Speakers that reveal bad recordings? Not for me.


Why is it ever desirable to have speakers that simply reflect whatever they are fed, for better or worse?
I can control the upstream equipment, but I cannot control the quality of the recording, which severely limits my freedom of music choice, defeating the purpose of an audio system. This just seems like common sense to me, and I get annoyed when a dealer or whomever mentions this as sign of quality. (Thanks for reading my rant.)
rgs92
Why is it ever desirable to have speakers that simply reflect whatever they are fed, for better or worse?
Answer Monitoring. A well designed loudspeaker will sound good even if musics poorly recorded.
I have never found that getting better gear made records worse. It always sounded better. If you hear it worse, the "better" gear just isn't, set up poorly, or both.
The recording is what it is. A bad recording is not the speaker's fault. That's what signal processors like dynamic range expanders tone controls, and equalizers are for, to make a lesser recording sound better.
If you play a badly recorded record on a good system it will sound like a badly recorded record. A good system does not make a bad record sound better. In my former days as an audio dealer I was often ask for systems that would make everything sound good. I always told them that there was no such thing. This is not to say that you should have a system that has so much top energy that it makes most recordings unlistenable. I have favored British speakers because I have found that while they have very extended top ends they lack the exaggeration that some other speakers have. As my system has improved through the years I have discovered that some records that I was unimpressed with are much better than I thought and other ones that I liked are now intolerable. But in the main most of them are still listenable. But if a recording is truly bad a good system will reveal it. The other night I took out an E. Power Biggs LP of organ and brass featuring The Prince of Denmark's March, which I liked so much that I used it at my wedding. It was horrible, no organ could be heard and the brass sound was indescribable. Looking at the record I realized that it was a back up copy that I had purchased without realizing that Columbia had cheapened their records and re-equalized them . If anyone out there thinks they have a system that will make this record [ 2 record set actually] sound good they can have it for the cost of postage. It has the original art work but records you can flex like cheap dynagroove. I hope I still have my original copy among my 3000 odd LPs.
I should have included the old saying, " The wider you open the window the more dirt flies in." There is no way good equipment can improve the sound of a bad record. Good equipment reveals more of what is on the record. Garbage in, garbage out. I have the LPs of the original, "Will the Circle Be Unbroken" which were very good. I bought it on CD. It was clanky, compressed, and generally bad. I never listened to it. It was remastered a few years ago and now is a close approximation of the LPs. If the thesis is that a good system makes everything sound better why do I hear a difference?