"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

"Audio Magazine" was for me the best all round publication with it's
attempts to attach sound differences to technical differences and to
the
hands on diy articles that provided insight from the ground up, so to
speak. I greave still for it. On reflection the hand writing on the
wall
for it might have been when they hired greenberg to do stereophile
type
fancy writing with heavy breathing and entertaining little throw away
bits
of information and personal perceptions that were of no value to
anyone.

But what really killed it was all those tech type nerds, among which
I
count myself, who got their jollies with electronics moving to
computers
in large numbers, or it at least diluted the pool of such people
across a
greater range of diversions which left too few to support the niche
the
mag filled.

If I may repeat something that I've said here before, the same thing is
starting to happen, IMHO, to music in general. The state of cultural
literacy in our county is sickening, and is getting worse. The very
reason for the hobby that we enjoy is in danger. Ask the next 20
people
under age 30 that you meet who George Gershwin (or Bernstein, or
Copland...) was and be ready for a shock. We had best take care of our
cultural institutions and how we educate people about them, or we will
only be playing synthesized violins and pink noise on our beloved audio
systems.

Uuugh.... the elitism of this is a bit shocking IMO. You seem to be
asking that young people be forced to understand and appreciate art
forms that aren't part of their generation's interest.

In the same way that I would ask young people to be "forced" to learn
Hemmingway and Shakespeare, and Renoir, yes.

If you're gonna
do that why not impose appreciation of the best (my favorite) bands of
the 70's or Jazz greats...or Frank Zappa?

I would include them as well!

The problem is not in what is included... the problem arises with the
exclusions.


Exactly what is cultural literacy?

In my view, CL is the "shared canon"... that which we should all know
and/or experience in order to have a society that is not just broad, but
also deep;

If we all knew the same things and shared the same experiences...
how broad and deep a society would that be?

knowledge that leads to a deeper understanding of ourselves
and others. Students need to know Shakespeare, Basie, and Bernstein.

I prefer Heinlein, Fripp, and Weber.


Who decides what is and is not
worthy of cultural maintenance which is what you appear to be
advocating?

Good question!

If everyone studied only the so called masterpieces of our culture would
they remain masterpieces?

ScottW

"surf" wrote in message
...
Brian McCarty wrote

bla, bla, bla...........


How does it feel to be the most despised person in RAO history?

I have come to the conclusion he actually wants to be destroyed.
His actual message is, "Go ahead and hit me, because I want to suffer."
Sadism and masochism go hand-in-hand.
First, "worldjazz" was destroyed. Then "coralseas" crumbled.
Brian, would you like to hold onto your Baskin-Robbins franchise?
Think it can't be taken away from you?
Think again.

Chevdoborg said:

You should try selling yours on ebay. Then the laugh will be on someone
else for a change.

If I had ever had enough money to buy shakti stones I would certainly be
enough of a slimeball to turn around and rip someone else off by selling
them to recoup my money.

Aside from comma-deprivation, you've completed the 3rd step nicely.

In article ,
cmndr[underscore]george[at]comcast[dot]net says...



Chevdoborg said:

You should try selling yours on ebay. Then the laugh will be on someone
else for a change.

If I had ever had enough money to buy shakti stones I would certainly be
enough of a slimeball to turn around and rip someone else off by selling
them to recoup my money.

Aside from comma-deprivation, you've completed the 3rd step nicely.



I see now you've taken to the juvenile act of editing my text to misquote and
libel me. Pathetic. You think I've never seen trolls do this hundreds of
times already? Maybe if I hadn't it could make me 'angry' and allow you to
play the taunting fool you so desperately want to.

In rec.audio.pro pH wrote:
On 20 Sep 2005 12:49:32 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

What is hight art?

Something which takes skill / talent to accomplish; the rarer the skill /
talent, the higher the art.

What is low art?

Something which takes no skill / talent to accomplish.

So that guy in the Guinness Book of World records who ate an entire airplane
(the only person to ever do so - very rare skill) is performing "high" art,
while Nathan Milstein playing Brahms' "Violin Concerto in D Major, op. 77."
is "lower" art because there are numerous violinists capable of playing it?


--
Aaron

In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Uuugh.... the elitism of this is a bit shocking IMO. You seem to be
asking that young people be forced to understand and appreciate art
forms that aren't part of their generation's interest.

