tony wrote:Can you vote twice?Diapason wrote:I'm finding this all very interesting. Poll added.
you're not voting for Sinn Fein now Tony!
tony wrote:Can you vote twice?Diapason wrote:I'm finding this all very interesting. Poll added.
Ivor wrote:tony wrote:Can you vote twice?Diapason wrote:I'm finding this all very interesting. Poll added.
you're not voting for Sinn Fein now Tony!
The Beautiful Truth?As long as the music is enjoyable, reasonably accurate and does not give me a pain in my head... beauty will do just fine.
Nice one Shane :)tweber wrote:The Beautiful Truth?As long as the music is enjoyable, reasonably accurate and does not give me a pain in my head... beauty will do just fine.
For some there is beauty in truth. Nobody listens to uglyness as the intention of listening to music.item_audio wrote:...
Truth is beauty; beauty isn't always truth. But music must foremost be beautiful, else what is it for?
agreedAleg wrote:For some there is beauty in truth. Nobody listens to uglyness as the intention of listening to music.item_audio wrote:...
Truth is beauty; beauty isn't always truth. But music must foremost be beautiful, else what is it for?
But the truth of a recording is made in the engineer's studio and doesn't need to be remastered at home into something else.
And if you want to change something, do it somewhere else in the signal chain of your setup and not in the software player used by all as the source component, because what is lost can never be regained.
So neutral tonal balance and with as much details as are present in the recording is what should be the aim of an audiophile software player.
If it shows flaws in your setup hardware/software/components, so be it and you have to address those issues and not dumb down the input quality so the flaws in your system don't show.
Cheers
Aleg