Which is tantamount to not only letting someone else choose your system, but letting them choose your listening material too. Which is fine as long as you happened to share Harry’s taste in music and performance – a taste that embraced Fritz Reiner and the wider Romantic cannon to the exclusion of other, viable alternatives. Big orchestra, big works and a really big soundstage were the order of the day – priorities reflected in the components that made up the Sea Cliff reference systems. For those with a more cerebral approach, a different choice of equipment often made more sense. Buying equipment to match your own musical tastes, rather than those of a third party, makes a whole lot more sense – although even that isn’t the whole story.
The flip-side…
Just as systems can be tailored to musical tastes, so music can be selected to suit systems – the real import of Paul Benson’s acerbic observation. It’s a regular part of the demonstration/sales repertoire, but it often (and increasingly) goes further than that. When CD first arrived, there were early adopting listeners who literally hung on the release of the next disc, so limited was the range of titles available, especially older recordings. It took a long time to fill in the back catalogue. It’s a situation we’re seeing again, with file replay.
As the debate swirling around the relative quality of different formats swirls, it inevitably descends into close comparison of the ‘same material’ stored on various devices or formats. In any situation where the replayed file is suffering against its physical opposition, the stock response is to retreat into the “You haven’t got the right file” argument. Get closer to the current state-of-the-art and the range of ‘acceptable’ material narrows dramatically. Native high-res recordings are the only acceptable currency and failure to use them invalidates your efforts.
Now, not only is the range of such material limited, the number of recordings or artists included within that group that I might actually choose to listen to is vanishingly small. To me, this signals a fundamental dichotomy in approach. I want a system that allows me to listen to the music I want to hear, played by the performers I choose. As a predominantly classical listener, the ability to access and compare different performances and interpretations of the same work is a core aspect of my listening pleasure. But the freedom to rove across different performers is just as critical to pop or jazz listening. When CD first appeared, how many people found themselves listening to an unadulterated diet of Dire Straits? If you primarily use a system to access your music collection, then any tendency to narrow your choices through format availability should be avoided: But if you primarily use your music collection to listen to and assess your system, the same imperative no longer applies.
Neither listening pattern is superior to the other – and, they almost always overlap, occasionally or to some extent – but it is worthwhile being honest with yourself about where your priorities lie. When I review a product, I assess it and rate it for the task I expect it to perform – to deliver the widest musical access possible. Other reviewers and listeners focus on absolute performance, irrespective of the musical material involved or even available. Absolute performance becomes a goal in itself.
