Are most recordings so bad it's not worth spending large on speakers?


In my interest in finding a speaker with a more lifelike sounding speaker than most monopole - e.g. (bipole, dipole, omnis) I emailed Morrison at Morrison Audio about his omni speakers, which for full range are around $14k. I explained I use my speakers with my TV, and to listen to folk, jazz, blues, some rock.

His response re my music choices, was, "The recordings are dreadful in terms of a lifelike reproduction. You needn’t spend so much on speakers. A monopole pattern is just fine since that is what the recordings are tailored for."

Comments?

cdc2
atdavid

It is very hard to argue the signal chain, competently implemented, has noticeable impact on sound-stage and imaging when just moving your location a bit swamps out the effects.
More illogic from atdavid. That something may be difficult for you to understand does not mean that it is "hard to argue." In this instance, your claim is rather like stating, "It's hard to argue we can put a man on the moon when I get stuck in traffic every day on my way to work."
cleeds,
So school me  (instead of childishly trolling me).


Spell out for me, in any level of detail you choose, the impacts on phase and frequency response of a competently designed audio signal chain versus the impact on phase and frequency response of:
  1. A speaker and room in general.
  2. A person moving 1 ft (30cm) in a listening space.

Take all the time you need. Hint though, the information for 1 is readily available on the web, 2 you may need to work for.
Are most recordings so bad it's not worth spending large on speakers?

The simple answer is 'no'.
There are many gems. The better your system, the better those gems sound.
I think we are on the right path here. Phase is most important at cross over points particularly with sub woofers. I think otherwise frequency and amplitude as they relate to each other are critical in producing a refined image. It is true that 90% of what influences this interrelationship is the speaker and how it performs in a specific location in a room. To create an image it is critical that the sound from each speaker gets to your ears at exactly the same time at exactly the same volume using say a test signal from dead center stage. Now as the signal moves back and forth across the stage it's arrival time and volume change giving you it's position in space. I think that is something we can all agree on. Now, as I move a speaker in the room it's frequency response curve changes based on it's interaction with the room. The response of two identical speakers is never exactly the same because they can not occupy the same region in space. So, a pair of identical speakers can be 2-3 db different at any part of the response curve. So as an example take a violin. At 500 Hz it is say 2 dB to the left. At 1000Hz it is dead center then at 2000 Hz it is 3 dB to the right. You have different parts of the violins frequency response coming from different points of the stage blurring the image. It is not so important to have a flat frequency frequency response, It is important to have exactly the same frequency response. The only way I know of to achieve this is with high resolution room control. Other than this the only other issue that can confuse the image is early reflections that have to be minimized as much as is reasonable in any given room. You do not want a speaker blasting in all directions. The result of this is that you have more early reflections to deal with. You want to control the dispersion to create fewer early reflections. 
Obviously none of this has to do with amplification or signal sources. The image is embedded in the software but it is up to the speaker and room to interpret it correctly.