Using Bad Recording to Evaluate a System

any great loudspeaker plays pretty much everything well. you have just exposed a poorly designed loudspeaker. you are right to do what you did. many will disagree but, but virtually most of the music worth owning is a far cry from audiophileville

I take along the music I listen to and enjoy which includes good and not so good recording quality. While it would be nice if all recordings were of equal high quality...it ain't gonna happen.

I think that many audiophiles go through the AUDIOPHILE phase at some time in their learning process...at least I did. In this phase recording quality and components become much more important to the audiophile than the music...it can be a somewhat confusing time to go through.

At home, I sometimes dip into my bag of tricks...tone controls!, works wonders on some of my early rock recordings.

Dave

Really good, well balanced systems shouldn't make a poorly recorded albums sound unlistenable, they should just expose them as over EQed, heavily compressed, noisy, no soundstage, obviously faked reverb, sloppily edited, etc. It should show the flaws, but not highlight them. If your system sounds brutal on tons of records, then something is wrong with your system.

Sogood51 makes a good point about tone controls. Your system should serve your music collection, not the other way around.

I had a very similar experience at a hi-end shop. When the owner asked me why I would use the particular cd to demo his speakers I said "if I can't enjoy this cd then these speakers are no good to me." He had no problem with this concept. I've owned several components and speakers that rendered certain cds unlistenable. In fact I once converted my music system to home theatre and it took me six months or so to realize I wasn't listening to music. Why? Because it sounded crappy. I don't think it's impossible to build a system that sounds good with poorly recorded music and audiophile recordings. I see it as a labor of love.

I enjoyed reading this thread ... very good points. I myself have gone from a very mid range system to a much higher end multi-channel, high resolution digital system in the last few years. I now go through my collection of older redbook CD's and just can’t quite re-capture some of the magic in terms of range, depth and clarity. Why? I spent a ton. It was there at one point... I swear it was; or maybe it was me.

Have I been corrupted?

I try to keep in mind that my expectations have changed as my system has gained fidelity. I am getting hooked on 24 bit 5.1 recordings ... even some of the older stuff comes alive. I am now torn between working the system end to re-capture OR reinvesting in 24 bit recordings that have been remastered. The list is pretty limited.

I will say this ... I am getting picky in my old age. I do still listen to "Let it Bleed" and "Zep I" even if it doesn’t have the range and clarity of Diana Krall. For that reason I think you need to listen to the bad with the good when auditioning new equipment; at least bring a few of your older less "glossy" recordings. I do think certain systems/components make older recordings sound worse. That being said, I wont bring along AM radio broadcasts to evaluate either.

Nothing pisses off a salesman worse that having him cue up Deep Purple Made in Japan after he just blew you away with Vivaldi. Even better ... old Neil Young with Crazy Horse on a burned CD (ouch).

Do it ... just for effect.

Sorry Kurt