Vinyl v Digital: The Thirty-Five Year Con

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Actually, I'm not from Boston, but I did spend formative time at Tanglewood, and lived in Boston for several years. So there will always be a nostalgia factor.

 

But I've been to more concerts NY Phil, LA Phil, and Chicago Symphony. I've only heard Philly once, live, in Carnegie Hall. Great orchestra for sure.

 

But, yes BSO is one of my favs, although only in the last three or four years would I have ranked it among the very best.

 

Thirty years ago, I would have agreed with you about Philadelphia. It's still a great orchestra--and I hope it always will be--but...

 

I think finances play a role. BSO is the most heavily endowed orchestra in the world, the Pops are a cash cow, and Tanglewood is the American Salzburg. The salaries are good and the quality of life in and around Boston is hard to beat...so long as you're ok with snow.

 

When Moennig closed shop in Philly that was a sad day, end of an era. Curtis is still going strong though. But some wonder about the strength of Philly's commitment to the orchestra.

 

I have no idea about that or opinion on the matter.

 

As for record producers shaping the sound. I suppose there's that but, I can tell you from personal experience that the BSO players in my day acutely felt that sense of tradition, culture, what made Boston different. That's what drove it. Not saying other orchestras didn't (or don't) have that but I guess it's a matter of degree.

 

As for music directors shaping the sound...well, yeah, that's huge. But if the players aren't willing to go along...

 

That's why they bounced Erich Leinsdorff out there and how Ozawa settled in for waaaay to long.

 

By the time he left, everybody was ready for a new direction. Levine began steering the ship in a more Germanic direction...Nelsons follows apace.

 

There is no question that finances play a huge role. And, Philly is weak in that regard, as are many other symphony orchestras. No one will ever catch up to the BSO endowment in that area. However, that does not guarantee artistic success.

 

So, finances do not really tell the story. Quite frankly, as non-BSO subscribers or attendees, the reaction of all my classical-loving friends and I from afar about the really lengthy Ozawa era in Boston was a huge shrug of the shoulders. We just do not understand from our perspective how and why this went on and on. We base that primarily on the available discography, and few of us have any cherished Ozawa/BSO recordings of any note from that era. I also heard many syndicated BSO concerts on FM hosted by the legendary William Pierce, whose Bostonian stuffiness I could not stand, but tolerated. I listened, but I was seldom impressed by the music itself under Ozawa. It was not bad, but ...

 

I grant you, the same could easily be said of the 10-year Muti era in Philadelphia. I have no cherished recordings from then, nor was I personally ever a big fan of his at that early stage of his career. Actually, I was not that impressed later either. Frankly, I was glad to see Muti replaced by Wolfgang Sawallisch, who I thoroughly and deeply enjoyed live countless times. Sawallisch, the consummate, humble musician, became deeply loved by concert goers in Philly in a way that Muti never achieved, his youthfulness, "Maestro" hairdo and his appeal to the ladies notwithstanding.

 

In any case, there are those conductors we love, and those we do not. It is really tough to get the right guy to perform magic in the concert hall these days, which seemed a less formidable task in the days of Stokowski, Toscanini, Beecham, Reiner, Solti, Szell, Von Karajan, Bernstein, and many, many others. Sir Simon Rattle, though I deeply admire him, had not become the superstar icon I expected in Berlin, for example. I think the decline of classical music recording in general may be the issue. I wish him every success at the LSO.

 

We we do not have the old fashioned "giants" we used to have. But, I am greatly impressed by the sheer musicianship of many of today's younger conductors and Music Directors, Yannick Nezet-Seguin being at the very top of my list from his totally well deserved, world-class perch atop both the Met and the Philadelphia Orchestras.

 

Meanwhile, there are a lot of other guys now who I just do no get, starting with Gergiev, Paavo Jaarvi, Thielemann, and others.

 

Time will tell.

[gmgraves]

It is clear that you love the Boston Symphony, and for good reason. It is a remarkable institution, a great orchestra with a great tradition that also has the good fortune to play in one of the world's greatest concert halls.

 

Local fan boy that I am, I am just as impressed, if not more so, with my own Philadelphia Orchestra, which I believe has traditions just as deep and comparable to, but different from, the BSO. Those were developed in a long span starting in the early 20th Century under only 4 Music Directors: Stokowski, Ormandy, Muti and Sawallisch. I think you will find consistent references in out-of-town concert reviews to a unique "Philadelphia Sound", even today under Yannick Nezet-Seguin, who we all absolutely adore. That nuanced sound, primarily of the strings, owes a great deal to the Orchestra's long traditional ties to the great Curtis Institute of Music in downtown Philly. A majority of our players, especially string players, went to school there.

