@plga,
Yes, excellent post. 4 good points. I think most of us have experienced examples of point 4.
But what about Steve's experience with the Magnepans and mine with the Quads? [and is it also the same for ATC? I've often read that they do not suffer poor recordings well].
Could it be, just maybe - without offending anyone, maybe those particular designs, although extremely high resolution ones no doubt, are not particularly well balanced for all genres of music?
Or even particularly good with poor recordings, emphasizing weaknesses more than strengths to the point where certain tracks might start to fall apart.
'2- When you get more resolution, my experience tells me that you just don't get more detail, you also should get better tone, dynamics, holographic 3D sound, etc. In two words, more realism and fun, not just details in a clinical way. Otherwise, something it's wrong.'
Could that 'something' then be down to a question of balance? Resolution across the board instead of only in particular frequency bands? A little like those headphones which deliberately feature a slightly elevated frequency response in the mids enabling engineers to listen deeper into the mix.
Or maybe even resolution at the expense of timing, tone and dynamics? If such a thing is even possible?
'3- Most audiophiles (I put my self in the first place) must learn to relax and not do upgrades too often.
Otherwise, we end up listening the same tracks over and over to judge every upgrade and not to other tracks that also move us.'
Yes, since many of us like to use 'test discs' to evaluate new equipment it makes sense to use a good variety of recordings for evaluation both in genre and recording quality - rather than just a few familiar well recorded ones.
Instead of too much resolution, maybe we're really considering a question of not enough balance? Or maybe they're the same thing.
Interesting.
Yes, excellent post. 4 good points. I think most of us have experienced examples of point 4.
But what about Steve's experience with the Magnepans and mine with the Quads? [and is it also the same for ATC? I've often read that they do not suffer poor recordings well].
Could it be, just maybe - without offending anyone, maybe those particular designs, although extremely high resolution ones no doubt, are not particularly well balanced for all genres of music?
Or even particularly good with poor recordings, emphasizing weaknesses more than strengths to the point where certain tracks might start to fall apart.
'2- When you get more resolution, my experience tells me that you just don't get more detail, you also should get better tone, dynamics, holographic 3D sound, etc. In two words, more realism and fun, not just details in a clinical way. Otherwise, something it's wrong.'
Could that 'something' then be down to a question of balance? Resolution across the board instead of only in particular frequency bands? A little like those headphones which deliberately feature a slightly elevated frequency response in the mids enabling engineers to listen deeper into the mix.
Or maybe even resolution at the expense of timing, tone and dynamics? If such a thing is even possible?
'3- Most audiophiles (I put my self in the first place) must learn to relax and not do upgrades too often.
Otherwise, we end up listening the same tracks over and over to judge every upgrade and not to other tracks that also move us.'
Yes, since many of us like to use 'test discs' to evaluate new equipment it makes sense to use a good variety of recordings for evaluation both in genre and recording quality - rather than just a few familiar well recorded ones.
Instead of too much resolution, maybe we're really considering a question of not enough balance? Or maybe they're the same thing.
Interesting.