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
According to professor James Morrison, it might mean that we want everything and we don't want to have to wait for it.
I have left vinyl behind, but at one stage I had a turntable with three arms each with their own phono amp. I also almost always had two turntables. I was able to accommodate a wide spectrum of material.

This can be done on the digital side too. Use 2 or 3 sources, hooked to 2 or 3 DACs, hooked to 2 or 3 preamps and so forth.

Expensive, but you can have you cake and eat it too. 


This is philosophy and how we approach systems.  There are folks here who are happy to alter their musical tastes to just audiophile recordings and relegate other music to the car.  
These folks are criticized for listening to their system rather than listening to music. I disagree as these recording deliver an extraordinary experience.

li personally am not in that camp but I get it. I like to listen to these types of tracks from time to time.  At a root level, I am in the flexibility camp and my system needs to sound good playing the music I like.  If it doesn’t there is no real point.  
Mono recordings from 30s and 40s might be extreme but so pretty much want most rock, jazz and classical recordings to sound good on my system.  There will be exceptions.  Some recording are just poorly done.  But if it is a great system, an average recording should sound very good to me.