"That's a bit toppy"

This comment from a friend the other day, so there I am thinking, maybe it is. Next record I put on (Bjork Debut) "now it sounds fine" plenty of bottom end, and so on and so forth for the whole session.

No to my point, I've heard it said that a poor system brings everything down to its level a good system sounds good dependent on the recording and a great system always sounds good.

Thoughts on this, am I off up upgrade road or is my system just telling me whats on my vinyl with no added sugar as it were?
I'd say 70% of my music sounds good but certain tunes really are a bit pony.

 

Distinguishing between the sound of your system (or more specifically a recording) and how it actually plays music is important if you don't want to waste time and money on unnecessary 'upgrades'.

 

The way I look at stuff is if it doesn't make you want to play everything in your collection again over and over its probably gone wrong somewhere along the line and I need to back track to find where. Are your records all in order or strewn across the floor in front of the system in a frenzy to get the next LP on? Second one is the correct way If you see what I mean. Nothing else matters much other than that to me

 

A m8 of mine said my system sounded "a bit bright" the other day...
However, his "hifi" consists of an ancient goodmans receiver, Sony discman and Toshiba speakers so I don't know whether to trust his opinion or not!

 

I think alot of people confuse bright with lacking wallowing, ploddy bass!!

 

I've heard the same, but thinking about it logically

1) a poor system brings everything down to its level

Yup I can see that - everything sounds "great" on my Dansette. Actually "great" probably isn't the right word. It would be fairer to say that everything sounds "Dansette" on my Dansette Old Beatles and Stones singles do sound great though

2) a good system sounds good dependent on the recording

Yup I can see that too. I don't think I've got a bad system. I might even go so far as to say its good. Most of the time (95% perhaps) I love the way it sounds but some recordings are pretty murky and dull (I've got a Virgin re release of Sticky Fingers which sounds like its playing in the room next door - I put it down to amateurishness on Virgin's part as an original copy sounds very good indeed) ... Other recordings sound a bit toppy with little bass (some of the Smiths stuff on vinyl for example) or just plain harsh and distorted (OK Computer on CD anyone?). Note though its not consistent - bad can range from dull to bright, bass heavy to bass light - which would imply the recording/mastering/pressing is where the problem lies, not something being added by the system.

3) a great system always sounds good

Dunno. If it were true though I'd love to know how. If a good system is revealing what's there in the source - how can a great system somehow deal with the various flaws present in the source material?

When I've heard a system which can deal with all the different kinds of problem potentially present in the recording I'll believe 3, until then I'd remain doubtful.

BTW. I don't let it bother me that much - a recording would have to be pretty bloody disastrous for me not to listen to it if I liked the music.

 

Like I said, music, if its musical the recording isn't an issue in the same way, you might think hmmm this is a bad recording but you pretty soon forget about it and focus on the performance. Unless I'm missing your point

 

I think we are probably agreeing on the same point.

I find it hard to conceive that a great system can actually make poor recordings sound good. I don't find it at all hard to conceive that one can enjoy poor recordings anyway - I'm sure its psychological (else the Dansette which makes everything sound poor in audiophile terms, wouldn't be so much fun).

I can imagine that if one were very analytical about it one might not be able to enjoy poorly recorded but great music. If one also believed that the "greatest system of all" could somehow make Iggy and The Stooge's Raw Power sound anything other than an apalling mess, I suspect one would be wrong ... and spend a hell of a lot money before the truth dawned. NO system could do that ... and what would be the point anyway - its great as it is

 

Depends how you define a good system. To some a good system is one that will make even crap recordings enjoyable.

 

If the quality of the sound effects your enjoyment of music, I don't see how that can happen.

 

For a while I felt my setup was a little bright. Now I've decided it's just quite detailed and it took me a while to adjust to it. This is a good example of why taking time to make one's mind up makes sense to me.

I'd add it sounds poor when playing poor recordings. Surely that suggests it's just telling it pretty much as it is. IMO if a system always sounds good it must be adding a fair chunk of it's own character which sounds like a bad thing to me.

 

That's a key point. Is it pointless spending money on a system which replays your recordings with faithfullness, but which shows all the flaws on bad recordings?

I can appreciate many people are looking for "accuracy", but in many previous threads the subject of accuracy is a complicated one and difficult to define.

So is a better investment a system which gives you the greatest pleasure from more of your recordings, but perhaps which lacks "accuracy"?

 

This is a vital requirement of mine as a number of recordings I own are a bit ropey. I am prepared to sacrifice the last nth of detail etc in return for owning a system that doesn't render some fond trips down memory lane impossible.

That said, a work colleague of mine described the Electrocompaniet as "utter bollocks" the other day which I thought was a little harsh.

 

A good system will highlight deficiencies in a poor recording just as it will bring out the fullness of a great recording. It is the nature of decent hi-fi to reveal what is put on the disk, but, and it is an important but, even the poorly produced album will sound better on a good system that it will on one lower down the order. Good and bad are surely relative in the context of the system. A poor recording will not sound better on a cheap hi-fi than an expensive one.

 

Only if the recording is absolutely dire, I've very rarely found when I do something that gives more detail that even the bad recordings don't sound better.