"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to bash
people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and boring.

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations ( recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that can be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God squad.

Graham

There is an old saying: "There is no accounting for taste." Music is
sensational, and sensational is subjective. What happens between the nerve
endings of Jute, and the final judgement of the cerebral cortex, is a
completely individual manner. It will be different for you, for Jute, and
for me.

I attend live concerts regularly. The experience is vastly different from
any hifi system I've ever heard. Perhaps Jute's brain interprets SET/horn
sound as closer to the live experience than a typical hifi. He is entitled
to use whatever tools he prefers to aid his imagination in transference to
the experience of actual attendance.

Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to bash
people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and boring.

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations ( recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that can be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God squad.

Graham

There is an old saying: "There is no accounting for taste."

Indeed.

Music is
sensational, and sensational is subjective. What happens between the nerve
endings of Jute, and the final judgement of the cerebral cortex, is a
completely individual manner. It will be different for you, for Jute, and
for me.

Of course one never knows exactly but I won't labour the point.

An interesting proof of the function of the brain in making judgements about
sound quality ( amongst other things ) is easily performed by the consumption of
intoxicants.

I attend live concerts regularly. The experience is vastly different from
any hifi system I've ever heard.

Indeed. One of the largest effects is the acoustic of the listening environment.
Added to which will be ambient noise and I'm sure the sense of occasion affects
the human response too.

Perhaps Jute's brain interprets SET/horn
sound as closer to the live experience than a typical hifi. He is entitled
to use whatever tools he prefers to aid his imagination in transference to
the experience of actual attendance.

Sure. I still stand by my assertion that I find his judgement similar to one
based on faith. The mind works in funny ways.


Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious
faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to bash
people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and
boring.

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations (
recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that can
be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God squad.

Graham

There is an old saying: "There is no accounting for taste."

Indeed.

Music is
sensational, and sensational is subjective. What happens between the
nerve
endings of Jute, and the final judgement of the cerebral cortex, is a
completely individual manner. It will be different for you, for Jute, and
for me.

Of course one never knows exactly but I won't labour the point.

An interesting proof of the function of the brain in making judgements
about
sound quality ( amongst other things ) is easily performed by the
consumption of
intoxicants.

I attend live concerts regularly. The experience is vastly different from
any hifi system I've ever heard.

Indeed. One of the largest effects is the acoustic of the listening
environment.
Added to which will be ambient noise and I'm sure the sense of occasion
affects
the human response too.

Perhaps Jute's brain interprets SET/horn
sound as closer to the live experience than a typical hifi. He is
entitled
to use whatever tools he prefers to aid his imagination in transference
to
the experience of actual attendance.

Sure. I still stand by my assertion that I find his judgement similar to
one
based on faith. The mind works in funny ways.

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?

Robert Morein wrote:
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious
faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to bash
people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and
boring.

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations (
recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that can
be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God squad.

Graham

There is an old saying: "There is no accounting for taste."

Indeed.

Music is
sensational, and sensational is subjective. What happens between the
nerve
endings of Jute, and the final judgement of the cerebral cortex, is a
completely individual manner. It will be different for you, for Jute, and
for me.

Of course one never knows exactly but I won't labour the point.

An interesting proof of the function of the brain in making judgements
about
sound quality ( amongst other things ) is easily performed by the
consumption of
intoxicants.

I attend live concerts regularly. The experience is vastly different from
any hifi system I've ever heard.

Indeed. One of the largest effects is the acoustic of the listening
environment.
Added to which will be ambient noise and I'm sure the sense of occasion
affects
the human response too.

Perhaps Jute's brain interprets SET/horn
sound as closer to the live experience than a typical hifi. He is
entitled
to use whatever tools he prefers to aid his imagination in transference
to
the experience of actual attendance.

Sure. I still stand by my assertion that I find his judgement similar to
one
based on faith. The mind works in funny ways.

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.

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. 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

"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.

Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious
faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to bash
people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and
boring.

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations (
recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that can
be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God squad.

Graham

There is an old saying: "There is no accounting for taste."

Indeed.

Music is
sensational, and sensational is subjective. What happens between the
nerve
endings of Jute, and the final judgement of the cerebral cortex, is a
completely individual manner. It will be different for you, for Jute, and
for me.

Of course one never knows exactly but I won't labour the point.

An interesting proof of the function of the brain in making judgements
about
sound quality ( amongst other things ) is easily performed by the
consumption of
intoxicants.

I attend live concerts regularly. The experience is vastly different from
any hifi system I've ever heard.

Indeed. One of the largest effects is the acoustic of the listening
environment.
Added to which will be ambient noise and I'm sure the sense of occasion
affects
the human response too.

Perhaps Jute's brain interprets SET/horn
sound as closer to the live experience than a typical hifi. He is
entitled
to use whatever tools he prefers to aid his imagination in transference
to
the experience of actual attendance.

Sure. I still stand by my assertion that I find his judgement similar to
one
based on faith. The mind works in funny ways.

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?

I guess you don't 'get' what I was talking about. NM

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in
message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious
faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific
thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to bash
people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and
boring.

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations (
recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that
can
be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God
squad.

Graham

There is an old saying: "There is no accounting for taste."

Indeed.

Music is
sensational, and sensational is subjective. What happens between the
nerve
endings of Jute, and the final judgement of the cerebral cortex, is a
completely individual manner. It will be different for you, for Jute,
and
for me.

Of course one never knows exactly but I won't labour the point.

