I'm not sure why I should be dealing with this now – although it was likely triggered by a post I read earlier today - but for some reason I feel like it's going to come in handy later, so here we go . . .
“America is the greatest nation on Earth!”
Let me 'splain . . .
In order to establish the validity of the claim to be the “greatest', or the “fastest”, or the “loudest”, or the “richest” you must first establish the parameters that will be used in progressively eliminating entries in your initial list, the ultimate goal being to eliminate all but one. (Side note: You must also recognize that your final conclusion is ultimately based on your observations, observations which can be flawed by any number of factors, such as lack of information, personal taste, flawed measuring instrumentation, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and so forth. Bottom line: it is possible that anything regarded as the “whatever-est” got the position based on nothing more than somebody's opinion.)
Now then, two things are necessary for our parameters: there must be more than one, and they must be graduated in their importance. With only one, it is obviously impossible to distinguish between any number of your potential initial choices. And if they all have the same importance, eliminating all but one of your entrants may be impossible.
Armed with this, let's try an example. We'll imagine that a staggeringly rich Arab oil baron who also happens to hold the patents on Velcro, foam packing peanuts, and whatever the electronic circuit is that turns the light yellow every time I get close to it has come to you and said he wants to buy 7 of the greatest loudspeakers in the world for his new cost-is-no-object mansion-theater, and that he has also asked you – twice - if he's mentioned that cost is no object. What do you tell him?
Here are two possible responses:
- You tell him to buy 4 pairs of mbl 101 X-tremes and put the extra one in a closet somewhere. If you're really responsible you may want to ask about the construction method of the theater, considering that the total system weight will come in at around 6.3 tons and you don't want the sheik's ground floor harem experiencing any unwanted overhead incursions. (You also want to resist the temptation to tell him that the system will set him back $1,052,000.00 – he'd likely consider that insulting, and you know how those Arabs can be.)
- You tell him you need a hefty grant – somewhere in the neighborhood of, say, $1,052,000.00 - to begin a research project that will take you about 6 months. Having received your check and finding a way of cashing it without the Feds breaking down your door and accusing you of drug money laundering, you buy yourself a pair of mbl 101 X-tremes which are currently on sale for $149,000.00 – probably because they haven't been moving a lot of those puppies at MSRP - and use the rest to set up a fabulous listening room that was designed by me. While you're at it, you also ask me help you determine a list of parameters to will help you figure out what the greatest loudspeaker in the world is. (My fee for these services would be a bargain at $152,000.00, don't you think?)
So that we can arrive at the point I'm laboring to reach, we'll go with Response #2. We start out with a small list, only 2. One, phase coherence; two, off-axis frequency response. Why those? Because they are the two most critical elements that will determine how accurately the speakers will convert electrical energy to acoustic energy and deliver it to your ears while minimizing the importance of your listening position, a nice feature if you're in the habit of having other people over to enjoy your system. (Having four or five folks sitting in your lap would probably distract from the experience, not to mention what they might think of your entertainment skills.)
Of the two, we agree that phase coherence is the more important, because . . . well, just because. I'm getting tired of typing and the explanation would bore the socks off a Beefeater.
So we give phase coherence a highest-possible score of 10 and off-axis frequency response a 6, then we begin measuring speakers, limiting our list to speakers that we are confident will do well in the tests.
But we find a problem, of sorts. Not only was our initial list short, but we find that our “winner” doesn't do very well in some other areas we know are important. We just assumed that because they did well in the two areas we chose that they would do well in all of them. Hmmm.
Well then, we expand our list of parameters to include load stability, but we find that most speakers aren't very stable at all, their impedance load varying wildly with frequency. In fact, we find that just about the only speakers that shine in this regard come from a single manufacturer in England. Worse, this parameter causes the standings of some of our former high-scorers to plummet, so we only give it a highest possible score of 2. But then we think about the fact that some folks go for MOSFET amps that have a bit of a reputation for shutting down in the presence of low impedance, so maybe we should make this 4.
Getting a little frustrated, we add another parameter to try to balance things a little – sensitivity. Hokey smokes. Speakers are ridiculously inefficient. To look at the numbers you'd think most of them would need a dedicated nuclear power plant to drive them. We give this a 5.
This is getting very, very complicated. The temptation to spend the money on a nice 3 month stay at the Rain Forest Resort in Phitsanulok and tell the sheik to buy 7 Klipschorns and two Wilson Audio Thor's Hammers just because we think they sound fabulous starts to sound pretty good.
So we do. We have a great time kayaking the Khek River and lunching in the trees; the sheik owns a theater system that has a neighboring country planning an invasion complete with forklifts to make off with the speakers, and all is well.
But what did we prove with our test of greatness when it comes to speakers? Nothing. We couldn't pull it off because there are too many variables that mean different things to different people who like to listen to good speakers. We made our recommendation to the sheik based on the fact that we knew those products were excellent performers. He probably wouldn't know the difference anyway. Personally, I'd go with 7 BG Radia LA-800s and 2 Triad In-Room Gold Subs, but that's just me.
The same situation will exist every time you try to determine what the “greatest” of anything is because its determination depends too much on personal preferences.
Conclusion: the term “greatest” is meaningless because it cannot be defined in fixed terms that don't vary with the observer.
There are others in other countries that believe theirs is the greatest country, and would disagree with us when we say ours is. Many of us would do the same to them. In the end, what is proven, and what does it matter?
Perhaps we should concern ourselves less with the measure of America's “greatness” and ask ourselves some different questions. I'll suggest a few.
In any given court of law in America, how confident are you that you would receive impartial justice, in a timely fashion, by people who are not only intimately familiar with the letter of the law, but with the spirit that informs it springing from natural law?
When you are asked to prepare to cast a vote for any government employee, from President of the national government to a member of the local Board of Supervisors, what would you say, on a scale of 1 to 10, the chances are of being able to objectively determine that individual's qualifications?
Living in a nation of considerable wealth, it would seem that receiving help to overcome a crisis or emergency that has come upon you unawares, in whatever form that help may take, would be a thing you could depend on. How confident are you that, if made aware of it on a city-wide scale, your fellow citizens would come to your aid without your having to resort to forced contributions from taxation that are distributed through social services?
How confident are you that any encounter with the police will be characterized by intelligent and courteous exchanges of information, a sense of reluctance on the part of the officer to have to involve himself in your affairs, a guileless effort to determine if any further action on his part beyond a warning is necessary for justice to be served, and a complete disregard for the possibility of adding to the state's revenue stream by facilitating a fine that will ultimately do nothing to serve your – his employer's – interest?
How confident are you that your government will assume the best about you until you give them solid reason not to, leaving you to run your affairs without interference, requiring from you only to respect the property of others?
What do you believe the chances are that the entertainment industry will be careful to limit its product to what is encouraging, uplifting to the spirit, and ennobling?
Do you get the sense that your society is actively pursuing a way of life that is typified by deep feelings, honesty, a concern for the welfare of others that gives freely on a local level, a pursuit of beauty in art, courtesy in every day dealings with those it doesn't know personally, planning for the future of its progeny, and ensuring its own protection and safety against enemies, no matter where they may reside?
How certain are you that America is right, instead of great?