 

 

I agree with you about the BSO. I suspect that they are probably one of the two or three best orchestras in the world, right now. Luckily, we all have a chance to hear them live via the internet in 192 kbps for every concert during the season, and from Tanglewood in the summer over WCRB. The station keeps an archive of performances available 24/7 on their website also at 192 kbps. I am constantly amazed at how absolutely perfectly they play. The performances sound like you are listening to a recording that has been edited to be perfect. They play that well.

 

I haven't heard the Philadelphians play in many years, The last time was when Muti was Music Director. When Ormandy was at the helm, I'd have to say that the Philadelphia orchestra was tops. Their string sound was both unmistakeable and unparalleled! I have heard PO recordings made under Stokowski in the 1930's, and while 78's are not the ideal media to judge an orchestral performance, one certainly could tell that their ensemble playing and general level of musicianship was nowhere near as good as it would become in the 1950s under Maestro Ormandy.

[Sal1950]

I'm sorry. I find that to be totally wrong nothing can make garbage sound good! I find that the better the system, the more sensitive it is to a recording's faults. It is definitely not the other way 'round. IOW, garbage-in-garbage-out usually becomes more true as the resolving power of an audio system improves.

 

I'm completely with you there George.

In the beginning of my HiFi journey I was so pleased and excited at the purchase of new gear and the improvement in SQ I got. Then came a point that disturbed me for some time, the better my gear got, the more deeply into the recordings I could hear only to have them more clearly reveal their sonic shortcomings. I attempted to address those issues in various ways, tube gear, noise reduction devices, EQ, whatever, in an attempt to make ill sounding recordings sound better.

In the end, just Fugeddaboudit

Put together the most accurate system you can afford and enjoy the music, both the good and bad.

The path trying to cure poorly recorded material will lead you to madness. LOL

[Hailey]

I am sure you know Koussevitsky was Russian Jew and Ozawa was from Japan. Many great American conductors (and musicians in orchestras) were from Central or Eastern Europe. Many great performers of modern time are coming from such different places as China, former USSR, Latin America and so on. Some of my preferred recordings of Schubert are originated not only in Austria, but in UK or France, Beethoven not only in Germany, but in Holland, Belgium or Scandinavia, Bach in Japan, Mahler in UK or US, and so on.

 

If we are speaking about deep national and cultural performing traditions, it was popular belief that Russian music is played best by Russians. I thought I never heard 5th and 6th Tchaikovsky Symphonies performed better than did Mravinsky/Leningrad on early DG mono. But now I cherish wonderful Jansons/Oslo set and some other great non-native recordings. My choice of Tchaikovsky violin and piano concertos is from those played by Western musicians. My favorite Rachmaninov 3d Piano Concerto is by Martha Argerich. Others top Rachmaninov 3d pianists in my personal list are not Russians as well (only Rachmaninov himself). Argerich gives astonishing Prokofiev and Ravel(!) Concertos too. Many believe top Shostakovich Quartets set is from Borodin Quartet, but Shostakovich himself was very particular towards recordings by Fitzwilliam SQ.

 

P.S.: Thank you for extended comments.

 

Completely agree. I would have phrased that concluding paragraph differently if I hadn't been thumbing it out on a smartphone.

[AnotherSpin]

A performance must be judged in musical terms, not the nationalistic ones of the past. An open mind is essential in listening. Nationality labels play with our minds and interfere with our appreciation of the music performance itself on its own terms.

I believe every listener operates with his/her individual judging criteria – whether it is nationalistic, musical, sound quality, color of the booklet (or any possible combination from such) in search of enjoyment. This is how our mind works – it filters what it sees or hears in accordance to fixed presets. There is no such thing as open mind, imo.

[Hailey]

There is no question that finances play a huge role. And, Philly is weak in that regard, as are many other symphony orchestras. No one will ever catch up to the BSO endowment in that area. However, that does not guarantee artistic success.

 

So, finances do not really tell the story. Quite frankly, as non-BSO subscribers or attendees, the reaction of all my classical-loving friends and I from afar about the really lengthy Ozawa era in Boston was a huge shrug of the shoulders. We just do not understand from our perspective how and why this went on and on. We base that primarily on the available discography, and few of us have any cherished Ozawa/BSO recordings of any note from that era. I also heard many syndicated BSO concerts on FM hosted by the legendary William Pierce, whose Bostonian stuffiness I could not stand, but tolerated. I listened, but I was seldom impressed by the music itself under Ozawa. It was not bad, but ...