So, learning to appreciate high art is elitist? I don't think so,
unless you consider learning to appreciate anything well-constructed
to be elitist. But I think learning the process of appreciation is
more important than the music itself.

Define "high art" and "well-constructed".

Both of these are in a constant state of flux, but I commend you to
Ernst Gombrich's essay on the subject.

I'll look at it..

In a pinch, you might be able
to get by with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, though.

No thanks... what an abhorrently pretentious and faux spiritual piece of
dreck that thing is.

--
Aaron

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" said:

What is undebatable is the change that occurred in Stereophile in the
editorial shift from JGH to JA. What had been a magazine that told
readers
what they needed to know became one that told them what they wanted to
hear.
The belief in "high fidelity" was gradually discarded (as it has at most,
but not all, other magazines) and replaced with a rainbow of opinions.


At the risk of being flamed to death (Hi, SSJVCmag!), part of why this
happened may well be the relative "perfect" state that music
reproduction reached as far back as the eighties.
(I'm still listening to my '80s Maggies and they still sound good, my
amplifier design could have been from that period as well, and it
still sounds good).

After all, when there's little to gain in the technical department,
there's little to write about.

Notice, Sander, that you haven't been flamed.
It's true.
Except, I think, for DACs.
I have Musical Fidelity A3 DAC that makes unlistenable CD's listenable.
Digital enhancement is an area that could still grow, overtaking the
"vacuuous" approach .

"Robert Morein" said:

What is undebatable is the change that occurred in Stereophile in the
editorial shift from JGH to JA. What had been a magazine that told
readers
what they needed to know became one that told them what they wanted to
hear.
The belief in "high fidelity" was gradually discarded (as it has at most,
but not all, other magazines) and replaced with a rainbow of opinions.


At the risk of being flamed to death (Hi, SSJVCmag!), part of why this
happened may well be the relative "perfect" state that music
reproduction reached as far back as the eighties.
(I'm still listening to my '80s Maggies and they still sound good, my
amplifier design could have been from that period as well, and it
still sounds good).

After all, when there's little to gain in the technical department,
there's little to write about.


Notice, Sander, that you haven't been flamed.


What's even more, I got not a single response.

The silent majority.....? :-)


It's true.
Except, I think, for DACs.
I have Musical Fidelity A3 DAC that makes unlistenable CD's listenable.
Digital enhancement is an area that could still grow, overtaking the
"vacuuous" approach .


With DACs I found that if differences exist, they can be traced back
to the (decoupling of) power supplies and the design of the analog
output stage, with the filter section as probably the most important.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

(Chevdo) said:

Why would you need an MRI? A microphone will capture the audio with or without
shakti stones applied, and an analysis can be made of the recordings to see if
there is any difference. If there is no difference in what you're listening
to, why would you think there would be a difference in your head, depicted by
an MRI? The only way that could happen is if some yet unknown and inaudible
force is emitted from the stones that tweaks the brain while a person listens
to his stereo. And if that's the case, why assume the magical force would show
up on an MRI, when MRIs are not known to depict the influence of magical
forces?


Is the activity we call "listening to music and enjoying it"
restricted to audible stimuli only?

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Sander deWaal said:

The only way that could happen is if some yet unknown and inaudible
force is emitted from the stones that tweaks the brain while a person listens
to his stereo.

Is the activity we call "listening to music and enjoying it"
restricted to audible stimuli only?

Welcome to 'borg reality, where staying awake is pure pain.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message



Is the activity we call "listening to music and enjoying
it" restricted to audible stimuli only?

Depends how you define "listening to music".

If you're saying that many people who call themselves music
lovers are actually gear sluts, well then... ;-)

SSJVCmag said:

Thanks for remembering me!


How could one forget *you* :-)

(newsgroup RAPro added as to reach mr. SSJVCmag)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.pro pH wrote:
On 20 Sep 2005 12:49:32 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

What is hight art?

Something which takes skill / talent to accomplish; the rarer the skill /
talent, the higher the art.

What is low art?

Something which takes no skill / talent to accomplish.

So that guy in the Guinness Book of World records who ate an entire
airplane
(the only person to ever do so - very rare skill) is performing "high"
art,
while Nathan Milstein playing Brahms' "Violin Concerto in D Major, op.
77."
is "lower" art because there are numerous violinists capable of playing
it?


there is no such thing as high art or low art.
Except when Arny is producing his turds.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message



Is the activity we call "listening to music and enjoying
it" restricted to audible stimuli only?

