So what are we to make of a product like the ML2 amps (using them here only as an example, not a topic)? I have to say I more or less took a flyer on these, since I never heard them in a system I could stand before I up and bought them, and I well knew in advance the limits and limitations of SETs topological terms. But now that I have them in my own system they don't sound like any SETs I have heard before. In fact, they don't sound much like any amps I have heard before in terms of character. And this raises lots of questions for me in terms of my "knowledge" about hi-fi electronic genres, since I am not sure in a technical sense what makes this amp so special. OTOH, it has to be "something", and I do plan to figure it out as I listen.
While I can't argue with the observation that we "don't know what sounds good", I can observe for myself that Romy took some ideas from the ML2s (and, no doubt, other electronic stuff) when he "deduced" the Melquiades, which are, after all, an amalgamation of memories, both memories of sound and memories of electronics with which Romy has formed associations.
So here is another case for knowing something about the workings of the gear. Even if it does not solve the question of "circuit supremacy" it does suggest both the existence and value of a "working knowledge" of the gear.
It appears to me that the "problem" is not so much with knowledge of electronics, per se, but rather with current evaluative methods and methodologies and the developmental processes stemming from these methods and methodologies. Basically, there seems to be a disconnect between what we know about electronics and what we hear, and how we use what we hear to change what we "know" about electronics.
It has long seemed to me that those who know the most about electronics, per se, are different people than those who know the most about music, per se. Yet it has also been clear for some time that it takes more than a melding of both interests to render good hi-fi.
But learning to listen is not just a technique, it is a process. And likely the "knowledge" of hi-fi must transform itself on both fronts, listening and knowledge about the workings of the gear and how that relates to what we hear.
I am reluctant to let go of the idea that I can keep track of what sounds right to me. I would rather expand my knowledge than adopt a random approach borne of dispair of knowledge. |
|