Chasing perfection

[Aloysius]

Isn’t it easy to nail perfection with bespoke tailoring? 2-3 attempts with the same tailor—done. The chase is not worth the high, as the young kids like to put it.

Nah, future garments will still need fitting because of all the variables. (Bespoke shirts, though, are essentially like that. Once your pattern is nailed, because there are no moving parts, they can go straight to finish each time.)

But I meant things like the obsession with "stitches per inch" and similar metrics in workwear circles. The workwear guy will be counting stitches on a reproduction of a shirt worn by a construction worker in the 70s, while a guy who shares a shirtmaker with the king has a perfectly fitting shirt and basically doesn't care about that stuff lol.

 

[MrProper]

Whom exactly are you trying to impress?

Me
And if others like it too... Bingo.
I use public transport, work in a company with many employees, where I am seen by many people and am well known.
And I know that people are looking at me. It's probably because of my height.
And when I'm on display like that, I want to look good. And lots of other people like it too, even though it's not necessarily their own style.
Well, that's the downside of being vain to a certain extent.
I would say that 80% of the people I see don't give the slightest thought to what they wear or whether it suits them. I know I'm superficial, but so what

 

[TartuWolf]

Don't know what you guys are talking about. I've achieved perfection with my Aero Hooch Hauler (if only it had slightly longer sleeves..) and my Vanson E (if only it had slightly shorter sleeves and back.. and that kidney panel stiffener removed), now my nose is only being pulled around by "deal" hunting (oh my, an octagon Vanson B in my size in great condition for 200$? Don't mind if I do!). At least I'm happy that I'm no longer attracted by experimentation - there aren't any styles that I'd still like to try. Apart from something like a Maxwell/Moonshiner that is. So yeah, I'm fine, thanks for asking.

 

[tuanhng614]

Don't know what you guys are talking about. I've achieved perfection with my Aero Hooch Hauler (if only it had slightly longer sleeves..) and my Vanson E (if only it had slightly shorter sleeves and back.. and that kidney panel stiffener removed), now my nose is only being pulled around by "deal" hunting (oh my, an octagon Vanson B in my size in great condition for 200$? Don't mind if I do!). At least I'm happy that I'm no longer attracted by experimentation - there aren't any styles that I'd still like to try. Apart from something like a Maxwell/Moonshiner that is. So yeah, I'm fine, thanks for asking.

Ohh no no no, brother! You ain’t out of the woods yet if you’re still here

 

[TartuWolf]

Ohh no no no, brother! You ain’t out of the woods yet if you’re still here

Maybe, but at least I'm in conscious denial, not like you guys!

 

[Carlos840]

I believe that life is absurd and we are all just pushing that damn rock up the hill. If having a silly clothing hobby bring a little joy to the absurdity then that’s wonderful. The trick is to know that it is an ultimately pointless and silly distraction in a pointless existence. But if you can say you left the world just a tiny bit better for having been here, that’s all that should matter. Be the Lost Worlds, in a sea of Five Stars heheh

I love a bit oh nihilism first thing in the morning!

This is verry much my thinking too nowadays....
There is no point wasting sleep over the perceived perfection of an article of clothing.

 

[Edward]

Pushing pass a certain threshold and the “better” won’t hold any more though. I accept that fact and just bit the ****** to have “different”

Being able to distinguish between "better" and "different" is the key in any hobby. Also distinguishing between "better" and "more expensive". Sometimes the pricier option is better, sometimes it's just different. An awful lot of people in an awful lot of hobbies fall into the trap of forever trying to buy the next price band up, with awareness neither of the marketing psychology of 'perceived value' nor the law of diminishing returns.

Back in the 70s when hifi was all the rage, my dad worked with a guy who regularly wound up people who spent multiples what he did on their stereo systems with no better results than he was getting. His pint always was that beyond a certain point you absolutely could buy more expensive (I've seen even now turntables at over twenty grand, and *phono cartridges* at upwards of five grand), and you certainly can measure the differences to show the equipment has a broader sound spectrum and all the rest. BUT - he'd say - you simply cannot hear that difference with the human ear, so..... what's the point? Its a wood / trees thing, really, isn't it? Are you building a hifi system - or putting together a leather jacket collection - because you want to enjoy music, or to enjoy your clothes, or has it become a tyranny of chasing "better" specs?

 

[greenc]

Being able to distinguish between "better" and "different" is the key in any hobby. Also distinguishing between "better" and "more expensive". Sometimes the pricier option is better, sometimes it's just different. An awful lot of people in an awful lot of hobbies fall into the trap of forever trying to buy the next price band up, with awareness neither of the marketing psychology of 'perceived value' nor the law of diminishing returns.