Depends how you define "listening to music".

If you're saying that many people who call themselves music lovers are
actually gear sluts, well then... ;-)


Well, maybe they can meet up with their
proverbial 'anti-matter', i.e., test sluts
and they can both annihilate themselves.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
SSJVCmag said:

Thanks for remembering me!


How could one forget *you* :-)

(newsgroup RAPro added as to reach mr. SSJVCmag)


I think he reads RAO to keep up
with all the bad things we say about him.

wrote:

In a pinch, you might be able
to get by with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, though.


No thanks... what an abhorrently pretentious and faux spiritual piece of
dreck that thing is.

Hear, hear. Not to mention condescending and arrogant with
clearly evident sociopathic mental illness. Hated that thing.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

pH wrote:
On 20 Sep 2005 12:49:32 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

What is hight art?

Something which takes skill / talent to accomplish; the rarer the skill /
talent, the higher the art.

What is low art?

Something which takes no skill / talent to accomplish.

Those are the distinctions only
the elitist make.

Said the politically correct, me-too, wannabe...

Not I. No artist here. But I would note there are hundreds of
thousands of artists producing MP3s for their personal web pages.
By your simplified standards.. they are all producing low art simply
due to the sheer volume of their numbers.

ScottW

"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:ub0Ye.180284$wr.178976@clgrps12...
: In article ,
: says...
:
:
: "Chevdo" wrote in message
: news:aLqXe.262429$tt5.62921@edtnps90...
: : In article , says...
: :
: : It all hangs on what the word "work" means. Copper bracelets
: : are said to work for some arthritus sufferers.
: :
: :
: : but in double-blind tests, they don't work no matter what anyone 'says'. If
: : shakti stones work, a double-blind test will earn anyone who demonstrates it
: : ONE MILLION DOLLARS. Shouldn't that offer appeal to any of the shakti stone
: : believers? Or are there any shakti stone believers? Maybe just ones that
: : believe on weekends?
: :
:
: ..that still doesn't give us any indication of what 'work' entails.
: So, does the great Randy accept 'proof' in the form of NMR scans
: - with / without Shakti stones being present -
: of brain activity being markedly different in say the cortex area :-) ??
: (listening to the same fragment of music)
:
: Randi and the applicant work out a protocol for testing that is agreeable to
: both parties before testing commences.
:
...leaving him ample opportunity to cop out of a potentially costly affair:
all he has to do is say there was no agreement on the testing protocol.
...wonder if he would allow a third party to work out a protocol ??

: Too bad i haven't got an MRI in the shack, always some use for a cool million
:
: Why would you need an MRI? A microphone will capture the audio with or without
: shakti stones applied, and an analysis can be made of the recordings to see if
: there is any difference. If there is no difference in what you're listening
: to, why would you think there would be a difference in your head, depicted by
: an MRI? The only way that could happen is if some yet unknown and inaudible
: force is emitted from the stones that tweaks the brain while a person listens
: to his stereo. And if that's the case, why assume the magical force would show
: up on an MRI, when MRIs are not known to depict the influence of magical
: forces?

...and this is where you are wrong. simple example: play a piece first listening
in your usual way, then with your fingers stuck in your ears - same microphone
response, eh ;-)
..presumably not the same experience.
ok, that may be a lame example, it _does_ make the point that the microphone is
not in fact recording the experience of the listener.

unless it is broken, if it is 38.3 Celsius your thermometer will indicate so ..
each
and every time. same with all well functioning measurement equipment.
this, however, is not the case for experience, so _same_ sense input does _not_
equate to same conscious perception, not for different persons, not (necessarily)
for the same person on different occasions.
your mental 'equipment analogy' does not hold !

so by establishing something in the sense input department you do not at all
proof something about the experience at the end of a long chain of processes.
the reason i put in some smilies the the same problem arises when using
MRI scans, it is a step in the direction of objectivating the inherently
subjective
conscious experience, but you can not 'prove' a one-to-one mapping of some
of the patterns established there on certain conscious states.

does adding Shakti stones to your setup change the output from your setup ?
extremely unlikely, nothing known in physics could even begin to model in
what way this could be the case - and measurement could establish that the
output from the speakers was, in fact unaltered. can we therefore conclude
the listeners experience cannot be changed by the presence of said stones?
Nope. The listener could be conditioned by expectation effects, by having
been effected aestetically by the visual aspect, etc.
So could it have an effect when the listener is unaware of the presence of
the Shakti stones ? This is a more problematic position, because it implies
there is some mechanism that makes Ss influence consciousness or at least
some of the processes that result in the conscious music experience.

