With Gordon, you knew exactly what he was looking for in hi-fi equipment, what his criteria was. I took his belief of the lack-of-coloration being the number one priority of a reproduction system as self-evident, also feeling that the reproduction of the timbre of voices and instruments as close to lifelike as possible is where hi-fi begins; if a speaker (in particular, as they are still the most colored component in a system) fails the timbre test, it doesn’t matter what other qualities the speaker possesses. Singing, both solo and in harmony and/or counterpoint, is my favorite element in the performance of music (the key word being "performance"; the music itself---chord sequences, melodies, harmonies, etc.) is more important to me than it’s performance. A great song performed only adequately is preferable to me to an adequate song performed greatly.
But I have to admit, Art Dudley’s argument that lack of "vowel" coloration (as Gordon put it) was only one of many qualities gear has to have, and not necessarily the most important to any given listener (ha ;-), himself included. Gordon believed that not considering timbre the most important element in music reproduction was "wrong". Art argues that the notion of believing accurate timbre should be EVERYONE’S priority is "wrong", that a listener is equally justified in making any other criteria (such as Art’s desire for a component to reproduce a musician’s "touch", and to reproduce the "forward momentum" of a player/band that a recording has captured) his or her number one priority, that making that ability (or any other, such as many audiophiles preoccupation with imaging, a low priority for both Art and myself) one’s number one priority is just as valid as is Gordon’s. Even if I agree with Gordon about timbre, I agree with Art that Gordon's insistence that everyone see it that way is wrong.
