|
Some say a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush while others may feel that two is better than one. As Star Trek's Spock once said in the original series episode Amok Time (paraphrased) "You will find it is better to want than to have. It is not logical, but it is often true." The (excellent) editorial by Art Dudley in the now defunct Listener magazine with their March/April 2002 edition shows that there are unhappy music lovers out there. Worse still, what should be fun has, instead, turned into some type of personal torture. What is it about being an audiophile that may lead some enthusiasts into a type of living hell? In fact there was a time in my very own life that this type of living hell reared its ugly head. The search for the ultimate in audio transparency/accuracy lead me to a life of enjoying fewer and fewer music recordings. Why is that you ask. Because once it was achieved it was also found that few recordings were up to the so-called "perfection" i had hoped. From recordings using too much compression, synthesized hall sounds in multi-tracked recordings, timing errors within percussion/brass during classical recordings.... Only the most minimally mic'ed and extremely well performed music was up to par. The problem with this was that much of my favorite music became virtually unlistenable! One would feel that the opposite would be true. With so much transparency/accuracy at my disposal one may feel that it was joy to meet the ultimate goal. Some may feel it would be as though living in audio's Garden of Eden. Imagine the joys in hearing the second chair violinists third sting being ever so slightly out of tune, or that single off-pitch voice in a choir. With such resolution at hand it may be assumed this would bring elation in hearing what 99% of others do not. And here lies the problem... assumption. With the Formula 1 season beginning in Melbourne Australia only a few days away as of this writing... Like a fine-tuned Ferrari F1, the best straight ahead speed is wonderful, but it should not come at a cost of lackluster cornering ability and overall agility. There is a fine balance that must be acquired to win the race. The same may be said for high-end systems. Transparency and accuracy may be great, but what about the ability to enjoy the music? It may be hopeless to avoid the accuracy vs. musicality debate. One is said to be measurable with computer instruments while the other is more subjective. Fact is, some Olympic sports are judged subjectively and music, after all, is usually "invented" to express one's emotions. Therefore it is logical to expect a subjective, emotional response when listening to music.
For those who enjoy such things, imagine what Playboy magazine would look like without women wearing makeup, photo editing/airbrushing, etc. If the sharpest lens and highest resolution large format film in the world was used to photograph these women (or men in Playgirl) would you find yourself enjoying the photographs more? Would being able to see each and every gorgeous curve, and flaw/pimple/wrinkle/freckle/hair stubble/etc, make your experience more enjoyable or would the subjective "flaws" detract from your overall satisfaction? Is "perfection" a realistic and enjoyable goal? This is not to say that the aspiration of ultimate transparency is wrong nor that supreme musicality (at the cost of transparency) is the goal either. It is to say that, for some, it is better to want than to have. It is not logical, but it is often true (Spock again). Wearing rose colored glasses in some circumstances can be a good thing, yet at some point in life we must admit there is a true reality out there as well. In life we each have our own preferences. What equipment one reviewer finds enjoyable you may find painful to listen to. On the other hand, you may find a reviewer (or two) who's preferences are more in line with your own. As the title of this article begins to say... Of course in the end what really matters is that you...
|
|
|