The short answer would be: no, because we assume consciousness is the
result of some biochemical and electrical state of various parts of the brain
(and to some extend of other parts of the body) and there is no known
physical process by which this could be influenced by Ss.
The long answer would be: scientific paradigms being provisional, it is
always possible that in the future such a process could be discovered.
A true sceptic might say that the very foundation of science, the materialistic
worldview, is a belief, unprovable and therefore possibly erronous

njoy,
Rudy

Bob Cain wrote in
:



Hear, hear. Not to mention condescending and arrogant with
clearly evident sociopathic mental illness. Hated that thing.

Bob


Condescending! Arrogant! Evident sociopathic mental illness! A pretty
accurate self-portrait of you.

In a pinch, you might be able
to get by with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, though.

No thanks... what an abhorrently pretentious and faux
spiritual piece of dreck that thing is.

Hear, hear. Not to mention condescending and arrogant with
clearly evident sociopathic mental illness. Hated that thing.

That's rather an extreme view. But I found it, at the very least, "obvious"
and intellectually pretentious. (And no wisecracks, please.)

William Sommerwerck said:

That's rather an extreme view. But I found it, at the very least, "obvious"
and intellectually pretentious. (And no wisecracks, please.)

Don't tell us Pirzig fired you too!

On 9/21/05 3:56 PM, in article , "Clyde
Slick" wrote:


there is no such thing as high art or low art.
Except when Arny is producing his turds.


Kids... Fun's fun but hey, let's get this off the broadcast farting in
elevators crosspost thing...
Thanks

(sittin' back and wait'n for it...)

"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
...
On 9/21/05 2:34 PM, in article ,
"Sander deWaal" wrote:

SSJVCmag said:

Thanks for remembering me!


How could one forget *you* :-)

(newsgroup RAPro added as to reach mr. SSJVCmag)

Hardly necessary Good Sir!
Come now, you're above this sort of petty vandalism!
Live up to your promise!
Be All You Can Be!!


Would someone at RAP please kill this SSJVC fool? He's on the edge of
inspiring an allout group to group spam war... and frankly, there's very
little he can do to diminish RAO anyway. You have much to loose and little
to gain.

ScottW

"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
...
On 9/21/05 7:18 PM, in article
, "ScottW"
wrote:

Not I. No artist here. But I would note there are hundreds of
thousands of artists producing MP3s for their personal web pages.
By your simplified standards.. they are all producing low art simply
due to the sheer volume of their numbers.


Scott, this is nice, but in my official capacity as set below, would you
mind awfuly trimming those extra non-RAO newsgroups (which all here are in
agreement is something worth doing) to help keep the crossposting to a
minimum?
Thanks!
Politely Yours,

Hey asshole... I didn't start the crosspost and I don't continue it when
responding to people in my origin group... but the guy I was responding to
isn't from my group... so I do a reply all.

Message to RAP... this idiot is going out of his way to **** off everyone on
RAO. Suggest you heel your dog before both groups go to hell.

ScottW

"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
...
On 9/21/05 3:56 PM, in article , "Clyde
Slick" wrote:


there is no such thing as high art or low art.
Except when Arny is producing his turds.


Kids... Fun's fun but hey, let's get this off the broadcast farting in
elevators crosspost thing...
Thanks

(sittin' back and wait'n for it...)


SPLAT!!

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:YNoYe.120965$Ep.68474@lakeread02...

"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
...
On 9/21/05 2:34 PM, in article
,
"Sander deWaal" wrote:

SSJVCmag said:

Thanks for remembering me!


How could one forget *you* :-)

(newsgroup RAPro added as to reach mr. SSJVCmag)

Hardly necessary Good Sir!
Come now, you're above this sort of petty vandalism!
Live up to your promise!
Be All You Can Be!!


