Legacy SE versus Vandersteen Quatros

Doug, is right, we all do hear things differently, and it explains why there are so many brands, and so many folks that love their particular speakers. There are two schools of thought on the issue raised by McInsound. As stupid as it might sound, I want speakers that allow bad recordings to sound bad, that to me is the sign of a good speaker. I tend to prefer equipment that editorializes the recording as little as possibile - even when editing is pleasant.

Pubul57, I know what you mean; however, we should clarify for semantic purposes.

I think we'd agree that a superior rig/speakers should allow the perception of the most natural/accurate/non-editorialized playback of the recording, whether good or poor.

I believe that superior systems/speakers will always make poor recordings sound better than on average systems. The better the system/speakers, the better the recording will sound. Now, perhaps we may not like the improved sound, due to being used to hearing it played back more poorly! We can have nostalgia, preconcieved notions about how it should sound, etc. That can color our perspective about the higher end playback. There have been many times I have had to adjust my expectations as I have heard an older/poorer recording played back far better, but it has sounded so dramatically different than I expected. That it was being played back at a higher fidelity level was incontrovertible; I had to get used to the fact that the music was different than I had imagined. One hears more of the flaws, but also more of the nature of the instruments, voices, venue, etc. If that is not the case, then I suggest there is a serious problem with the establishment of the rig. A poor recording is a poor recording, but an outstanding rig will make all music sound better, including poor recordings. A superior system is the tide which lifts all boats (recordings).

In that sense, then, I seek a speaker system/speaker which allows poor recordings to sound holisitically better. So, I think perhaps we are in agreement.

Disagreement over speakers is partly a function of the editorializing we all conduct when we establish our rigs, setting them up to suit our preferences.

"In that sense, then, I seek a speaker system/speaker which allows poor recordings to sound holisitically better. So, I think perhaps we are in agreement."

I understand how you mean it, and I agree.

My experience is bright tingy speakers sound aweful with poor and older recordings.....good speakers just sound great with anything IMO. Take the good old Focus 20/20's. Nothing they cant do well IMO. Everything I have thrown at them sounded superb. Never got fatigue listening long periods, and always took me to that magical place that usually only planars can do. A VERY relaxed, warm speaker.

It's a tricky topic in one respect since no speaker operates without attending components. Those components may be complimentary or difficult. To further complicate issues, one may guess the sound of a certain rig as it appears to the eye, but unless there is familiarity with the components and speakers the actual sound may be quite different than anticipated. When a person has familiarity with a speaker or component which has been used by them with a larger number of other pieces then perhaps a good baseline can be built regarding that speaker/component's global performance. But even then there can still be surprises!

Case in point, I think I described the Cambridge Audio Azur 840W and the Pathos Classic One MkIII accurately in my reviews, however when they were put into a situation in which they were feeding an actively crossed speaker their character changed (for the positive) profoundly. The use of a different technology leveraged their performance capabilities. Truthfully, I would not have recognized their sonic signature, the difference was so vast between the former (passive x-over) and latter (active x-over) implementation. The bottom line is that it becomes impossible to say definitively the component will sound ONLY thus. The best we can hope for is a fairly narrow set of descriptors to learn its basic parameters.

Knowing a component or speaker well is not simply a matter of, "I built this system and the speaker sounds thus..." - at least not to gain a holistic understanding of what the speaker is capable of. One needs to see how it reacts to 4, 5, 6, 7 or even more different components. Good speakers can definitely be made to sound poorer when used with a non-complimentary assemblage of gear. This is one reason I typically set up three or four systems when reviewing speakers, to gain a more thorough understanding of its character. Naturally, ultimately that determination is left to the owner.

There is an authentic excitement to the discovery of how a new system will sound; the electronic equivalent of having a first listen to a new piece of music. What's great is that when you have finally settled on your "house" sound, your ear's favorite combo of gear every new piece of music is savory, intoxicating, simply breathtaking. As my system has reached a point where it speaks to my ears the way I hoped it could it plays back all music more beautifully than when there was a deficiency that needed to be addressed over time. Hopefully many in our hobby share that experience.

The key to settling down and accepting our rigs as devices for enjoyment while not giving up a search for improvement is to accept that we will never arrive. There will always be improvements possible; there are levels of sound quality that await - this is assured by the ongoing improvements in technological change. I have gone from having to get my "ultimate" rig to being more content to establish excellent rigs, knowing that there are literally hundreds of variants to them. I have had the bar raised in terms of what I will accept as an excellent rig, but also see there is more latitude in which components and speakers are used to achieve that level of sound. For sure, not all components/speakers can do so, but with patience and experimentation an awful lot of gear can reach that point in a system where the gear plays to each others' strengths.