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
cleeds, yes, I do have actual evidence of my claim. First, I have built hundreds of audio systems from extreme budget on the low end of a couple thousand dollars up to HiFi at the $100K mark. In reviewing I compare such systems continuously, and it becomes quite obvious what systems can and cannot do with all genres of music. The hard limitations of the genres of speakers and components becomes clear as day when many systems are built and assessed using a wide variety of musical genres.

It also becomes obvious that when people have middle to lower end systems and talk as though those systems are as good as those at shows, or they are close to SOTA, they have little understanding as to the actual performance spectrum for audio systems. Many people here make ridiculous performance claims for systems that are obviously incapable of what they are claiming. Their framework of reference is so narrow that they have no idea actually where their system is in absolute terms, and that is because they have built so few systems in their own room.

Secondly, all you have to do is look at the virtual systems here to know in a moment roughly where the performance level will be. There are precious few that can handle extreme music with aplomb. You can be assured that practically no system under $25K MSRP will be great with all genres of music, able to handle compressed music and extreme LF well. Eliminated are all smallish full range speakers, most dipole panels, almost the entirety of bookshelf speakers, all tower speakers with 8-10" woofers or smaller, etc. In other words, the vast majority of speakers alone, not even talking about quality of components, are physically incapable of handling some genres of music that are much more demanding. Playing these genres of music on such systems will sound like sh_t. Then, you have the people who don’t even consider cables important, so their system is automatically compromised, much less those who mix cables without any understanding of what they can do when used properly.

Factor in all the middle to low end electronics driving speakers and it is clear that most of those systems do not have premium sound regardless of what speakers they are driving. My point is not to disrespect budget audiophiles, but to point out that criticism of the genres of music is misplaced, and it is due in large part to people hearing it on seriously compromised systems.



douglas_schroeder
cleeds, yes, I do have actual evidence of my claim. First, I have built hundreds of audio systems from extreme budget on the low end of a couple thousand dollars up to HiFi at the $100K mark. In reviewing I compare such systems continuously ...
That's the logical fallacy known as appeal to authority. You do not provide any actual data to support your statement:
The fact is that most audiophiles' systems are not nearly as good as they think.
An audio system that cannot play all music, all recordings superbly, is not much of a high end system. There are fundamental weaknesses, shortcomings in a system that cannot sound terrific with all genres of music and all recordings.

@douglas_schroeder 

I had a quick peek at your system. Very impressive. It represents the opposite of my approach to audio. (Mine is strictly single driver, back loaded horn, flea powered SET etc.) Now clearly your system will do a lot of things mine won't, but I think you'd be mistaken if you think your system comes close to working as well as mine on the material mine is focused for. And by mistaken, I mean dead wrong.

Now I am not suggesting one system, or one approach, is better than another. They are simply the result of different interpretations of what good sound reproduction is supposed to be. Long story short, your system will not play all recordings superbly if by "superbly" we mean a standard accepted by every discerning audiophile. Nor will mine. However, without doubt, both our systems are high end.


@douglas_schroeder

"The hard limitations of the genres of speakers and components becomes clear as day when many systems are built and assessed using a wide variety of musical genres."


Agreed.

I was happy listening to my collection of largely 60s/70s rock and pop for years and years on my small Rega bookshelves until a friend introduced me to Coltrane and Davis via his large bi-amped KEF floorstanders.


It soon became apparent that the tiny Regas, despite their superior midrange, could not do justice to those vintage Blue Note recordings the way the KEFS could.Without the double bass driving along the rest of the band, the performance lost most of its impact and momentum.

"Ye cannae change the laws of physics, Captain!" as a certain Scottish engineer may or may have not said.

I often use the phrase “in the same league”to describe a system that can compete with another. High end is essentially the big league. 


Some systems are Dodgers, well financed and capable of winning more but not all contests. Others are Orioles, then everything in between.

That’s for comparing things on some absolute scale which really does not exist for home music systems.

Then there is that everybody has their favorite team. Could be any of those teams in the big league. We tend to call those people “audiophiles”.

A system either works well or it doesn’t to meet a users needs. That is the main thing.