|
|
Romy the Cat
Boston, MA
Posts 10,156
Joined on 05-28-2004
|
Post #:
|
3
|
|
Post ID:
|
25822
|
|
Reply to:
|
25821
|
|
|
|
The proportional triangle
|
|
|
|
|
I think the true definition of good enough is not located in
sonic domains, certainly not in audio domain and not even not in musical
domain. I know a few guys in past who here very high caliber technical interpreters,
high-level directors, CTO and CEO-level. Some of them run own companies and
some of them worked for somebody. It was very interesting to talk with them
about ambitions. Obviously, most of them were very capable to convert own intellectualism
and capacity into high money and high accomplishments. Still, there was a few
of them who had a very interesting mental balance between how much they delegate
themselves to work, career and money and how much they balanced it with other activities:
family, love life, artistic inclinations, curiosity to others… etc. What I learned
then that it is not the selection of person’s priorities but rather an ability of
success in one given direction of activities to enrich the rest avenues of individual
interests. I do feel that that is the
key. A proper answer does not answer just a posted question but act as a
universal template of answers in multiple directions. I do feel that this is
how might be measured a success in audio and consequently it is how the “good
enough” might be viewed.
Let pretend we change a bias in our SET from cathode to fixed.
Sound charged and in short run we differentiated a difference and made our judgment
if it was better or worse. Then I would ask what was the definition of better
or rather how that better served our other interests. Let me inject my view, I
do not insist that it is universally true. If the change of that bias in SET made
us to listen less Shostakovich but more Beethoven, less Gershwin but more Bach
then something with that bias we made right. The same paradigm is applicable with
progression to let say Bach. Why the progression toward Bach is good? The way
to answer it a person needs to recognize how his preferential progression
toward to let say this given composer serves person’s other objectives, interests
and human tendencies. I just give an example that meant to demonstrate where
the “definition of good enough” lives. “Good enough” is very intricate mapping between
own objectives and the means how we get accomplished these objectives. We do
know where our compulsiveness stops in terms of objectives but we sometimes have
difficulties to align own compulsiveness in terms of the means to fulfill those
objectives. So, there are 3 elements in play.
I advocate an integrated
and balanced approach where objectives, means to fulfill those objectives and self-consciousness
are very deeply tighten together, were successes and failures in any side of
that triangle are mutually gauged and developed highly proportionally.
"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|