|
So what other than one’s own sense of what’s realistic makes for “good” reproduction? For instance, I have found to my surprise that few people seem to notice or care about correct pitch, timbre, weight and scale, or colorations, as long as the sound is “clear”, with lots of details, and/or it fills the room in a certain way. Others seem to care mostly about “dynamics”, “imaging”, etc., again, to the point where they seem to need only the one facet to suggest to them the entire diamond.
Yet, just to press this point, I have noticed that very often the person who says he cares so extremely about one or another “part” of music never actually gets that one part right, either. In fact, this “part” that he finds so important is too often rendered in the most aberrated and ridiculous manner, and winds up being the worst thing about his system, just like the unbearable car stereo nut who cranks up the bass until everything around him shakes in stunned disbelief.
But I think that some reviewers just believe it is not possible to re-create music with hi-fi in a realistic fashion, and of these there are some who seem resigned to making the most of what they assume is a stuck/bad situation. Art Dudley, for instance, always struck me this way. If I am wrong about this, then I can in no way account for the sound he favored for so many years, all the unnatural colorations and constrained presentations, just for the PRAT he so prized that he disparaged systems and gear he found to lack "it". |