An interesting proof of the function of the brain in making judgements
about
sound quality ( amongst other things ) is easily performed by the
consumption of
intoxicants.

I attend live concerts regularly. The experience is vastly different
from
any hifi system I've ever heard.

Indeed. One of the largest effects is the acoustic of the listening
environment.
Added to which will be ambient noise and I'm sure the sense of occasion
affects
the human response too.

Perhaps Jute's brain interprets SET/horn
sound as closer to the live experience than a typical hifi. He is
entitled
to use whatever tools he prefers to aid his imagination in
transference
to
the experience of actual attendance.

Sure. I still stand by my assertion that I find his judgement similar
to
one
based on faith. The mind works in funny ways.

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?

I guess you don't 'get' what I was talking about. NM

Graham

Give it to me again, please.

Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in
message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with religious
faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific
thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to bash
people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and
boring.

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations (
recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that
can
be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God
squad.

Graham

There is an old saying: "There is no accounting for taste."

Indeed.

Music is
sensational, and sensational is subjective. What happens between the
nerve
endings of Jute, and the final judgement of the cerebral cortex, is a
completely individual manner. It will be different for you, for Jute,
and
for me.

Of course one never knows exactly but I won't labour the point.

An interesting proof of the function of the brain in making judgements
about
sound quality ( amongst other things ) is easily performed by the
consumption of
intoxicants.

I attend live concerts regularly. The experience is vastly different
from
any hifi system I've ever heard.

Indeed. One of the largest effects is the acoustic of the listening
environment.
Added to which will be ambient noise and I'm sure the sense of occasion
affects
the human response too.

Perhaps Jute's brain interprets SET/horn
sound as closer to the live experience than a typical hifi. He is
entitled
to use whatever tools he prefers to aid his imagination in
transference
to
the experience of actual attendance.

Sure. I still stand by my assertion that I find his judgement similar
to
one
based on faith. The mind works in funny ways.

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?

I guess you don't 'get' what I was talking about. NM

Graham

Give it to me again, please.

It was simply a light-hearted comparison as to how faith/belief can result in
'unscientific' conclusions.

As in that religion would deny Darwin, so the SET believers would deny the sonic
accuracy of modern ( and even some not so modern ) amplifier designs with hugely
superior technical specs.

' Love is blind ' etc......

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in
message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in
message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

Andre, with all due respect, your post is loaded with
religious
faith,
which
does not coexist well, or interact well, with scientific
thought.

Same goes for his faith based love for the SET. ;-)

Graham

I'm not a SET fan, but I'm skipping that. It's very popular to
bash
people
on account of their personal taste. It's cheap, predictable, and
boring.

The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations (
recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer
that
can
be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God
squad.

Graham

There is an old saying: "There is no accounting for taste."

Indeed.

Music is
sensational, and sensational is subjective. What happens between
the
nerve
endings of Jute, and the final judgement of the cerebral cortex, is
a
completely individual manner. It will be different for you, for
Jute,
and
for me.

Of course one never knows exactly but I won't labour the point.

An interesting proof of the function of the brain in making
judgements
about
sound quality ( amongst other things ) is easily performed by the
consumption of
intoxicants.

I attend live concerts regularly. The experience is vastly
different
from
any hifi system I've ever heard.

Indeed. One of the largest effects is the acoustic of the listening
environment.
Added to which will be ambient noise and I'm sure the sense of
occasion
affects
the human response too.

Perhaps Jute's brain interprets SET/horn
sound as closer to the live experience than a typical hifi. He is
entitled
to use whatever tools he prefers to aid his imagination in
transference
to
the experience of actual attendance.

Sure. I still stand by my assertion that I find his judgement
similar
to
one
based on faith. The mind works in funny ways.

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?

I guess you don't 'get' what I was talking about. NM

Graham

Give it to me again, please.

It was simply a light-hearted comparison as to how faith/belief can result
in
'unscientific' conclusions.

As in that religion would deny Darwin, so the SET believers would deny the
sonic
accuracy of modern ( and even some not so modern ) amplifier designs with
hugely
superior technical specs.

' Love is blind ' etc......

Graham

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm not sure where Andre stands on that. But my view is that it is possible
that an SET, or other not-pure-reproducer types of amplifiers, could end up
helping some people imagine better that they are in the performance venue. I
have not experienced this myself. When I went to the NY Hifi show, there
were many SET exhibitors, some with horns. I think most were used in
combination with vinyl. I was not impressed, but neither was I impressed
with the Levinsons driving two concrete pillars in the middle of a
reflective room.

Love is blind, but it's great. For the fortunate, it's life-long.

Poopie Stevenson aka Pooh Bear wrote:
Poopie:
The point actually was that - despite their clear limitations (
recently
discussd in depth ) that Joot prefers an SET over an amplifer that can
be
demonstrably shown to be vastly more accurate.

That's an example of 'faith' winning over science. Like the God squad.

Graham
.........

Morein:
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?

Poopie
I guess you don't 'get' what I was talking about. NM

Graham

You're the one who missed another chance to shine, Poopie. In the
context it is quite natural for Robert to believe that you are trying
to make a serious contribution to the thread. He paid you the
compliment of believing, or at least implying, that you understood what
was going on. You have just demonstrated that his faith was misplaced,
that you are, as usual, just flaming away in total ignorance of what
the discussion is about. You're so thick, Poopie, you'd be an
embarrasment even on alt.****eaters.

Unsigned out of contempt