"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

But what is the basis of your assertion? Because he is a religious, or
spiritual person, you feel that influences his sonic preferences? I do
see
that he is a person who takes a very strong stand that his system is, or
nearly, the best of all possible systems. But how can you be sure that
it
stems from his religious beliefs?

Ouch. We're personalizing a light-hearted speculative discussion. My
religion is my own business and as a professional intellectual I am by
definition an infinite sceptic and thus cannot be a spiritual person,
nor, for that matter, a religious person in any sense a fundamentalist
will recognize. The ecstasy of music for practical purposes stands
outside either crude religion or spirituality or, more precisely,
crosses so many of their divisive boundaries that the very universality
of musical ecstasy makes the application of such appellations to music
instantly suspect.

Perhaps I misunderstood. You started with "Now posit a Lord of Creation who
puffed out a universe, or many
universes...", which I took to be a statement of your belief. Perhaps it was
just a hypothesis for discussion, as you did say, "posit", rather than, "I
believe." This particular hypothesis is not one which I have an answer, but
it begs one of the most important, if unanswerable questions.


Nor have I ever claimed my audio "system is, or nearly, the best of all
possible systems." I merely say it suits my taste, and that I back my
educated taste against the unattractive control freakery of tenth-rate
"engineers". (In fact I have written extensively on the stupidity of
confusing *high* fidelity, as a search for perfection, with *fidelity*
as an unqualified achievement measured by THD and IMD.) Recently, and
in the particular context of the feeding frenzy of railroad minds on
RAO and RAT decrying one audio choice, I have added what is observable
to anyone, that none of them have audio systems of the depth, width and
quality of mine; but that is merely a matter of money, not of
principle.

WRT the last sentence, there is a question in my mind about that. If you are
referring to specific individuals, and you feel that by their remarks, or
other means, you know, you have a good chance of correctness. But there are
many happy accidents of synergy, some of which result in extraordinary sound
in very ordinary places, or for very ordinary people.

The implication is only that I have the instant opportunity
to test systems and paradigms against each other (for instance
DHT-horns against solid state-panels) to reinforce my opinion based on
taste, placebo test or measurement, not that I care whether my system
is objectively "better" than theirs; my belief in the primacy of
culture as a tool for evaluation excludes such crude measures.

Now watch the crude railroad minds foam at the mouth in their
incomprehension. (Like you, I am not so much interested in what they
think--that is depressingly predictable--but what they think with.)

Andre Jute

I get you.