Would someone at RAP please kill this SSJVC fool? He's on the edge of
inspiring an allout group to group spam war... and frankly, there's very
little he can do to diminish RAO anyway. You have much to loose and
little to gain.


yeah, but remember, he claims that
somehow he gets paid for this.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:jVoYe.120966$Ep.54098@lakeread02...

"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
...
On 9/21/05 7:18 PM, in article
, "ScottW"
wrote:

Not I. No artist here. But I would note there are hundreds of
thousands of artists producing MP3s for their personal web pages.
By your simplified standards.. they are all producing low art simply
due to the sheer volume of their numbers.


Scott, this is nice, but in my official capacity as set below, would you
mind awfuly trimming those extra non-RAO newsgroups (which all here are
in
agreement is something worth doing) to help keep the crossposting to a
minimum?
Thanks!
Politely Yours,

Hey asshole... I didn't start the crosspost and I don't continue it when
responding to people in my origin group... but the guy I was responding to
isn't from my group... so I do a reply all.




That is exactly why he has been doing it.
But for some reason, he feels he is above his
own law.

Gary Sokolich wrote:

[a typically repugnant missive]

"" is acutally Gary Sokolich. Gary obsessively stalks me in
all the groups where I participate. Please ignore both him
and this marker of his stalking.

Sorry for the noise. Back to your regularly scheduled
programming.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

William Sommerwerck wrote:
In a pinch, you might be able
to get by with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, though.


No thanks... what an abhorrently pretentious and faux
spiritual piece of dreck that thing is.


Hear, hear. Not to mention condescending and arrogant with
clearly evident sociopathic mental illness. Hated that thing.


That's rather an extreme view.

Yes, I was _extremely_ repulsed by his treatment of his son.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

On 9/21/05 10:45 PM, in article jVoYe.120966$Ep.54098@lakeread02, "ScottW"
wrote:


"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
...
On 9/21/05 7:18 PM, in article
, "ScottW"
wrote:

Not I. No artist here. But I would note there are hundreds of
thousands of artists producing MP3s for their personal web pages.
By your simplified standards.. they are all producing low art simply
due to the sheer volume of their numbers.


Scott, this is nice, but in my official capacity as set below, would you
mind awfuly trimming those extra non-RAO newsgroups (which all here are in
agreement is something worth doing) to help keep the crossposting to a
minimum?
Thanks!
Politely Yours,

Hey asshole... I didn't start the crosspost and I don't continue it when
responding to people in my origin group... but the guy I was responding to
isn't from my group... so I do a reply all.

Message to RAP... this idiot is going out of his way to **** off everyone on
RAO. Suggest you heel your dog before both groups go to hell.

ScottW

On 9/21/05 10:45 PM, in article jVoYe.120966$Ep.54098@lakeread02, "ScottW"
wrote:


"SSJVCmag" wrote in message
...
On 9/21/05 7:18 PM, in article
, "ScottW"
wrote:

Not I. No artist here. But I would note there are hundreds of
thousands of artists producing MP3s for their personal web pages.
By your simplified standards.. they are all producing low art simply
due to the sheer volume of their numbers.


Scott, this is nice, but in my official capacity as set below, would you
mind awfuly trimming those extra non-RAO newsgroups (which all here are in
agreement is something worth doing) to help keep the crossposting to a
minimum?
Thanks!
Politely Yours,

Hey asshole... I didn't start the crosspost and I don't continue it when
responding to people in my origin group... but the guy I was responding to
isn't from my group... so I do a reply all.

Message to RAP... this idiot is going out of his way to **** off everyone on
RAO. Suggest you heel your dog before both groups go to hell.

ScottW



So if you know which one other group he's in, the reason you keep ALL the
extra ones is...?

On 9/21/05 10:45 PM, in article jVoYe.120966$Ep.54098@lakeread02, "ScottW"
wrote:

Hey asshole... I didn't start the crosspost and I don't continue it when
responding to people in my origin group... but the guy I was responding to
isn't from my group... so I do a reply all.

Message to RAP... this idiot is going out of his way to **** off everyone on
RAO. Suggest you heel your dog before both groups go to hell.

