Should a high end system be flexible, or demanding?


This is a discussion we dance around here a lot. I want a system that is flexible. That lets me play music from Sister Rosetta Tharpe in the 1940s all the way up to today and enjoy it.  I simply can't expect mono recordings from then to sound the same on my system as they did to the recording engineers at the time, nor can I make a 1940's "reference system" work well for modern tracks.

Making a system that is too demanding that keeps you looking for audiophile approved recordings while ignoring music as culture for the past 100 years is a kink.
erik_squires

Interesting question!

I think a system, beyond the fact of being flexible or demanding, relatively and accordingly to his components specifically designed parts, must be optimally embedded at the end anyway...

And an acoustically very optimally controlled audio system is anyway always at the same time relatively flexible and relatively demanding...

A system which would be essentially mainly flexible or essentially mainly demanding, would not be an ideal choice anyway, but a functionnally specialized commodity for some needs...

Acoustic is the ultimate test for a system....And acoustic dont give a damn about flexibility or demanding performance of the system, acoustical ask for OPTIMAL synergy between system and room....And then transform a flexible system in a more demanding one or transform a demanding system in a more flexible one.... This is the power of acoustic controls....

Then a high end system must be OPTIMALLY working.....What i call "well embedded in the 3 working dimensions" which will make it more demanding and more flexible at the same time....