|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
03-18-2020
|
 rowuk wrote: | | I really wonder how often the
“rest” of the system including source and setup is “good enough”... |
|
It was expressed that sometimes chasing a perfection for
single component is not matched by the “transparency” or expensive capacity by
the rest of the system. This is valid point, well discussed by audio people for
years but I would like to bring another perspective. Where is the “good enough”
in tem of matching the expensive capacity of the entire playback to the
listening objective of a given individual listener? This is very murky area and
in my estimation is much misunderstood domain of audio.
It is a big subject and I am making this post as a placeholder
and as time goes buy I will be dumping some commentaries of the subject.
|
|
|
|
Posted by rowuk on
04-05-2020
|
I too am collecting thoughts about what "good enough" refers to in applied audio. I read a post elsewhere this morning that brought a new twist and maybe some depth.
Let us assume that we successfully practice applied audio, have a proper system, well tuned in a non-moronic way. Let us assume that we know the limitations of our playback, but get a lot of satisfaction when listening to specific "good" recordings.
Do we need a visitor to confirm that it is good enough, or are we truly independent? Maybe one step further: do we even have a second pair of ears (a friend, colleague, acquaintance) that we trust? Is their "level of perception" good enough?
In my trumpeting world, I have reference instruments for each style of music that I play. When I went to choose them, I ALWAYS had a second pair of trusted ears for comments, impressions. That second person was not always a trumpeter, but it was someone that I trusted with their perception of Sound and my emotional reactions. Many times when I had 2 instruments that were very close in "quality", they could identify something that helped me make a more "rational" decision.
So, do we need trusted ears to determine "good enough"? To achieve our goal of "good enough", do we have to invest time and efforts in the friendship? Are we ready for a very intimate relationship in this not so confined discipline?
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
04-05-2020
|
I think the true definition of good enough is not located in
sonic domains, certainly not in audio domain and not even not in musical
domain. I know a few guys in past who here very high caliber technical interpreters,
high-level directors, CTO and CEO-level. Some of them run own companies and
some of them worked for somebody. It was very interesting to talk with them
about ambitions. Obviously, most of them were very capable to convert own intellectualism
and capacity into high money and high accomplishments. Still, there was a few
of them who had a very interesting mental balance between how much they delegate
themselves to work, career and money and how much they balanced it with other activities:
family, love life, artistic inclinations, curiosity to others… etc. What I learned
then that it is not the selection of person’s priorities but rather an ability of
success in one given direction of activities to enrich the rest avenues of individual
interests. I do feel that that is the
key. A proper answer does not answer just a posted question but act as a
universal template of answers in multiple directions. I do feel that this is
how might be measured a success in audio and consequently it is how the “good
enough” might be viewed.
Let pretend we change a bias in our SET from cathode to fixed.
Sound charged and in short run we differentiated a difference and made our judgment
if it was better or worse. Then I would ask what was the definition of better
or rather how that better served our other interests. Let me inject my view, I
do not insist that it is universally true. If the change of that bias in SET made
us to listen less Shostakovich but more Beethoven, less Gershwin but more Bach
then something with that bias we made right. The same paradigm is applicable with
progression to let say Bach. Why the progression toward Bach is good? The way
to answer it a person needs to recognize how his preferential progression
toward to let say this given composer serves person’s other objectives, interests
and human tendencies. I just give an example that meant to demonstrate where
the “definition of good enough” lives. “Good enough” is very intricate mapping between
own objectives and the means how we get accomplished these objectives. We do
know where our compulsiveness stops in terms of objectives but we sometimes have
difficulties to align own compulsiveness in terms of the means to fulfill those
objectives. So, there are 3 elements in play.
I advocate an integrated
and balanced approach where objectives, means to fulfill those objectives and self-consciousness
are very deeply tighten together, were successes and failures in any side of
that triangle are mutually gauged and developed highly proportionally.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
04-05-2020
|
We had something like this discussion years ago regarding what makes for the best listening room. I "remember" opining then that I prefer what serves me best as a "whole person", and this remains true for me, even as my circumstances and sense of "who I am" have changed. Although the "basic shape" of my playback has been continuously developed to mine the music I am currently most interested in, I do still use "feedback" and "hearsay" to make adjustments and also to find things to "audition", which does reflect some sort of "operational consideration" and "operational trust" and "inclusion" of "others". For instance, I'm sure my wife would prefer a less obtrusive system, so what I have could be regarded as a "compromise" on that level. Certainly, living well with others is the only possible way to be a "whole person".
Paul S
|
|