I think there is an issue here of expectation and differences in people's ultimate aims. Ashley's focus is on the old aims of the high end. That is, as much fidelity as possible to the live musical experience and/or the original recording. The aim of many people on this forum (me included) is, I would suggest, musical enjoyment. The two are not necessarily the same thing and are not necessarily compatible with each other, and this is where the differences of opinion stem from. Intrinsically tied up with all this is the matter of each person's preferred musical tastes.
Reproducing acoustic instruments accurately (as found in classical, jazz, and folk music) makes very different requirements to the reproduction of amplified instruments. Recordings of acoustic music require a fidelity to the tonal qualities of the instruments and the ability to render information such as attack and decay as well as overall soundstaging and ambience. High end hi-fi has always strived to reproduce this as accurately as possible to the point of occasionally becoming sterile and clinical in its presentation. To a certain extent this accuracy is vital and I, for one, would not want to be without elements of it. In particular, the reproduction of tonal qualities is central to my enjoyment of orchestral music and if a system can't correctly place the various sections and players within the orchestra in a stable and convincing manner I get very irritated. However, I also become irritated when these elements are so over-played that they no longer sound musical, and instead result in listening becoming an exchange of information rather than a holistic experience. The achilles heel of so much hi-fi has always been that it too frequently reminds you that you are listening to hi-fi rather than music and the relationship with the music becomes a clinical one. This can be helpful and, indeed, during my BMus and MMus level studies I found an exhaustive level of detail and information extremely useful to my musical analysis. As a listening experience for pleasure, however, it becomes tiring and overly scientific. Furthermore, a system which successfully recreates the soundstage and the acoustic within which the performance took place can make you feel as though you are trying to shoe-horn something too large into a small domestic space. Yes, these elements are needed, but there is a fine line between what is acceptable and what becomes uncomfortable and that line is positioned differently for different listeners.
With amplified music, such as rock or pop, the criteria for successful reproduction change if we are looking to re-create the live sound. Live sound at gigs is often very very loud, bright and, at least until we adjust to it, can feel quite uncomfortable. To successfully re-create this in a domestic situation requires huge amounts of power from a system and an element of the raggedness of on-stage back-line reinforcement and PA sound. The qualities required for reproducing acoustic music can often hinder this and this is perhaps why, at the higher end of audio, there has always been more of a focus on acoustic music rather than any other. The trouble is how many of us actually WANT to experience that live sound over extended listening sessions in our own domestic room? Most of us can never deploy the necessary volume levels anyway due to consideration for those around us and the majority of us would find it a tiring and headache inducing experience. Again it ends up being like shoe-horning a huge scale experience into a small space and it becomes uncomfortable.
In terms of faithful reproduction of recordings this can lead to wonderful sound where the recording has been properly engineered and produced. However, the vast majority of great music has not been recorded with decent engineering and such discs can become difficult to listen to on a system which measures well and is ultra-revealing. The hi-fi then becomes a barrier to enjoying particular recordings or albums. When the hi-fi, and the scientific pursuit of accuracy, begins to affect the listener's musical choices it has, in my view, completely failed.
All of this shows how many compromises are involved in reproduction of music within the home, and its made all the more complicated by the fact that many of us listen to a wide range of music across different styles and genres. The whole concept of reproducing music in the home is a compromise and this is the precise reason why subjective opinions are, and always will be, far more important to the vast majority of listeners than scientific measurements and objective reports.
Some may respond by asking what the point is in pursuing hi-fi at all, but my answer to that is that better quality hi-fi, supported by the wide choice of approaches out there, helps each listener to reduce the impact of the compromises involved in reaching their own personal requirements. Audio will only finally die as a hobby when those looking for scientific perfection succeed in eliminating all choice and, consequently, the ability for hi-fi to cater for the myriad different needs of different users.
For evidence look at the users of this forum. There are so many intelligent and erudite members here who have an incredible love of music, but all with different angles and preferences when it comes to their audio equipment. None of us are wrong - just different, and its great that the choice is out there.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram