In part one we proposed that there are other valid goals for high-end audio systems besides that of reproducing ‘exactly’ what is on the source material (i.e. 100% Real), and that these other valid goals can be thought of as being similar to the goals of artists who, say, paint a landscape.

The argument I usually hear against this kind of anarchy 🙂 is that the muscians intended for their music to sound a certain way [maybe but it rarely makes it to the source material this way, given sound engineers and limited budgets], how dare we muck with their composition? They are the musicans, we but the audience. Then are we to tell painters to stop painting impressionistic landscapes, because Nature or God intended it to look a certain way?

So, this means all but one or two of us can stop beating ourselves up because we like systems that sound ‘better than real’, or communicate ‘better than real’, or are more engaging than real [this ‘better tha real’ stuff is more possible for Jazz, Pop and Rock&Roll than it is for Classical. Give me the capability for reproducing Real Carnegie Hall, THEN we can start working on better than real Carnegie Hall]

Whew! Hopefully we can all feel more confident in ourselves and the work that we are doing. I know it can be hard when we run into lots of obnoxious layabouts who give us a hard time on the forums, they have not educated themselves about how to appreciate good sounding music and its impact on the listener. We are going against the ‘common wisdom’. Why?

Because… Carrying this analogy further, many of the people reading this blog are high-end home audio system ‘artists’.

Artists, and their admirers, are never understood by lay people – and especially artists of our rather new and certainly unheralded art form.

How many times have you heard someone ridicule art with somthing like: ‘Honey, how come that guy can’t paint a face that looks like a face?’. ‘Why would anyone want more than loud bass and something that can play each of the notes from 20 -20K Hz?’. ‘What can you see in a Jackson Pollock painting that you can’t see in a bowl of spaghetti ?’

OK, I made that last one up 🙂

——————-

There are several different kinds of work habits associated with artists:

1) Most of us think of somethng they want to build, build it, then refine it, polish it up. Then start on a new system variation. Just like a painter who pulls out a new canvas, paints something, spends some time touching it up, making it as good as they feel they can without going crazy [which is never good enough] and then going on to start the next painting. Unlike painters, we cannot keep our systems around in stacks against the wall unless we are VERY rich and have a LOT of room.

But we can photograph them, like painters do, so that they have sometihng to remind them of the piece after they sell it to pay for food. See? Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

2) Some of us tinker with the same old darn painting, I mean system, for years and years, trying to get it …. just….. right. In general, systems do kind of evolve into one another as opposed to repalce one another.

3) Some of us are more radical, tearing up a lot of canvases before the paint is even dry, the canvas still white in places, so unsatisfied we are with how the system is shaping up.

4) Some of us commision systems from artists [aka good dealers].

5) And the vast majority of people buy posters that kind of look like art, and equipment that kinds of looks like systems, from wall-mart, and circuit city.

——————————-

Carrying the analogy further [I know a lot for one post, maybe this will get split out…] we can see the future of high-end audio…

As posters and serigraphs and glicees and laser printing gets closer and closer to being able to look like the real thing, so will high-end audio systems found in, say, circuit city.

What will be left?

Posters are availabe for only a relatively few masters, and circuit city systems will eventually sound good, but have only a few different sounds. For those that want something that uniquely speaks to them, something special, that has a pride of ownership associated with it, these people will always have to shop somewhere else, at a boutique, or learn to build systems themselves.

In a sense this is what we do now, unstatisfied with the ‘commonality’ of the sound found in the ‘common’ store fronts. Yes, their sound quality also currently sucks – but if it didn’t? How many of us could go back to a generic sound when we know how ‘our sound’ can make us feel? Not most of us, I think.

Anyway, just some thoughts….

OK, been thinking about the ‘Absolute Sound’ and the true ‘Real’ reproduction of what is on the source material. How a number of people focus on this as the ultimate goal of our little hobby here.

Well, I think they are wrong.

Or rather, that this goal is not the only goal.

This idea is best understood by comparing audio reproduction with visual reproduction. In particular the art of painting.

Until about the turn of the last century, as I understand it, the goal for several 1000s of years was for (most) painters to try to reproduce what they saw in a ‘photo-realistic’ fashion.

I remember there being a little renaisannce when someone discovered how to paint ‘perspective’.

