Most agreed upon best speaker?

"Why don't I just enjoy the music as it is now and forget about upgrades?"

Dammed if I know, but it seems to be a disease, some sort of a masculine thing, that all audiophiles suffer from, at least to some degree.

FWIW, at least it worked for me, I made a point about becoming informed about the music I was playing as well as the performance, etc, - then, when my potential critics arrived and started to launch an attact, ala your wife's, where I could dazzle them with knowledge, they would feel inadequate about their own music knowledge, and leave my obsessions alone. Works for guests as well, just don't try it on a musicologist!

And the side benefit - In the process of acquiring all of this knowledge I acutally enhanced my own enjoyment of the music in the process. Go figure. :-)

Lrsky, would you come over and sign my abdomen?

Newbee, the idea that a certain age of music recordings is designed to sound right on a certain vintage of speaker and amplification is a red herring. Often recording engineers, just like today, are recording on location and using headphones. Mic placement theory has not changed in the last 40 years.

Any engineer worth his salt knows that the monitors in the studio are not telling the truth, and that the recording will have to be heard on several different systems, and that it will have to sound right on all of them. That has also been universally acknowledged since the 1950s.

Your descriptions of the Telarc are spot on though. And a lot of the re-issues. I think you are hearing things right.

I recall the dynamics are what made the early Telarc digital recordings, like the well known Shaw/Firebird recording, special at the time, but in hindsight today, many other aspects, like detail, were lacking. Things have improved greatly with digital mostly since then.

Atmosphere, I find your comments interesting. You may be right.

You certainly are right about the 'golden age' of recording techniques 50 years ago that survived the initial introduction of stereo (ping pong anyone) and ultimately, and unfortunatly I think, grew into excessive multi-miking, spot miking/mixing, etc. There were/are some great recording engineers, just not enuf I think. In this case I'm not sure that the exception proves the rule. At least when I started listening to the RCA's and Merc's I had modest stuff and didn't start to appreciate their sonic 'greatness' until Harry Pearson started pointing it out and I had started to assumble some stuff that let me hear what was actually in the groves.

I was listening to a couple of those original RCA LS's last night on my modest analog system (SP10 II, Oracle TT, Benz Glider, and MMT arm) and the results were excellent. Every bit as good, or better, than quality, contemporaneously recorded, digital over a system addmittedly tuned to flatter digital. BUT, and you knew there was a BUT (or butt, as the case may be) remasters on the RCA .5 series, the Chesky series, the Classic reissues, and some CD's, just didn't rise to that level.

Perhaps wrongly, I assumed that the folks resonsible for re-issues were using equipment to assess the reissues that flattered the reissues and it was equipment contemporaneous to the re-issue process - equipment that was/is not in my possession. Hell it must have sounded good on someone's stuff, I've seen it get many accolades. This suggested to me that, as with my Telarc experience, my supposition had some merit. But I'm often wrong, especially when I extrapolate from personal experience some thing more universal. :-)