Poll: the three listeners, which are you?

[mep]

which of these three do you strive for?

Wow, I am surprised at the selection of : Accurately reproduce what's on the recording, no matter what

and how do we know we are accurately reproducing whats on the recording? Do we strive to do so by or ears, or, oh no, do we invoke measurments, after all the posts I read on this forum recently...man my jaw just dropped.

I am on record that I too want my system to be as accurate as possible, but then, I take control to influence things as I want..example tone controls, dbx, image expander, SET amplfications, speaker level controls, etc.

That places you squarely in the jigger pooky camp which is made up of people that can't stand their stereo systems and they constantly have to introduce new devices into the signal path that color the sound. Those dbx dynamic range expanders pump and breathe more than an asthmatic weight lifter. But since you are on record as anti-two channel stereo and take the time and care to disparage stereo with every post you make with your signature tag line, no one should be surprised that you are inserting extra devices into the signal path in order to change the sound. You can't say you want your system to be as accurate as possible while also saying you don't believe that two channel audio creates a credible illusion and then resort to jigger pooky so your system will intentionally never be accurate. You are so far outside of the accuracy camp that even the GPS satellites couldn't find you if you had a GPS receiver taped to your head.

 

[mep]

Tom-Of course you can say anything you want to. You just don't get to have your cake and eat it too. You can't be in the accuracy camp if you are inserting devices in the tape loop that are introducing changes to the sound that weren't present in the original recording. Does that make sense? I hope it does. You are obviously in the "Sound good to you, even if it deviates from reality or the recording" camp. You are not in the accuracy camp Tom.

Seriously, is anyone here still using (ever used) a dbx dynamic range expander? Does anyone here know anyone outside of Tom that is actually using a dbx dynamic range expander? Maybe it's more popular than I think, but I doubt it.

 

[NorthStar]

Tom, I thought those dbx dynamic range expanders were good mainly with LPs, cassette tapes, 8-track tapes, and AM r.a.d.i.o.?

 

[NorthStar]

Digital everything doesn't need to be range expanded dynamically by those dbx machines right? ...Even HD R.a.d.i.o. right?

CD has a dynamic range of 96dB isn't it?
And LP, 78dB?

 

[NorthStar]

Alright Tom, thanks.

But those dbx machines are not used by true audiophiles in expanding or compressing the dynamic range from their ultra or standard hi-end gear and speakers and cables and power conditioners and cable elevators and cones and all that hi-end listening jazz they strive for right?

And who is listening to music recordings that were expanded and/or compressed by dbx dynamic range expanders/compressors? ...Certainly not true audiophiles?
Perhaps kids who drive boom-box cars? ...Or at home with ghetto-blasters, like Frank?