Which would your rather have - Good Recording or Good Source
Feb 18, 2006 at 11:51 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 43

virometal

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Posts
6,932
Likes
25
This has been on my mind as of late. So with all things equal, would your rather have a good source (relative to your standards) or a good recording (relative to your standards)?

Can't have both; either one or the other.

For example...

Californification on a Meridian G08 (example) or...
Thriller on a <$50 budget dvd player (example)

As for me, my latest speaker ventures have put square on the recording side. What do ya peoples think?
 
Feb 19, 2006 at 12:12 AM Post #3 of 43
If you choose good source does that mean that all you can listen to are poorly done recordings? If this is the case a good source will just show you more of how bad the recording is.

I would choose well recorded material over a high priced source.
 
Feb 19, 2006 at 2:57 AM Post #7 of 43
Good recording. The good source only shows how crap something really is. That said take this with the usual warnings applied. Such as within reason. Having a crap source hardly does Chesky or Telarc recodings justice.
 
Feb 19, 2006 at 3:37 AM Post #8 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by virometal

For example...

Californification on a Meridian G08 (example) or...
Thriller on a Best Buy Sony (example)



...although I'm not sure which Thriller on BB Sony is.

However, I think a good recording will go a long way. The difference between a good and crappy recording is more noticeable than a good or "crappy" cd player.
 
Feb 19, 2006 at 4:17 AM Post #9 of 43
I don't believe in better sources making bad recordings sound worst. I can ignore the recording essentially and listen to the music. There are things a bad source can do that makes it less easily forgetable, annoying, fatiguing, etc. The better source will allow a more pleasurable experience.
 
Feb 19, 2006 at 6:33 AM Post #12 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt Peanuts
Knowing there are more than few CD's I can't stand to listen due to poor recording quality, I'd choose well recorded material over a great source.


Same here. There are quite a few great albums that I can no longer enjoy musically due to the recording quality.
 
Feb 19, 2006 at 2:06 PM Post #14 of 43
Quote:

Originally Posted by virometal
This has been on my mind as of late. So with all things equal, would your rather have a good source (relative to your standards) or a good recording (relative to your standards)?


A good recording, by far. Differences between (decent) sources are all relatively minor IMO compared to the drastic differences between recordings.

I'll take the poor recording only if it's played via a source where I can't really tell the difference (clock radio, car stereo, cheap MP3/CD player with Koss headphones, etc). Otherwise, it's damn hard to enjoy if the sound quality is actually getting in the way.
 
Feb 19, 2006 at 2:42 PM Post #15 of 43
Given a large portion of my favorite music is not very well recored I would take a great source. A superior source in my system has resulted in recording flaws which bothered me on lesser players being well resolved enough I can understand whats going on and tolearate them better.

It would be nice if we actually had this hypothetical choice but we dont. In my case, choosing well recorded means giving up most of the music I prefer. Of all the numerous sources I have had in recent years, some mediocre, some good, some excellent ..... I seem to listen to my best sources with poor recordings more than I do even my best sounding recordings on the so so sources.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top