 

I grant you, the same could easily be said of the 10-year Muti era in Philadelphia. I have no cherished recordings from then, nor was I personally ever a big fan of his at that early stage of his career. Actually, I was not that impressed later either. Frankly, I was glad to see Muti replaced by Wolfgang Sawallisch, who I thoroughly and deeply enjoyed live countless times. Sawallisch, the consummate, humble musician, became deeply loved by concert goers in Philly in a way that Muti never achieved, his youthfulness, "Maestro" hairdo and his appeal to the ladies notwithstanding.

 

In any case, there are those conductors we love, and those we do not. It is really tough to get the right guy to perform magic in the concert hall these days, which seemed a less formidable task in the days of Stokowski, Toscanini, Beecham, Reiner, Solti, Szell, Von Karajan, Bernstein, and many, many others. Sir Simon Rattle, though I deeply admire him, had not become the superstar icon I expected in Berlin, for example. I think the decline of classical music recording in general may be the issue. I wish him every success at the LSO.

 

We we do not have the old fashioned "giants" we used to have. But, I am greatly impressed by the sheer musicianship of many of today's younger conductors and Music Directors, Yannick Nezet-Seguin being at the very top of my list from his totally well deserved, world-class perch atop both the Met and the Philadelphia Orchestras.

 

Meanwhile, there are a lot of other guys now who I just do no get, starting with Gergiev, Paavo Jaarvi, Thielemann, and others.

 

Time will tell.

 

Yep. You're right. Finances in and of themselves are no guarantee of artistic success.

 

But they sure can help.

 

The Ozawa years. What a mess. From 1985 until about 2000, the BSO was an artistically depleted enterprise. Capable of greatness, but as often as not just checked out. As an ensemble, I don't think it was playing consistently in the same league as its "peer orchestras"...eg, Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Francisco

 

The problem was that the orchestra lost respect for Ozawa as a musician but the Trustees loved him: He was great for the bottom line. The BSO's monster endowment bloomed under Ozawa. The orchestra was getting worse and worse, but the players were getting better and better (as they are everyplace: the proficiency needed to land a job in any orchestra nowadays is almost beyond reason.)

 

And Ozawa did do things that music directors should do but, too often, don't. At least not the big time music directors. For one thing, he didn't take a second gig. He became a member of the community, a fixture at Red Sox games, a suburban homeowner, part of the local fabric. (Will Andris Nelsons become a Patriots fan? Somehow I doubt it).

 

Another thing--on balance, a very good thing--Ozawa, like Bernstein, took Tanglewood, and his role as an educator, very seriously. When he left the BSO, he left the orchestra in artistic disrepair, but Tanglewood an institution without peer.

 

Ok so now they have a guy who's pretty good, although he's splitting his time, roughly 70/30 (or maybe it's 65/35 with Leipzig. I don't think he's the best out there: I'm with you on Yannick, for example. But he's probably good enough.

 

In fact, I wonder if the orchestra musicians might prefer it that way. I'm just speculating here but a funny thing happened during the Levine years: The inmates sort of took over the asylum. By that I mean, during the two year interregnum between Ozawa and Levine and the two year (or whatever it was) interregnum between Levine and Nelsons (and for much of Levine's tenure, for that matter; the guy was so often indisposed) a committee of players took charge of holding auditions, filling seats...and, yes, shaping the sound of the orchestra. Stuff that falls under the music director's purview.

 

But I have no idea how that plays out now.

 

My guess is they won't f**k things up in Boston, but who knows. The only thing I do know is that right now they're playing frightfully well.

[Hailey]

I quite agree. Music is the international language. Great conductors, performers and orchestras can come from most anywhere, including many nations without a well established classical music tradition. Surprises abound, often unexpectedly. And, classical music is, or should be, open to a wide range of interpretation in performance.

 

A performance must be judged in musical terms, not the nationalistic ones of the past. An open mind is essential in listening. Nationality labels play with our minds and interfere with our appreciation of the music performance itself on its own terms.

 

I don't welcome a homogenized world, although the inertial forces of globalization are pulling us in that direction. Orchestras are sounding more alike and I'm not at all sure that's a good thing.

 

I think art should be infused by the region and culture in which it's created. Civilization is richer and stronger for that.