Back in the 70s when hifi was all the rage, my dad worked with a guy who regularly wound up people who spent multiples what he did on their stereo systems with no better results than he was getting. His pint always was that beyond a certain point you absolutely could buy more expensive (I've seen even now turntables at over twenty grand, and *phono cartridges* at upwards of five grand), and you certainly can measure the differences to show the equipment has a broader sound spectrum and all the rest. BUT - he'd say - you simply cannot hear that difference with the human ear, so..... what's the point? Its a wood / trees thing, really, isn't it? Are you building a hifi system - or putting together a leather jacket collection - because you want to enjoy music, or to enjoy your clothes, or has it become a tyranny of chasing "better" specs?

@Edward, I love "...a tyranny of chasing "better" specs" that's a great way to put it. I have a friend deep into hi-fi and he tells me all the time about conversations he has with other audiophiles and these guys are spending $20K on three feet of speaker wire to eek out the final 3% of missing perfect fidelity. It's bananas. And as you suggest, they can't hear the difference anyway.

The point @Aloysius made is also quite interesting re: the workwear enthusiasts pouring over the details of a reproduction work shirt from the 1970s that a working man bought new at Sears for $8. But still I wonder if clothes were made better back then.

I might just be nostalgic but it seems lots of things made today aren't built to the same standards as back then, and yet today's material technology is probably across the board superior. If that $8 shirt from 1972 is still kickin' around after 50+ years and 1,500 washes later there must be something to it. Do we make things like that today?

And @MrProper you and a few others have been forthcoming with a slight bit of vanity, which I think is terrific - we must all have that to some degree. I look around my office and the majority of men are in t-shirts, or hoodies, so when someone wears something more elevated it stands out. I'm in advertising and the office has definitely become more casual. But the women in my office are almost always much more sartorially put together - they really make an effort, even when dressing casually. I wonder why more men don't do that.

 

[Bfd70]

Life is a series of explorations not a straight line to a destination. I explore and buy jackets to occupy my mind. Any obsession with “perfection” is just my real ocd.

 

[zebedee]

My perfect jacket would be a Plainsman in brown fqhh, mid-weight. I’ve spent far too much on jackets and have too many, anyway, so I make do with my brown fqhh Highwayman. It’s as close to perfection as I need to get.

 

[rogueclimber]

I get that good is the enemy of great/perfect

I'm happy with good. As long as it feels good to wear and I'm good with the look, it need not be perfect

 

[greenc]

Perfect is an odd concept with a garment like a leather jacket that looks better the more it breaks in. So it's only gonna be perfect for a short period of time, and then it becomes very imperfect with creases, and scratches, which makes it all the more perfect.

As long as the fit feels good then we're in business, which is where I started the thought - I often feel a perceived fit issue, even though it looks fine to everyone else.

 

[Carlos840]

@Edward, I love "...a tyranny of chasing "better" specs" that's a great way to put it. I have a friend deep into hi-fi and he tells me all the time about conversations he has with other audiophiles and these guys are spending $20K on three feet of speaker wire to eek out the final 3% of missing perfect fidelity. It's bananas. And as you suggest, they can't hear the difference anyway.

The point @Aloysius made is also quite interesting re: the workwear enthusiasts pouring over the details of a reproduction work shirt from the 1970s that a working man bought new at Sears for $8. But still I wonder if clothes were made better back then.

I might just be nostalgic but it seems lots of things made today aren't built to the same standards as back then, and yet today's material technology is probably across the board superior. If that $8 shirt from 1972 is still kickin' around after 50+ years and 1,500 washes later there must be something to it. Do we make things like that today?

And @MrProper you and a few others have been forthcoming with a slight bit of vanity, which I think is terrific - we must all have that to some degree. I look around my office and the majority of men are in t-shirts, or hoodies, so when someone wears something more elevated it stands out. I'm in advertising and the office has definitely become more casual. But the women in my office are almost always much more sartorially put together - they really make an effort, even when dressing casually. I wonder why more men don't do that.

What makes me laugh about the whole concept of "fidelity" in audio playback is that there is no such thing in audio recording.
In the sens that a microphone is only "hearing" an interpretation of what the sound in the room was like, and that recording is then mixed by a human creating his own interpretation of what the microphone recorded.

If you have two different persons recording the same musical performance with two different sets of microphones, and have both recording mixed by two different persons, you are going to end up with two very different sounding recordings. Who is to say which recording has higher "fidelity".

Trying to play back with 100% fidelity something that wasn't recorded with 100% fidelity is nonsensical.
It would be like trying to rate classical painters only by how photorealistic their paintings are.

