If I might add a couple of more views.
The joy of discovery is what moves me.
I would presume it to be akin to the archeologist,who after painstakingly rubbing off thousands of years of dirt and debris,discoveries a treasure that was hidden behind all that muck.
Well I like to discover all there is to be discovered in a recording, even if the object of my attention isn't perfect afterall,I can live with that if the object or the music is something I enjoy.
Or in other words, I don't need two arms to fully apreciate what a work of art the staue of Venus is.
That should pretty much sum it up about accepting the warts and all scenario.
Because I am also a musician and realized years ago that I will never achieve the ultimate replica of the live event in my room(I have a constant working reality of how live music sounds)I quit striving for that elusive daydream.
Perhaps this hasn't been presented by me clearly enough.
Perfection for me is the warts and all presentation, and the closer to that the better I feel my system has improved.
If I can't tell the difference between my great recordings and the lesser ones, then my system isn't at the level that it should be.But for others this is just fine, if it lets them enjoy the music.
But who said I am not enjoying the music?
The music is just as enjoyable,poorly recorded or not.
The music doesn't change, just the quality of it's reproduction.
A Jeff Beck solo still knocks me out, even if the recording isn't a high end type of recording.
Talent and musicianship can't be destroyed by a flawed recording process.
When it's there it is there.
I would prefer a poor recording of Jeff Beck than a superior recording of someone several steps below his level of ability.
What good is a great recording if you never want to listen to it because of mediocre playing or talent?
But what is really great is when you have a super musician like Jeff Beck who has been recorded with the utmost care to preserve as much fidelity as possible.
Why would I want to settle for a system that is unable to make the distinction between the two?
If everything sounds great, then what really sounds great has lost it's meaning and importance.
Quality(as it has for the most part in modern recordings)becomes less and less important when you dumb it down and compress it for the sake of being louder than the next guy.
If it sounds good enough in MP3 on earbuds, then what else matters?
I hate to harken back to the old days(yes before I got into music or HiFi)the less they had to work with made for some spookily real recordings.
And when you listen to great systems that reveal even the tape hiss from the recording session,that is a flaw that tells me I am hearing it the way it was and as close to the event of the recording that there is.
IF I can hear the tape hiss, this isn't a flaw to my ears, it's a big bonus, because I know that little else from that recording session is hidden from me.
The decay and ring of the cymbals will shimmer away as they did when captured by the mic,and I will enjoy that right along with the tape hiss.
So for me there is no downside to having a highly resolving system.
It's what keeps me in the hobby , the quest for components and accessories that more finely hone the resolve of the system.
To go the opposite way and settle for less is the road to mediocrity.
Why go there if you aren't forced to?
Why settle for 3/4 of the music you've paid for just because it's easy on the ears in a compromised system?
What about the other 1/4 that is MIA?
Even if that missing 1/4 reveals that the recording isn't the best ever,for me it's just as important as the other 3/4.
Maybe more so.
Why not want to hear it all?
The way it really was,in all it's sonic splendor or inspite of it?
Why does reality, warts and all, have to take a back seat
in this hobby and why has the focus shifted to how listenable the sound is as opposed to how accurate it is?
None of the highly resolving systems that I have experienced ever gave me listener fatigue.
Just the opposite, they lead to extended listening sessions and the quest for more music.
The joy of discovery is what moves me.
I would presume it to be akin to the archeologist,who after painstakingly rubbing off thousands of years of dirt and debris,discoveries a treasure that was hidden behind all that muck.
Well I like to discover all there is to be discovered in a recording, even if the object of my attention isn't perfect afterall,I can live with that if the object or the music is something I enjoy.
Or in other words, I don't need two arms to fully apreciate what a work of art the staue of Venus is.
That should pretty much sum it up about accepting the warts and all scenario.
Because I am also a musician and realized years ago that I will never achieve the ultimate replica of the live event in my room(I have a constant working reality of how live music sounds)I quit striving for that elusive daydream.
Perhaps this hasn't been presented by me clearly enough.
Perfection for me is the warts and all presentation, and the closer to that the better I feel my system has improved.
If I can't tell the difference between my great recordings and the lesser ones, then my system isn't at the level that it should be.But for others this is just fine, if it lets them enjoy the music.
But who said I am not enjoying the music?
The music is just as enjoyable,poorly recorded or not.
The music doesn't change, just the quality of it's reproduction.
A Jeff Beck solo still knocks me out, even if the recording isn't a high end type of recording.
Talent and musicianship can't be destroyed by a flawed recording process.
When it's there it is there.
I would prefer a poor recording of Jeff Beck than a superior recording of someone several steps below his level of ability.
What good is a great recording if you never want to listen to it because of mediocre playing or talent?
But what is really great is when you have a super musician like Jeff Beck who has been recorded with the utmost care to preserve as much fidelity as possible.
Why would I want to settle for a system that is unable to make the distinction between the two?
If everything sounds great, then what really sounds great has lost it's meaning and importance.
Quality(as it has for the most part in modern recordings)becomes less and less important when you dumb it down and compress it for the sake of being louder than the next guy.
If it sounds good enough in MP3 on earbuds, then what else matters?
I hate to harken back to the old days(yes before I got into music or HiFi)the less they had to work with made for some spookily real recordings.
And when you listen to great systems that reveal even the tape hiss from the recording session,that is a flaw that tells me I am hearing it the way it was and as close to the event of the recording that there is.
IF I can hear the tape hiss, this isn't a flaw to my ears, it's a big bonus, because I know that little else from that recording session is hidden from me.
The decay and ring of the cymbals will shimmer away as they did when captured by the mic,and I will enjoy that right along with the tape hiss.
So for me there is no downside to having a highly resolving system.
It's what keeps me in the hobby , the quest for components and accessories that more finely hone the resolve of the system.
To go the opposite way and settle for less is the road to mediocrity.
Why go there if you aren't forced to?
Why settle for 3/4 of the music you've paid for just because it's easy on the ears in a compromised system?
What about the other 1/4 that is MIA?
Even if that missing 1/4 reveals that the recording isn't the best ever,for me it's just as important as the other 3/4.
Maybe more so.
Why not want to hear it all?
The way it really was,in all it's sonic splendor or inspite of it?
Why does reality, warts and all, have to take a back seat
in this hobby and why has the focus shifted to how listenable the sound is as opposed to how accurate it is?
None of the highly resolving systems that I have experienced ever gave me listener fatigue.
Just the opposite, they lead to extended listening sessions and the quest for more music.