[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

In article ,
ScottW wrote:

On Thursday, September 26, 2013 7:30:50 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:



Again, I understand that, but it's irrelevant to my point, which is that
you can't use music that has no real soundstage to gauge soundstage, nor
can you use music recorded in such a way that the instruments don't sound
like that instrument would sound in an un-amplified listening situation
(as in the case of instruments that are recorded using contact
microphones). I've heard these arguments before, and I remain adamant that
this kind of music is simply irrelevant to the goal of high-fidelity
reproduction, and as much as the modern audiophile community might revere
it, it's wishful thinking to believe that any meaningful conclusions about
the Fi of equipment can be gathered by using it as a reviewing tool.

Free...free at a last from the chains of Fi. It does open some
possibilities.
and FWIW....I don't think I've ever heard a live rock music event sound sound
as good as my system. The sacrilege of indulging in pure sonic pleasure
unbound by fidelity.
Thanks, you just convinced me to try out a low cost tube buffer kit on my
sometimes too fi passive pre (I can't bring myself to call it a pre-amp).

ScottW

Be my guest. Just realize that the results reflect your taste and not accuracy.
believe me, that's fine, but then you're NOT reviewing equipment for a general
audience. The problem arises when people with your attitude start using your
personal tastes to tell others how something sounds. Like you say, for yourself,
the sky's the limit!