Is it possible for something to be the best?


Since there really is not difinative standard when it comes to musical reproduction, is it possible for a piece of equipment to be the best. Or will there ever be "the best system"?
Live music is the sound we are trying to reproduce but even that varies from venue to venue. I'm guessing not many people have actually had a live band/orchestra play in their listening room so to what are we comparing our systems? Can we trust our memory to acurately remind use what a concert we heard several hours, days, or years ago sounded like? Is it realistic to compare my listening room to a $50,000,000 dollar theater designed specificly for the arts?

I'm obviously not suggesting we quit trying but is this hobby/obsession an exercise in futility?
I've been wondering for a long time if the best componant in a great system isn't the listeners imagination. Any comments?
128x128nrchy
Yes, it is possible for a component to be the "best".The problem is that "best" is a subjective term. In terms of absolute audio quality, the "best" is generally related to the "best" that the listener has previously heard. A person that has only heard boom boxes, might think that a low cost separates system is the "best". One of the best ways to enjoy your system, once you have purchased it, is to just listen to it, and stop going around auditioning other equipment. When you decide you want a change or you need something new because of equipment failure, then go audition some new products. It is a rule that if you go looking around long enough, you will find something that sounds better than what you've got. If you are not prepared to buy this new stuff, then you will only be constantly reminding yourself that there is something better that you don't have. This leads to unhappiness with your present equipment. Just enjoy what you have, and when you are ready to make a purchase, then go out and listen to the stuff that you can buy, and get the "best" you can afford. Some people, like myself, can buy a very good product, knowing it is not the "best", and be happy with it. This is where "value" comes into play. My system is not the "best" at anything except being the "best I could afford". Since I could not afford anything higher, I am satisfied that I have got the "best" for my buck.
Twl is right -- but there is at least one other dimension of subjectivity. Two people listening to two systems might have different opionions of "best". Since every component makes some sort of compromise (e.g., a bit tighter bass vs. a bit wider soundstage) and every listener has her/his own priorities of what is most important, there will be a wide variety of "best" at any price point. The trick is to understand your own priorities, explicitly make the trade-off decisions and then be happy with the best available for your tastes. I have found that people are often unhappy later because they did not acknowledge what they are giving up when they purchased their gear (this is not a price issue, it arises from no component doing everything perfectly). Of course, people also become less happy with their gear as musical tastes change, listening experience increases or priorities change. Good question. I'm looking forward to reading other's responses.