[r_w]

Well, I'm sorry, It has taken me 25 years to finally build a system that brings out the best in everything. I've been through much of the major kit, most of which does what you say, make good recordings sound great and bad ones unlistenable.

 

The fact remains that my current system no longer does this, everything sounds perfectly listenable and I can now finally focus on the content, rather than picking holes in presentation and avoiding bad recordings.

 

You are not really in a position to tell me that my system cannot do this, best to chill out and focus on making your system achieve the same results. My system is optimised to within an inch of its life, not many others are.

 

Again, the best system is one that brings out the best in everything, an ordinary one, at any price, is one that only plays audiophile recordings.

 

Anyone in the Midlands UK is welcome to hear it.

 

It isn't garbage in, garbage out, it is beautiful presentation, regardless of what's 'in'.

 

 

 

I'm sorry. I find that to be totally wrong nothing can make garbage sound good! I find that the better the system, the more sensitive it is to a recording's faults. It is definitely not the other way 'round. IOW, garbage-in-garbage-out usually becomes more true as the resolving power of an audio system improves.

[semente]

I don't welcome a homogenized world, although the inertial forces of globalization are pulling us in that direction. Orchestras are sounding more alike and I'm not at all sure that's a good thing.

 

I think art should be infused by the region and culture in which it's created. Civilization is richer and stronger for that.

 

But aren't Orchestras only a vehicle, the instrument that is used to "materialise" the score (itself the art)?

 

Should Bruckner's 7th sound Czech, Berlinese, Bostononian or Peterburghese depending on who is playing or directing and where?

 

(not that I have a definite opinion on the subject)

 

R

[Jay-dub]

Well, I'm sorry, It has taken me 25 years to finally build a system that brings out the best in everything. I've been through much of the major kit, most of which does what you say, make good recordings sound great and bad ones unlistenable.

 

The fact remains that my current system no longer does this, everything sounds perfectly listenable and I can now finally focus on the content, rather than picking holes in presentation and avoiding bad recordings.

 

You are not really in a position to tell me that my system cannot do this, best to chill out and focus on making your system achieve the same results. My system is optimised to within an inch of its life, not many others are.

 

Again, the best system is one that brings out the best in everything, an ordinary one, at any price, is one that only plays audiophile recordings.

 

Anyone in the Midlands UK is welcome to hear it.

 

It isn't garbage in, garbage out, it is beautiful presentation, regardless of what's 'in'.

 

I find this idea worrisome. If your system does something to make bad recordings listenable, then it is not simply presenting the recording transparently, and whatever it does to the bad recordings it also does to the good ones, to their detriment. In my view it is better to have an ordinary (or rather, exceptionally close to standard) system that makes the best recordings sound exactly as they were meant to be heard, and then figure out on a case by case basis how to ameliorate the problems with the worse ones. This may involve custom digital filtering, which for most RBCD I find necessary. Smaller numbers benefit from equalization or narrowing of the stereo image.

[r_w]

How do you know for sure that the recording is unlistenable in the first place, just becuase you've only heard unlistenable playback of it. You'll never understand how much gear I've been through... I agree, all of my previous system experiences mirrors what you and others say - until now.

 

Obviously it needs to be taken into context, I could easily on purpose create an extremely unpleasant recording that no system could render enjoyable - but the fact remians that - in the main - I no longer worry so much about the recording, I just enjoy being engulfed in the subject matter of the music... and that is what a great system is supposed to do.

 

If your goal is to build a system that plays audiophile recordings better than any other but everything else sounds unpleasant/unlistenable, you're most cetainly not getting the best of of this hobby.

 

;-)

 

 

I find this idea worrisome. If your system does something to make bad recordings listenable, then it is not simply presenting the recording transparently, and whatever it does to the bad recordings it also does to the good ones, to their detriment. In my view it is better to have an ordinary (or rather, exceptionally close to standard) system that makes the best recordings sound exactly as they were meant to be heard, and then figure out on a case by case basis how to ameliorate the problems with the worse ones. This may involve custom digital filtering, which for most RBCD I find necessary. Smaller numbers benefit from equalization or narrowing of the stereo image.

[firedog]

Ya know, I have 20/20 corrected vision and great deductive thinking. The other night I saw David Copperfield make a 747 disappear off a runway right in front of me and also a large live audience standing right there. I saw it Teresa, it was gone.

Or was it a result of a optical illusion and mind management.

Only some scientific investigation would real the truth, you need to step behind the curtain of illusion.

