High Performance Audio - The End?

It stands to reason that poorly recorded or produced music may be more enjoyable on systems with less resolving power.

it is the reverse, if you like this bad recording very much... You want to "extract" all his wine juice with the bad vinegar.... A very good system will give you the 2....But you will always think Alas! it is a bad recording of a so beautiful music....

But it is more relaxing in a bad system....But who want a more relaxing but bad audio system sound no questions asked?
It is like saying i like prostitutes, no love, no real emotions, only thing done.... :)

Myself i prefer to be in love with a way less beautiful girl than with the beautiful prostitute....His heart is my sound audio system....

In my car like with a prostitute i dont give a dam yes.... Then you are right on this count.... :)

You say " it stands to reason" but the world experience dont stand to reason at all..... :)

@dougeyjones,

'My response was always the same, to take the focus wheel on the projector and back it off perfect focus just enough to blur the lines between each pixel, but not enough to make the picture look fuzzy overall. Customers were always satisfied, and with good reason, 35mm film in theaters doesn’t look like modern 4k video production. It stands to reason that poorly recorded or produced music may be more enjoyable on systems with less resolving power.'



Yes, it's very similar to the same approach to soft filtering as used by film makers and photographers for decades now. 

Most of us do not want to see high resolution images of less than perfect looking actors and models in harsh light without make-up?

Instead most people tend to prefer to see only perfect looking, highly made up, well lit images in the highest resolution.

In audio we want our music recorded in the best way possible, but when it's not (99.9% of the time) a little soft filtering may help a little. That was Steve's point.

Some manufacturers like Harbeth have even openly said they don't want their domestic products to be as ruthlessly revealing as the ones they make for professional use. 

Those so-called monitors tend to be the unforgiving 'warts and all' types. In fact it's their very ruthlessness that's often cited as the main reason to not to use pro audio products in a domestic setting, isn't it?

Too much resolution.

For audio playback to move forwards it's very hard to avoid the conclusion that we need better recordings.

Recordings are the unfortunate bottleneck after a certain performance point, not the equipment, and climbing the sonic ladder further will only serve to make that more obvious.

Recordings are the unfortunate bottleneck after a certain performance point, not the equipment, and climbing the sonic ladder further will only serve to make that more obvious.

An audio system cannot be evaluated without a source recording, vinyl, cd or files playing.... There is many good one and many bad one....

But you seems to say that the more we improve the system less cd or files you have to listen to because they are too bad sounding...

I get your point...

But it is illogical to say that the best audio system in the world is charaterized by his " resolving" power, and on it at the end no cd or no files sound good...

You catch the absurdity?

The reason is that the best audio system in the world cannot be and is not charcterized by his "resolving" power like a microscope, but by his musical flexibility....

This musical rendering flexibility is reach not by the virtue of money cost invested in but first and foremost by a rightfull embedding of the mechanical, electrical, and acoustical dimensions where it seat...

In my audio system there is bad recordings and good one, but all sound better than ever....All is more musical.... I dont listen to recorded engineering sources only, i listen through my system house electrical grid and room acoustic the more musical rendition of some " bad recordings" by virtue of a system which is not only resolving but mainly musical because rightfully embed....

:)

@mahgister,

’But you seems to say that the more we improve the system less cd or files you have to listen to because they are too bad sounding...’


Not quite.

I’m merely saying, as Steve also said in his video, that beyond a certain point, an increase in resolution can often serve to make certain recordings sound worse.

Not unlistenable. Far from it. Just not as good as you might be used to hearing them on ’lesser’ systems.

Or maybe more appropriate systems?

In fact as I’m listening to my Mamas & the Papas CD I can very well hear the severe limitations of the recording. I still love the songs though.

If I was to use even more resolving loudspeakers than my Tannoy Berkeley’s I would only hear those bandwidth/resolution defects (caused by excessive Phil Spector-style bouncing down) even more clearly.

That’s the point. Certain recordings might sound better on less ambitious systems.

No way I’m giving up on listening to the Sex Pistols or Motorhead just because my system is too revealing for music that was never particularly designed to be played back on it.

Ok i get your point better cd318...

I must admit that all my files ,the worst like the good(classical or jazz or acoustic) sound better than they sounded when played on my past not so good audio systems...

But there is difference between a bad recordings with a microphone for example and a bad mixings....

You mamas and papas it is more a bad mixing and then your point is right, a bad mixing is particularly unlistenable on a too good system...

A bad recording of a Scriabin sonata is another matter, and more listenable on a good audio system....

my best to you....