Is a highly discerning system enjoyable?


I argue that in terms of musical enjoyment, connection, feeling the musicians and composers maybe a highly discerning system is going too far? Maybe I want the warts airbrushed out.  Maybe I like a system that lets me listen to a broader range of recordings  without whincing?

Then there’s systems which are discerning of performances vs. discerning of upstream gear. I personally feel they are not the same thing at all.

Lastly, if your room is an acoustic mess, how can you tell?

If you feel strongly either way I'd appreciate examples of the gear that made you go one way or another.

erik_squires

What does this mean?

Not sure where the disconnect is, @cdc 

The producer was famous for saying his target listener used a stereo cassette player (i.e. boom box) as his reference.

My personal preference is realism, natural tone, presence and for the system to be able to convey emotion to the listener. I’m also trying to strike a good balance between being able to enjoy music and get the most out of a recording without overstepping the boundaries and crossing into a discerning or analytical. It’s tough to do and you end up walking on the edge where a smallest possible change like vibration control pucks, etc. can tip the scale.

But…I don’t want to be sitting there listening to a system that is a lab instrument, subjected to an aural microscope type presentation. 
So I guess a high resolution revealing (transparent to change) system rather than discerning (picky eater from a recording quality standpoint) is my preference. I’m close to the goal with my current set up but as we all know, never done. 

Question isn't one of bad recordings for me, bad recordings have always provided poor sound in every system I've built. Even the most romantic system I had in early 2000's couldn't make a silk purse out of a turd. Its the mediocre recordings I'm mostly concerned with, and these only seem to get better as my system has progressed.

 

To my mind an accurate system is one that provides most natural timbre, tonally balanced, great micro and macro dynamics, and yes, highest resolution and transparency. Highest levels of resolution and transparency won't like less than natural timbre or tonal imbalance, sound will become fatiguing.

 

My system today sounds better with the mediocre recordings than ever, greater resolution, transparency allied with everything else in balance means sense of live performers in room perceived with minimal effort, total engagement comes about within minutes of listening session, no fatigue ever with listening sessions lasting four to six hours. I listen to virtually every genre of music from all eras and the only recordings that really bother me are the extremely dynamic constricted with tiny sound staging, meaning narrow and no depth. Having system with most natural timbre means timbre anomalies don't bother me nearly as much, I've had more issues with this in past with systems having less natural timbre. I'd say in average listening session I never encounter recording I simply can't bear. Now, this is in regard  to streaming, so a single song with pretty poor recording isn't going to bother as much as if I was using physical media and had to put up with entire recording.

erik_squires

Just that I've heard that expression for a long time and eventually realized I never understood what it meant. How do they go about mastering a song to sound good in the car but not on hi-fi?

I understand about compression, bumping up the bass, smiley face eq, but do not see how that would be any more pleasurable in the car than hi-fi.

Cheers