Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request
From: dafuller%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET (David Fuller)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Subject: Fixed Machines, Adaptable Humans
Message-ID: <8978@uwm.edu>
Date: 16 Jan 91 14:28:14 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Lines: 54
Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Originator: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu


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