dafuller%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET (David Fuller) (01/16/91)
Folks, There has been spirited debate among the various acolytes of the high end regarding this, that, or the other product and its effect on the audio sound and food chain. I recently read an article by Bob Carver on the emperical effects of altering the impedence relationship between amp and speakers. It spurred me to consider some long-held beliefs. When I read about some new high-end widget (my favorite is the Clock) I felt it was time to write. Regardless of what you think of Carver's philosophy, the fact remains that humans are ultimately more malleable than equipment. As a professional empericist and closet philosopher (regarding the history and philosophy of technlogy), I have often been struck by the lack of debate regarding the mind's abilities to adapt. The fact seems to me that humans possess an ability to adapt their perceptions which is not met in reality by an equal ability to analyze these effects. I know that if I have a hangover my stereo is relatively uninteresting. I also know that if I am an interested and sympathetic listener to a performance I can work around the acknowledged defects of the recording; and marvel at the artistic and personal accomplishments contained therein. I also know that if I've converted a significant amount of my personal productivity (blood and sweat) into a purchase I'm Real Interested in its positive influence on my audio system. And I tend to make it so regardless of its analytic merits. Frankly, I'm more interested in media than equipment and I can't hardly claim to have anything resembling a state of the art system; given the choice between $5000 of widgets and $5000 of media, I'll take the media any day because for me, the widgets don't communicate as well as media. This does not mean that I dislike design. I enjoy reading about designers and I also enjoy thinking about their relationship to science and alchemy; as an empericist I tend to feel alchemist fools and I rever the religion called science. So be it. I was born in the 20th century and so my horizons are bound by it. But the paradox remains: Why do we not pay more attention to the state of the listener than the state of the equipment? What is it that makes certain listeners Professionals? And how are we sure that they are not otherwise affected by external influences on the day of review? Your comments solicited, Dave -- Dave Fuller Sequent Computer Systems Think of this as the hyper-signature. (708) 318-0050 (humans) It means all things to all people. dafuller@sequent.com
chowkwan@priam.usc.edu (Raymond Chowkwanyun) (01/17/91)
In article <8978@uwm.edu> dafuller%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET (David Fuller) writes: >Frankly, I'm more interested in media than equipment and I can't hardly For you classical listeners, may I commend the American Record Guide? This magazine is to the classical media what Absolute Sound is to the equipment. What I like is that the reviewers will not only tell you their opinion of a recording but also compare it with other performances of the same piece. Also, each issue brings a survey of particular musical forms or a composer. e.g. Piano Trios Overview, Romantic Concertos Overview, J.S. Bach Overview, etc. Caveats: (1) their font is an assault on the eyes and (2) bowing to market realities, they review only CD's. >of the listener than the state of the equipment? What is it that >makes certain listeners Professionals? And how are we sure that they are >not otherwise affected by external influences on the day of review? The Test of Time earns the title of "Golden Ears". When Pearson describes a product and you go out and you confirm with your own ears what he has found, his credibility goes up a notch. And then his credibility accrues with each succeeding description that proves accurate. Works the other way too, of course. viz the Armor All fiasco at Stereophile. Time is also the answer to your second question. Reviewers do not base their opinions on a single day's review. Bob Greene: One of the most important things a reviewer can do is to direct the reader's attention to things that might be potential annoyances in long-term listening. These guys really sweat over a review. Trying different recordings, different ancilliary equipment, various tweaks to get the best out of the piece under review. -- ray