It is a historical oddity that they got pretty good at it, often making a good living at portraiture, at about the same time that photography kind of made the whole point moot.

So then they came up with different kinds of reproduction. Impressionistic. Abstract. Super-realistic [not sure this is the official name, but it is when a painting of, say, fruit, looks better and more delicious and more real in the painting than in real life]. Pointalism. Cubism.

Yes, the more mundane art enthusiast still wants their art to look like photographs.

But many, many people enjoy these non-photo-realistic paintings.

And I say it is about time that we acknowledge that audio reproduction is the same.

It is OK to prefer a Sweet sound. A room pressurizing sound. A hyper-detailed sound. Whatever.

Just like it is OK to like the Impressionism of Manet and the abstract works of Picasso. I imagine that when these guys were starting out, they got the some level of flack from the traditionalists.

I think that as we get closer and closer to being able to do Real, we will also get farther as more ‘interpretive’ sound reproduction forms emerge.

It is the point of this post to suggest that these ‘interpretive’ sound reproduction forms are as valid, as enjoyable, and as worthy of a pursuit as the pursuit of the Real.

That it would be cathartic to recognize that this is happening, to embrace it, and, as a collary, to not all of us go racing off in a particular direction when we chould be racing off in all directions. To not abandon a particular art form, like Tube Analog in favor of Solid-State, LP Analog in favor of digital storage mediums, etc. All of these are valid.

Yes, the art world does the same thing, the ‘hot thing’ being Impressonism, through Cubism and Dada to Modernism and who knows what else I do not have the time. But I personally like them all, and would think the person who feels that only one of them is the One True Art Form is loosing out and a little bit of a Herbert.

So…. what do you think?

Neli came up with this one:

Digital = Cubism

my thoughts were that:

Digital = Pointalism.

I doubt if we can come up with a one to one mapping. And some of the reproduction out there is just poor. For example I think:

Bose is not equal to Velvet paintings, as Velvet paintings are clear, enjoyable and humorous, in a shallow sort of way. But not so Bose.

Or ‘Kung Fu for the Guitar’.

Back when I thought I had time (haaaaa ha ha ha) to learn how to play the guitar better, I subscribed to the Guitar Principles newsletter [Be careful with their bright red screen. Early in the morning it can be blinding, perhaps waiting until afternoon to visit might be better… Yeah, I just don’t think they got the Webdesign-Fu thing going yet].

Their approach has always been very deep, paying attention to every detail as well as paying attention to the numerous ‘purposes’ one has playing a guitar. Yes, it is very much like our hobby, but luckily we do not require much hand-eye motor coordination :-)!

[… though, often, the amount we do require can be duanting, plugging left channels into right, output cables into the input sockets, … all sorts of difficulties can arise if we do not FOCUS. Or maybe it is just us….]

For example, here is a (small) exerpt from their last newsletter, which I found myself identifying with both as a listener to musician’s music as well as a audio reproduction system optimizer [but not so much as guitar player – free time disappears as if it were nothing but a poof of smoke from Gandalf’s pipe]:

“….in the course of developing as a guitarist, you will be forced to confront who you really are, not who you think you are.” Musical performance does not allow us to lie, it forces us to speak the truth, whatever our truth might be. If I am afraid, if I am shallow, if I am passionate and profound; the music will say it.

As we play, we must ask “where is my attention? Is it focused on what I want, or am I allowing my psychic energy to be devoted to my fears and doubts, thereby bringing me what I don’t want?” The smallest corners of our minds and hearts, though we may keep them hidden from our awareness in everyday life, will come to life in the midst of our artistic endeavors. And that is why an artist must strive toward purity, which is earned through honest, fearless, and constant self observation.

So, let us observe ourselves fearlessly, especially when we play guitar, and see if we are focusing on the problem, or the solution. Is it our fears to which we give our attention, or are we thinking of and focusing on what we want? What we get [the results we get] will depend on the answer. “

Anyway, inspirational, for me at least. And I try to apply ‘Guitar Principles’ to other parts of my life.

[Boy, some people have bad hair days, I get bad spell days [everyday is a bad hair day, but I’m a guy, so who cares]. I’ve had to look up half of the words on this post…. *sheesh*].

Well, here we are at the end of this little Blog post….