Home Music Lane

It's all about the music, dude! Sit down, relax and listen to some tunes.

Are we in it for music or for sound?

192.160.165.63

Its funny you should raise this because I was pondering a somwhat related issue myself this morning. It is alleged that there are some very fine and expensive speakers that are extremely revealing, but because they are so revealing, they expose all the flaws of imperfectly made recordings, and thus many not-so-good sounding recordings sound worse. I do not know whether this is true or not, but it is a view that I have seen expressed many times. Now I cannot imagine why any music lover (as opposed to a sound for its own sake fanatic, i.e. audiophile) would want such a speaker. Why would any music lover want a speaker that would make the recordings of Schnabel, Furtwangler, Toscanini, the Busch Quartet, Krause, Callas, Mengelberg, etc. sound worse. Most of the great classical recordings were recorded before 1980, and many of the best are from the period between 1930 and 1965. I would think that the top priority would be to make as many recordings as possible sound as good as possible rather than make the select few sound a little better at the expense the vast majority of musically superior recordings. Likewise, I dont understand why any music lover would prefer a medicore performance with state of the art sound to a great performance with somewhat dated sound. I also dont understand why being unwilling to listen to equipment and recordings with minor sonic defects is considered more of a mark of a connoiseur than being able to enjoy a recording of a great performance from the 1930s without noticeing or caring about the techinical flaws.


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Signature Sound   [ Signature Sound Lounge ]


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
  • Are we in it for music or for sound? - Dr. T 09:14:23 03/10/00 (0)


You can not post to an archived thread.