Do you get to a point that the system becomes more revealing, in that the source material can make or break the sound?
That has bothered me since I read it.
I believe I disagree from most who commented to it.
On another thread I posted how some tunes don't sound so good on my better junk.
To that end, is it the tunes or the equipment?
Many of my favorite tunes are from even before I was born, and that was a long time ago.
As my favorites, I just adjust my equipment as I don't just want to be stuck just playing "demonstration quality" tunes just to show off my equipment.
The tunes of past days are what they are and if the equipment will not play nice with them - we must adjust the equipment as that is what we do - right??
Bill, we are not saying that the tunes that are not audiophile quality are not worthy of listening too. Far from it. If that were
the case, I/we wouldn't listen to 95% of what I/we listen too. HRDROKN asked a question and there were some answers that were spot on. A great system will
make sub-par recordings sound like ass. It will even make recordings that previously sounded great on a lesser system sound, well.....not so good anymore. It's the nature of the beast.
He was just asking if the source material can make or break the sound. Well, that's obvious. Yes.
Does that change what we want to listen too? For some, maybe. For others, no. For many? It doesn't matter. They just want to listen to the music. This has been the case since the introduction of recorded music. It doesn't matter what medium you get it from and it doesn't matter what source or rig it comes from.....folks just want to hear the music.
I must admit [and I don't believe I have ever admitted this before] that when I evaluate a rig, component, cable or what have you that will be introduced into my rig, it must fit all of my criteria......which is seemingly endless. One of the most important criteria is the fact that whatever is introduced into the rig must play everything well. Not just the audiophile recordings. It must do well on everything from Bob Marley in his early non-studio ranshack of a building [if you could even call it that] recordings to early recordings of Little Feat to Bon Jovi's first album with the song "Runaway". It must also be able to do AC/DC, Beatles, BB King, Mic Fleetwood, Air Supply, Queensryche, Kenny Chesney and even Eminem to realistic reproductive qualities. Then it must pass all of the Telarc, Bermester, audiophile SACD's and other audiophile stuff I have with finesse, clarity, musicality and authority. My music is all over the place and I don't want a rig to shine on one thing or one genre only.
While my rig can shine incredibly well on reference albums and [truly] dynamic albums, it means nothing
without the other 95% or more of music that I have at my disposal. All of the music I have, I have on a hard medium. In other words, it's mine. Many times, I have 6 or 7 copies of the same album on different mediums and with different versions and remasters. Of course I try to get the best source material I can get to achieve the most revealing results. While I will admit the "best" recording isn't always the best, it does not discount the fact that I still love the musical reproduction as I listen.
It's all a compromise. We all do it. Otherwise we would settle for nothing less than live. Can I have a better system for reference albums? Yes. Do I want it? No. Do I want a system that shines on my reference and dynamic albums as well as every other genre of music I have in my library? You bet. I'll admit, I compromised. All without altering the source at all. No EQ, no tone controls or other altering special "buttons".
That still doesn't change the fact that when the system becomes more revealing, the source material can make or break the sound.