I once read that "a recording is a caricature of a performance", once you accept that, the chase for high fidelity in playback doesn't really make any sens anymore.

I wonder how many audiophils have heard something as basic as their own voices through different microphones?
Also wonder if there is an overlap between audiophils and people who play/record music for a living.

 

[jchance]

Being able to distinguish between "better" and "different" is the key in any hobby. Also distinguishing between "better" and "more expensive". Sometimes the pricier option is better, sometimes it's just different. An awful lot of people in an awful lot of hobbies fall into the trap of forever trying to buy the next price band up, with awareness neither of the marketing psychology of 'perceived value' nor the law of diminishing returns.

I agree. People commonly falsely assume that pricier = better. Often times that’s true but sometimes it’s not. Their metrics should be solely subjective value received, if they are still chasing. Pricier =/= higher value. At some point, when they are unable to distinguish between two items in terms of value, they are done with the chase. Even when they must put the two items next to each other to be able to distinguish them apart, otherwise they cannot, they were done long before that. They should have been done when it’s just them and the item in question, and they can no longer distinguish between this item and the plethora of other items they have examined in the past.

Weirdly, my dad is also an audiophile, but he doesn’t chase perfection / “better”. He has a sophisticated system that he enjoys, one that passes his standards, and he spends his time and energy on other hobbies. He is a good role model (for me) of moderation when it comes to hobbies.

 

[Zoro]

Also wonder if there is an overlap between audiophils and people who play/record music for a living.

Probably around the same overlap of someone wearing a biker leather jacket and actually riding. And I'm not part of any of those overlaps

 

[MrProper]

As long as it feels good to wear and I'm good with the look

But then it's perfect after all

 

[Edward]

I wonder how many audiophils have heard something as basic as their own voices through different microphones?
Also wonder if there is an overlap between audiophils and people who play/record music for a living.

I would have thought most people who play and record professionally will have a different take than the audiophiles. I mean, on paper it's been outclassed by newer things, but the Shure SM57 is still an industry standard, isn't it?

I also see a big difference between hobbyists and pros. Beyond the top tier, can afford it all set, when I look at working musicians they often don't go for the expensive, high priced gear (guitars especially) - it's mostly hobbyists who sit on the internet and argue about the influence of "tonewood" on a guitar they then plug into a dozen pedals and an overdriven amplifier... Some great videos all over youtube showing just how little difference a choice of gear can make in a well appointed studio. Last week I saw an online argument with a bunch of guys insisting "I play Fender, Squiers are trash". Meanwhile, in another article I read about how Mark Knopfler's current main stage guitars were a pair of budget Squiers with replacement tuners and a switch in pickups - the latter purely because the originals gave issues with the stage lighting.

 

[AHP91]

Perfect is an odd concept with a garment like a leather jacket that looks better the more it breaks in. So it's only gonna be perfect for a short period of time, and then it becomes very imperfect with creases, and scratches, which makes it all the more perfect.

As long as the fit feels good then we're in business, which is where I started the thought - I often feel a perceived fit issue, even though it looks fine to everyone else.

I’m sorry I can’t resist - this is the same fellow who inquired about a Langlitz I had for sale whom I had to explain that a microscopic white spot on the lining was a piece of lint, and that one photo looked a particular way because of the way the sunlight was hitting it.

 

[greenc]

I’m sorry I can’t resist - this is the same fellow who inquired about a Langlitz I had for sale whom I had to explain that a microscopic white spot on the lining was a piece of lint, and that one photo looked a particular way because of the way the sunlight was hitting it.

@AHP91 I did indeed do that, yes. And I would most definitely do it again with any purchase I made - if I don't ask the question then I can't be surprised when the item arrives and I discover it. That's just smart shopping.

 

[tuanhng614]

What makes me laugh about the whole concept of "fidelity" in audio playback is that there is no such thing in audio recording.
In the sens that a microphone is only "hearing" an interpretation of what the sound in the room was like, and that recording is then mixed by a human creating his own interpretation of what the microphone recorded.

If you have two different persons recording the same musical performance with two different sets of microphones, and have both recording mixed by two different persons, you are going to end up with two very different sounding recordings. Who is to say which recording has higher "fidelity".

Trying to play back with 100% fidelity something that wasn't recorded with 100% fidelity is nonsensical.
It would be like trying to rate classical painters only by how photorealistic their paintings are.

I once read that "a recording is a caricature of a performance", once you accept that, the chase for high fidelity in playback doesn't really make any sens anymore.

I wonder how many audiophils have heard something as basic as their own voices through different microphones?
Also wonder if there is an overlap between audiophils and people who play/record music for a living.

You dissected too deep now that companies cannot sell those high price audiophiles equipment anymore