ :-)