<I>One should be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise.</I>&mdash;F. Scott Fitzgerald

<I>One should be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise.</I>&mdash;F. Scott Fitzgerald

When I got married, my mother pulled my bride aside and said, "Now it can be <I>your</I> fault!" You see, I have always practiced blame-avoidance. Now I get to do it again.

When I got married, my mother pulled my bride aside and said, "Now it can be <I>your</I> fault!" You see, I have always practiced blame-avoidance. Now I get to do it again.

When I got married, my mother pulled my bride aside and said, "Now it can be <I>your</I> fault!" You see, I have always practiced blame-avoidance. Now I get to do it again.

It is a truism that audiophiles love music. What distinguishes us (footnote 1) from the vast majority of music lovers is the importance we ascribe to the high-quality reproduction of recorded music. But what, exactly, constitutes high-quality sound reproduction? To many audiophiles, the answer relates to accuracy. Useful indices of accuracy include many of the parameters that editor John Atkinson routinely measures: flat frequency response, time and phase accuracy, and low distortion, to name a few. On the other hand, many audiophiles apparently have little interest in these aspects and instead seek nothing more&mdash;or less&mdash;than a romantic and pleasant sound. Such individuals are unfazed by demonstrable inaccuracies in their systems; as long as it sounds good to their ears, they are happy. Are these two schools of thought both compatible with the notion of high-end audio? If so, is one "more correct" than the other? Are they mutually exclusive? What brought this issue to mind was, of all things, a digital transport. Actually, two transports.

It is a truism that audiophiles love music. What distinguishes us (footnote 1) from the vast majority of music lovers is the importance we ascribe to the high-quality reproduction of recorded music. But what, exactly, constitutes high-quality sound reproduction? To many audiophiles, the answer relates to accuracy. Useful indices of accuracy include many of the parameters that editor John Atkinson routinely measures: flat frequency response, time and phase accuracy, and low distortion, to name a few. On the other hand, many audiophiles apparently have little interest in these aspects and instead seek nothing more&mdash;or less&mdash;than a romantic and pleasant sound. Such individuals are unfazed by demonstrable inaccuracies in their systems; as long as it sounds good to their ears, they are happy. Are these two schools of thought both compatible with the notion of high-end audio? If so, is one "more correct" than the other? Are they mutually exclusive? What brought this issue to mind was, of all things, a digital transport. Actually, two transports.

I am writing this copy on a venerable Radio Shack TRS-100 portable computer while flying via TWA from St. Louis to Albuquerque, the very fact of doing so having reminded me of what I wanted to write about in this month's column: hardware reliability. J. Gordon Holt touched on this subject in last June's "As We See It," but I felt it worth readdressing in light of recent events.

<I>Big Rock Candy Mountain</I> has posted two of Owens' best: "Close Up the Honky Tonks" and "Streets of Bakersfield." Listen and remember.