 

David Copperfield is a magician. So when he makes a 747 disappear - it's magic. Don't you get it?

[Jay-dub]

- in the main - I no longer worry so much about the recording, I just enjoy being engulfed in the subject matter of the music... and that is what a great system is supposed to do.

 

;-)

 

I'm in the same situation, except that instead of going through a small fortune in equipment, I have remained satisfied by quite an ordinary system, and have learned to identify features in recordings that make them unpleasant to my ears and apply remedies. This means that in order to listen to a CD, I have to first rip it, then analyze it, and finally remaster it before listening, but once that's done essentially every classical CD recorded since the '60's sounds good enough that I can put my full attention on the music, including some that had been sitting in my collection unlistenable for twenty years before I learned to do this.

[r_w]

Doing your own re-mastering takes a lot of patience and care. I salute you!

 

You say your system is ordinary, but I've heard (and unfortunately owned, looking back) countless, high price components/systems that have sounded positively awful, compared to my current setup.

 

I think the key to a more forgiving presentation has been very recent optimisation of digital and USB. The Aurender / Auralic VEGA combo bested my valve Pathos Endorphin CD player by a huge margin, then after optimsing everything (as per my sig), a whole new level of music enjoyment has been realised.

 

But I've heard many modest systems that would shame the 'big guns' over the years and I hope yours is one of those. It's not only about throwing money around.

 

;-)

 

 

I'm in the same situation, except that instead of going through a small fortune in equipment, I have remained satisfied by quite an ordinary system, and have learned to identify features in recordings that make them unpleasant to my ears and apply remedies. This means that in order to listen to a CD, I have to first rip it, then analyze it, and finally remaster it before listening, but once that's done essentially every classical CD recorded since the '60's sounds good enough that I can put my full attention on the music, including some that had been sitting in my collection unlistenable for twenty years before I learned to do this.

[Hailey]

But aren't Orchestras only a vehicle, the instrument that is used to "materialise" the score (itself the art)?

 

Should Bruckner's 7th sound Czech, Berlinese, Bostononian or Peterburghese depending on who is playing or directing and where?

 

(not that I have a definite opinion on the subject)

 

R

 

Well that's an excellent question. I don't believe there's any one right answer to it.

 

But I don't think performers are "player pianos." I think they collaborate with the composer, bringing their own perspective to the notes on the page.

 

I do think one can take regional/cultural affinity too far. There's no reason someone from, say, Venezuela can't bring new life and new insight to the work of Sibelius.

 

Oh the other hand, as I think about it, the legendary performances of Sibelius' violin concerto are credited to Heifetz and Oistrakh, not Francescatti and Szering.

 

When I heard Dudamel lead the LAPhil in Sibelius' second symphony, I found it emotionally overwrought. Just off kilter. On the other hand, his Mahler can be exciting.

 

Is that just a function of marketing? I don't think that theory gives performers, or culture, enough credit.

[Hailey]

Well that's an excellent question. I don't believe there's any one right answer to it.

 

But I don't think performers are "player pianos." I think they collaborate with the composer, bringing their own perspective to the notes on the page.

 

I do think one can take regional/cultural affinity too far. There's no reason someone from, say, Venezuela can't bring new life and new insight to the work of Sibelius.

 

Oh the other hand, as I think about it, the legendary performances of Sibelius' violin concerto are credited to Heifetz and Oistrakh, not Francescatti and Szering.

 

When I heard Dudamel lead the LAPhil in Sibelius' second symphony, I found it emotionally overwrought. Just off kilter. On the other hand, his Mahler can be exciting.

 

Is that just a function of marketing? I don't think that theory gives performers, or culture, enough credit.

 

You know, the more I think about this, the more I think I'm describing a world that no longer exists. Like it or not (I don't: I think something is lost in the process), globalization has brought about an emerging global culture.

 

Also, I misspelled Szeryng.

[17629v2]

How do you know for sure that the recording is unlistenable in the first place, just becuase you've only heard unlistenable playback of it. You'll never understand how much gear I've been through... I agree, all of my previous system experiences mirrors what you and others say - until now.

 

Obviously it needs to be taken into context, I could easily on purpose create an extremely unpleasant recording that no system could render enjoyable - but the fact remians that - in the main - I no longer worry so much about the recording, I just enjoy being engulfed in the subject matter of the music... and that is what a great system is supposed to do.

 

If your goal is to build a system that plays audiophile recordings better than any other but everything else sounds unpleasant/unlistenable, you're most cetainly not getting the best of of this hobby.

 

;-)

 

Don't let the comments get to you. This is the only web site I've ever seen where people try and talk you out of being happy with your system. I suspect that if you listened to some of the know it all's systems, you would understand their negative attitude and frustrations. But in the end, they may actually be right. Everyone knows a stereo system should be measured, not listened to.

[r_w]

LOL, thanks for your positive ray of sunshine and good sense of humour.

 

;-)

 

Don't let the comments get to you. This is the only web site I've ever seen where people try and talk you out of being happy with your system. I suspect that if you listened to some of the know it all's systems, you would understand their negative attitude and frustrations. But in the end, they may actually be right. Everyone knows a stereo system should be measured, not listened to.

[gmgraves]

Well, I'm sorry, It has taken me 25 years to finally build a system that brings out the best in everything. I've been through much of the major kit, most of which does what you say, make good recordings sound great and bad ones unlistenable.

 

The fact remains that my current system no longer does this, everything sounds perfectly listenable and I can now finally focus on the content, rather than picking holes in presentation and avoiding bad recordings.

 

You are not really in a position to tell me that my system cannot do this, best to chill out and focus on making your system achieve the same results. My system is optimised to within an inch of its life, not many others are.

 

Again, the best system is one that brings out the best in everything, an ordinary one, at any price, is one that only plays audiophile recordings.

 

Anyone in the Midlands UK is welcome to hear it.

 

It isn't garbage in, garbage out, it is beautiful presentation, regardless of what's 'in'.

 

 

I didn't mean your stereo system. I meant that the lousy recordings are garbage. And if garbage is what goes into a fine audio system, it's what's going to come out of a fine audio system. And I reiterate, a system that makes lousy recordings listenable, would have to be very euphonically colored. In that case, it's also coloring good recordings, which is just exactly what I would expect that we don't want.

 

And unlike what the poster in response #142 said, I'm very glad that your stereo system makes you happy, and I'm doubly glad that it makes all recordings, good and bad sound great. I don't see how it can make a purse from a sow's ear, but I'll take your word for it.

[Sal1950]

David Copperfield is a magician. So when he makes a 747 disappear - it's magic. Don't you get it?

 

Ah OK now it get it.

Do you believe in magic?

In a young girls heart

How the music can free her

whenever it starts

. LOL

Thanks firedog.

[Sal1950]

. I don't see how it can make a purse from a sow's ear, but I'll take your word for it.

George, it's the magic dust.

[gmgraves]

George, it's the magic dust.

 

 

Lot of that going around, isn't it Sal?

[himey]

Don't let the comments get to you. This is the only web site I've ever seen where people try and talk you out of being happy with your system. I suspect that if you listened to some of the know it all's systems, you would understand their negative attitude and frustrations. But in the end, they may actually be right. Everyone knows a stereo system should be measured, not listened to.

 

What does being skeptical about crappy recordings have to do with measuring systems and who is trying to talk him out of being happy with his system? Many people have nice systems, and crappy recordings sound crappy compared to the better ones. He seems to be the only person ever to not have this opinion. Even fifteen thousand dollar speakers are not magical.

[17629v2]

What does being skeptical about crappy recordings have to do with measuring systems and who is trying to talk him out of being happy with his system?

 

If you go back and read some of the quotes directed at r_w's system he was being heavily criticized for simply stating he was happy with the way his system handled recordings, both good and bad. All from a bunch of clueless fools that think they can do a better job hiding behind their computer screen. It has nothing to do with measurements.

 

"Many people have nice systems, and crappy recordings sound crappy compared to the better ones. He seems to be the only person ever to not have this opinion."

 

All the more reason to be polite. Maybe he has something figured out that the rest of you don't. Did anyone bother to ask? And just for the record, I have the same problem. I have 3 systems set up to deal with recordings of varying quality.

 

"Even fifteen thousand dollar speakers are not magical."

 

I hate to be the one that tells you this, but there's no such thing as magic. But keep trying. Its the effort that counts.

[beerandmusic]

Whatever mate, you haven't experienced my system so why even bother wading in with pointless troll like skeptisicm.

 

Jog on.

 

 

how does this sound on your system....no listener fatigue after listening to this for an hour?

 

This may be sarcasm, but the point is the same...NO system is capable of making garbage sound good. I am glad you like your system, i just think your statement was a little bit too general to boast that no matter what you play it sounds wonderful......garbage in, garbage out.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKvUgiezPN8