Hi Weseixas - I can't resist commenting on this part of one of your recent posts - "I do find musicians to be a funny breed, I'm sure there are many in the business with similar stories, regardless ...."
This, like many another comment seen fairly often on this site, seems to dismiss musician's opinions on audio out of hand, which is really quite bizarre when one really thinks about it. Perhaps you did not mean to do this, perhaps you did. I certainly do not deny that most of us are indeed a funny breed, LOL!
In response, I will quote another fellow musician who expresses many of our sentiments exactly. This was posted today on a different forum in a similar context (whether better equipment enhances a bad recording or makes it even worse). He is defining what constitutes good equipment, which he says is "gear that competently portrays performance elements of the music and not just the sterile sonic attributes of the recording."
IMO, far too many audiophiles concentrate only on the sterile sonic attributes, very often at the expense of the performance elements of the music. I have heard systems costing more than my house that contained supposedly state of the art equipment that simply didn't come close to the sound of acoustic instruments, and that no musician, therefore, would pay a dime for. We want to hear a cello that sounds like a cello, as in Weisselk's example you were responding to in your post I quoted. So do most equipment designers, for that matter, and I never see them dismissing the opinions of professional musicians. Of course, everyone has slightly different audio priorities, and I am not saying that you should necessarily agree with mine or any other individual's, I'm just saying that it is very odd to dismiss a musician's opinion because they are a musician. After all, a set of good ears is an absolute essential for our livelihood - we just use them a little differently, and a lot more often.
