> Being able to afford good amplification and having the technical expertise to implement it correctly are very different things.
I can certainly agree with this, but I'm not certain the rest of the analogy holds. The problem with hiring excellent sysadmins and programmers is the lack of a straightforward test of quality. You can ask them to code something, and that will tell you that they are capable, but are they exceptional? I might be being naive, but I don't think that testing for that is so cut and dry.
However unless taking the 'best amplification equipment', setting it up for a performance takes substantially longer than a few hours, why can't an interview panel of listeners with a known good quality performer act as a test of capability?
- Panel, can you hear any distortions or noise?
- No
- You're clearly excellent, you're hired!
This certainly isn't my domain though, so I'm sure there are subtleties I'm not considering, but I'd love to hear about them.
I can certainly agree with this, but I'm not certain the rest of the analogy holds. The problem with hiring excellent sysadmins and programmers is the lack of a straightforward test of quality. You can ask them to code something, and that will tell you that they are capable, but are they exceptional? I might be being naive, but I don't think that testing for that is so cut and dry.
However unless taking the 'best amplification equipment', setting it up for a performance takes substantially longer than a few hours, why can't an interview panel of listeners with a known good quality performer act as a test of capability?
- Panel, can you hear any distortions or noise? - No - You're clearly excellent, you're hired!
This certainly isn't my domain though, so I'm sure there are subtleties I'm not considering, but I'd love to hear about them.