beck wrote:Firstly it is your enjoyment of your system that counts. Nothing else.
Agreed. We are just discussing the evaluation method here, the short-cut, if you like. I've yet to conclude which is best in the long term. It's pre-first so far, but we'll see.
beck wrote:We are talking about small differences but to me they are important.
Also agree. For me, they get to the nub of a conundrum that I'd been struggling with a year or three ago. It's why I have sometimes gone against other folks that I trust on here, but I think I'm beginning to better understand it now.
beck wrote:So where does it leave us? We like a detailed presentation of the music. We can choose systems that are very detailed but slightly out of tune or we can choose systems balanced (in tune) with slightly less obvious detail but more real (more body, less see through).
I would argue pre-first gives both :)
beck wrote:I can relate to your comment about being able to hear it two different ways. It all depends on our main focus.
Yes, I agree, although for me to prefer Radikal-first, my focus has to be on the music blending into one as a more harmonious whole, and even then, it doesn't always strike me that way. However, as much as I like Radikal-first, I'm being more engaged by the music via pre-first. Radikal-first would be my choice for nice background music whilst working.
I suspect this is all too in-depth and tedious for most readers so I will stop waffling. Thanks for your help/sharing your views.