"State Of The Art" vs the "State Of Reality"

[Khorn]

We all enjoy listening to and recorded music and get involved in lengthily discussions on the merits of different versions of recordings. Most of the time, when I listen to a recording, if it sounds good and, there is nothing distracting in the way it was recorded or reproduced I enjoy it and "get into the music". If things would stay that way it would be great but every once in a while (like once a month) I receive a copy of the latest audio magazine and that's where the trouble starts.

The stated/implied objective of these magazines is to keep the audio community informed on the latest developments in the audio world form both a hardware and software perspective. They do so but, in a highly "skewed" manner that caters to their advertisers and, maybe not to the utmost benefit of the reading public. This is a fully understandable but sometimes annoying practice. It bothers me a bit that in many cases the field is limited to "a chosen few" manufacturers to the exclusion of many good and interesting products.

The thing that bothers me more than anything else is the viewpoint that unless you are listening to your music over the latest, greatest "State Of The Art" equipment then you not "really hearing the music" even if what you are listening through was the "latest and greatest" only a few months ago never mind something probably far older and more modest.

(An amusing aside: transpose "State Of The Art" to State Of The "Atr" and you will have a piece of equipment that while in no way anywhere near being "new" will kick the **** out of most of the stuff they are writing about today.)

While we all would love to be able to afford and acquire the best SOTA equipment that is obviously not very practical. Most of us are faced with the "SOR" or the "State Of Reality" in the equipment and discs that we can afford to buy.

You can get a GREAT SOUNDING music playback system in all price ranges if you take the time and trouble to match the components you buy to each other and to the reproduction PRIORITIES that you have. (Ask questions on this group and others to take advantage of personal experiences, that's part of what we're here for and I don't think most of us have any "hidden agenda" such as being supported by advertisers.) You're not gonna "get it all" unless you are prepared and have the ability to "spend it all" and very few of us are in that position but, in a realistic world you can come pretty close.

Design your system around YOUR PRIORITIES and if you take the time to carefully match every system component you will end up with a "Cumulative System Synergy". You can then sit back relax and enjoy the music without concern that you're missing out in some way otherwise you're "State Of Reality" will be one of constant dissatisfaction and "never hearing it all"

[-=Rudy=-]

Originally posted by Khorn
The thing that bothers me more than anything else is the viewpoint that unless you are listening to your music over the latest, greatest "State Of The Art" equipment then you not "really hearing the music" even if what you are listening through was the "latest and greatest" only a few months ago never mind something probably far older and more modest.

While we all would love to be able to afford and acquire the best SOTA equipment that is obviously not very practical. Most of us are faced with the "SOR" or the "State Of Reality" in the equipment and discs that we can afford to buy.


Can I say "Amen, bruddah"?? :D

That's one reason I quit subscribing to such mags like Stereophile...very few of the articles pertained to what I was after, and it seemed ridiculous to spend thousands on something to extract some microscopic extra detail I could care less about. Not to offend anyone, but a lot of their verbiage was literally "pulling stuff out of their @ss". I looked at some of their equipment reviews like the comedy relief of the magazine. ;) I liked the record reviews, or at least the musical portion of them, and their "recommended components" was always good--I always looked for good performing gear that didn't cost a fortune. I have better things to do wiht my time than sit there rigid in a tiny sweet spot, straining to hear these tiny, minute details. Sound quality? Clean, free of distortion, doesn't strain at the extremes, easy to listen to (non-fatiguing, not harsh in any way). If it does these basics well (and as Steve would say, the midrange is "it"), I'm pleased.

This sort of taps into my complaint about a lot of the questionable expensive tweaks out there. I'm very budget conscious. I tend to weigh things rationally. With $100, would I spend it on a new accessory that i don't really need or even know if it works, or spend it on a bunch of used CDs or LPs and discover new music? With $1000, should I buy yet another component I want "just because" or should I take a big leap and get into surround sound (which is a big change from what I have now)? A new pair of speakers, yes, I'd be willing to buy or build a new pair since the sound would be dramatically different. Would I upgrade my 10-year-old 250 wpc amp for another? Most likely not. Even when buying CDs these days, I don't necessarily want to buy a remaster if there's a chance I could get something I haven't yet heard.

I guess I approach it in a practical sense. Most bang for the buck, most enjoyment for what I want to spend. If I can't afford equipment for a few years, no big deal--I can live with what I've got, and do some minor changes with what I already own.

Kinda goes against the "audiophile" grain of things, but if I buy carefully (and/or economically) to begin with, I can live with my equipment for a long time with no urgent need to upgrade. Sure I like all the new technology, but I haven't been an "early adopter" since my bachelor days. Nowadays, i'll wait a few years for technology to drop in price, and become mature, before jumping in. Especially with digital gear--the first generation is usually well eclipsed by second and third generation equipment.