De Gustibus De
Doo-Dah Day
If there's anything that seems bound to separate
audiophiles into warring camps these days, it's neither the old tubes versus
solid-state debate nor the planar versus box loudspeaker schism -- it's likely
to be why the LP hangs on so tenaciously twenty years into the digital age.
LP fanciers point to vinyl's listenability; many even cite
its intrinsic "higher resolution." LP detractors are adamant about the
long-playing record's inherent distortions, tracking difficulties, and the concomitant
degradation visited upon a plastic medium by the high-pressure contact of the stylus. From
the heat of some of the arguments, you'd think some kind of moral principle was involved.
As for me, I'm guided by two philosophical premises, which
have served me well over the years: 1) De gustibus non disputandum and 2) Love the
one you're with.
The first should be obvious -- there is no disputing a
matter of taste. In other words, preference is in the eye of the beholder (behearer). If
you prefer one to the other, I won't even bother to argue the call. But while I hear
differences between the two, I'm able to enjoy what both have to offer.
The same is true about another matter that splits
the audio world into warring factions: surround sound for music. On my other site -- www.onhometheater.com -- I review
a dual-layer SACD that contains some stylish music for violin and orchestra. I'm glad I
have the music and I enjoyed hearing it in both two-channel and four-channel mode. It
seems about as inoffensive a proposition as you could have, but when I told some
audiophile friends I liked the four-channel presentation, you would have thought I'd
committed apostasy.
One friend was adamant that he didn't need four
channels. "I only have two ears," he asserted. I don't quite understand his
logic on this -- stereo, of course, has two channels, which does match his ear
count, but I've heard great-sounding three-speaker systems (and a scant few with five or
more) that did not seem the least handicapped by having more speakers than I have ears.
Others used subtler arguments, such as the old "stereo
is good enough" line of logic. Given the current state of most multichannel
recordings, I tend to concur. Stereo can be far better than "good enough," but
we're comparing a mature 50-year-old technology with one in its infancy. If multichannel
music recording is ever going to hit its stride, it's going to have to take baby steps
first.
Gordon Holt -- in whose ears I trust -- decided years ago
to embrace multichannel music reproduction and I've heard some superb demonstrations of it
at his house. However, he's a visionary and a crack recording engineer -- most of us
ordinary folks are still waiting for the "killer app" that makes our need
for something better than stereo obvious.
My erstwhile editor, John Atkinson (himself a staunch
two-channel advocate) maintains that it's going to take a musical breakthrough on the
level of the Beatles to make most people want multichannel music. When an artist or group
capable of creating compelling soundscapes that must be experienced in more than
two channels comes along, the public will demand five, or seven, or ten channels and we'll
start to wonder how we ever got along with just two.
Heck, when that day comes, maybe even the most avid analog
fanciers will demand a different format so they too can get in on all the fun. I won't
hold my breath, but it would be nice if all of us could simply show a little more respect
for each other’s preferences. It's not as if the love of music is supposed to start
all these fights, you know.
...Wes Phillips
wes@onhifi.com
|
