In other words, YES. In other words, NO.
There seems to be a lack of consensus on this issue. I am curious as to why.
Peter, you didn’t exactly ask a direct question but I’m going to take a stab and see if I can satisfy your curiosity a bit. But I don't suspect I'll get any browny points for doing so.
The problems the high-end audio industry faces are multi-dimensional and therefore perhaps impossible to rectify. Why?
1. It’s a hearing / interpretation (trained ear) thing.
It’s a given that nearly the entire world can hear and see to some extent. High-end audio isn’t just about hearing because even a toddler can hear. In a simple sense, high-end audio is a bit like appreciating fine paintings. But just like the toddler can listen to Mozart and not appreciate what they hear, that toddler could also gaze at a Van Gohg painting and not appreciate its viewing qualities.
The toddler turns 21 and is gifted a very well-thought-out playback system and a Van Gogh painting. He may listen to and view his gifts but without any training in either area, he lacks the ability to interpret what he hears and sees. Advance his age another 30 years and still without training, at the age of 51 his ability to discern what he hears and views are not much better than when he was 21, which in turn were not much better than when he was a toddler.
But that’s where the similarities between listening and viewing the finer arts ends and discernable listening becomes far more nebulous.
For example,
- When viewing the stationary painting, he’s able to focus on any part of the painting he so desires and could even use a magnifying glass or microscope to assist him.
- When listening, the music is traveling at the speed of sound and there’s very few if any apparatus to allow him to better discern the music in real time. And no matter how you slice it, it is extremely difficult to sufficiently evaluate a fast moving target.
2. It’s a lack of performance thing.
You won’t find many examples, which in itself should be a testament, but every so often you’ll hear an “expert” exclaim something like what Jonathan Valin said around 2008, “We are lucky if even our very best playback systems can capture even 15% of the magic of the live performance.” I know a few who’ve said that even Valin’s 15% is being optimistic. BTW, I interpret Valin’s use of “magic” as “believability”. Not 15% of the overall music presentation. IME, Valin’s statement is not far off the mark. And yes, I’m well aware there are many who claim many playback systems are capable of sounding very much like live music.
3. It’s a much raised noise floor induced by severe distortions thing.
When viewing the painting, he has the ability to capture 100% of all the detail within the canvas. But when listening, he is not privy to all the music info embedded in the recording, in fact far from it. Hence all of the detail captured at the canvas is far greater than the music traveling at the speed of sound has been greatly diminished. Think of this deficiency as him having lost half of his hearing ability. Moreover, when one has the ability to study an object (like a painting) at its full potential, the opportunity to grow in knowledge and understanding is far greater than attempting to study an object (music output) that is exhibited at far less that its full potential.
4. It’s a bling-bling and keeping up with the Jones thing.
It’s no secret that many enthusiasts too often mistake aesthetically pleasing or cool looking gear for performance. As such, many automatically assume if a product or system is financially out of their reach, then it must be superior to their own. To compound the issue, many who possess expensive playback systems also assume because their system costs more, it must be a superior performer to less costly systems. How many times do you see somebody comment on somebody else’s system saying, “Wow, I’ll bet it sounds awesome.”? Sure some of that is just flattery, but more times than not I suspect with what appears genuine excitement and infatuation, they really mean it.
5. It’s a lack of leadership thing.
Everything listed herein generally applies equally to reviewers and so-called “experts” as it does enthusiasts.
6. It’s a marketing and revenue thing.
Ever since the “Is it live or is it Memorex?” commercials in the 70’s, the gloves came off when it comes to marketing hype. Don’t believe me? Pick up any high-end audio mag and list all the extreme superlatives used in most every advertisement. Frankly, it’s almost like an industry in a drunken stupor. The fact that some-to-many of us never question this hype should substantiate some of what I’m claiming here.
7. It’s an improper emphasis on the use of measurements thing.
If as a result of unaddressed universal distortions, every sensitive component and playback system’s precision and accuracy is severely crippled, is it not likely that sensitive measuring instruments’ precision and accuracy could likewise be crippled?
Moreover, if our playback systems are so severely crippled (as I would attest), that for the sake of argument let’s say only 50% of all music info embedded in a given recording remains audible at the speaker’s output, what does that say about many of the measurements taken and the “science-minded” types who compile and/or report these findings? Additionally, if during playback our systems’ precision and accuracy are indeed severely crippled, what more would that say about the potentially already compromised measurements if indeed our sensitive measuring instruments likewise are crippled from the same universal distortions?
8. It’s a misunderstanding of the meaning of “expert” thing.
Recently Atkinson (of Stereophile) was quoted in a Vandersteen Model 7A speaker ad saying, “Made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. …. Musically perfect… across the board.” And if reproduced audio could be “more perfect” than that, I suggest reading Harley’s (of TAS) recent review of Meridian’s MQA high-rez formatted music. It puts Atkinson’s comments about the Vandersteen’s to shame.
Yet, in 2009 both of these editors-in-chief can be found claiming that something catastrophic is occurring that keeps much of the music info from ever reaching the recording in the first place. When PhD’s like Floyd Toole engage and their research is hamstrung by the same deficiencies, what does that really say about their findings and white papers? Going back to 50% of the music info remaining audible at the speakers, assuming it’s anywhere close to true, what does that really say about the supposedly really smart fellers in this industry? To me, it says, they’re not really quite the experts we and they think they are and in the end they are just as lost as the rest of us.
9. For some-to-many, it’s an intellectual thing rather a performance thing.
Frankly, even though many talk performance all the day long, I suspect a good many don’t really care all that much about performance.
10. It’s a lack of focus thing.
Other industries seem to have very clear and observable targets on the wall. But as a result of all the above, it should be apparent that from a performance perspective (the core), the high-end audio industry remain very much in its infancy. What’s even worse is that may well imply perhaps every other aspect of the industry also remains in its infancy.
In summary.
When you add up all or even half of these truths (yes truths), it should become apparent that we’re talking essentially an entire “performance-oriented” industry wandering aimlessly in the desert. Maybe now it becomes easier to see why it seems no two enthusiasts can shoot at the same target or there can be no consensus.