ScottW


Scott, get this:
First, I'm not RAP's 'dog' (or any other functionary) any more than a cow's
tail is a 5th leg. You're barking up the wrong tree. My posts are on RAO.
Some few are on a thread topic. Bizarrely, the bulk are under an RAO thread
(one of several) that now seems to be a vehicle for a few RAO wunderkinds
who need to dump their garbage in somebody else's yard. This is ABOUT RAO,
taking place IN RAO, and originated from RAO. (quelle surprise).

Second, Threatening some sort of cross-newgroup retaliation lamely excused
by RAO's insistance on a whacked denial of responsibility for simple
netequette self-crosspost-monitoring is just laughable since,
crossposting-volume word-for-word: the crap recently coming out of RAO
that's getting forcibly splattered ('spam' is a whole other thing.. Check
your current dictionary) across 6 various newsgroups, usually 4
simultaneously, that includes massive requoting and an incomprehensible
(outside of RAO) 6th grade name-calling a dissapointingly unimaginative
approach to epithets, is a feat of textural annoyance whose sheer volume I
couldn't match even if I had the time or inclination to try. Couple that
with the simple fact that I have been at all times pointedly terse, concise,
polite and SIMPLE in approach to merely requesting that a sudden stream of
this detritus be limited back in the areas where it's appreciated.

Get over it and keep it in your own yard.
Please.
Thanks

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:37:51 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



said:

One of the most oft repeated mantras of the subjective enterprise is that
even a small change in a system can make a great difference. Which means
by definition that all of the mag reviews are of no benefit to readers
because they can't duplicate the system and listening context and sound
sources used in the article. Further, it is oft said that several bits of
gear was swapped in and out during the listening period, which makes an
informed consumer choice based on the article even more remote. One more
point, who reviews the reviewers that the reader may know where on the
tinear scale they fall?

Your expectations of reviews are unrealistic.

Actually, George, this poster is touching on something you brought up
in another thread when you talked about synergy. And he has a valid
point, I think. Many moons ago I wrote an article for an Oz hi-fi mag
where I raised this same question: how does one grade components on an
absolute sound quality (as opposed to measurement) basis when no
component operates in isolation, when every component's sound is
determined by its synergy with the other components in the system?
Taken logically, a group test of amplifiers, say, is undermined by the
inevitability of some of the amps better matching the speakers being
used, or the speakers providing an easier load for certain amps. Given
that no component can be operated in isolation, but must be used with
other, necessarily imperfect components, surely the only review with
any real validity is a review of a complete system, the proviso being
that if the reader fails to duplicate that exact system in every
detail, the review is invalid.

That said, I enjoy reviews and use them as a guide, though not as a
bible. If reviewers from two or three different mags agree that a
component is exceptional, it probably is--which however doesn't change
what I've said above. Even the best gear must be used with
sympathetic equipment, and I strongly suspect that over the years I've
sold a lot of good equipment I should have kept and tried to match
better. This is where an experienced dealer is probably of more use
than a reviewer.

Incidentally, one other area where reviews have their limitations is
in their failure to tell you how reliable something is likely to be.
In the end, this is vastly more important than minute differences in
sound quality.

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:31:55 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

Given
that no component can be operated in isolation, but must be used with
other, necessarily imperfect components, surely the only review with
any real validity is a review of a complete system, the proviso being
that if the reader fails to duplicate that exact system in every
detail, the review is invalid.

Using those criteria for judgment, ALL reviews are invalid, since even
if you build the exact same system, you won't have the same room or
the same set of ears and biases.

The best you can hope for is a calibration with the reviewer. If you
find that reviewer fairly consonant with your viewpoints about audio,
or you somehow understand the descriptive language that they are
using, or you are simply entertained by their narrative, and you find
out that you are in agreement with their judgments after actually
using a piece of gear that they have reviewed, then the reviewer is
useful.

One should never take a review as anything but a rough guideline, or
possibly a way to narrow the field.

In article ,
pH wrote:
On 21 Sep 2005 13:58:43 GMT, wrote:

In rec.audio.pro pH wrote:
On 20 Sep 2005 12:49:32 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:

What is hight art?

Something which takes skill / talent to accomplish; the rarer the skill /
talent, the higher the art.

What is low art?

Something which takes no skill / talent to accomplish.

So that guy in the Guinness Book of World records who ate an entire airplane
(the only person to ever do so - very rare skill)

A rare feat, perhaps, but... "skill"? If you say so...

I remember being about nine years old and going through the Hirschorn museum
in DC with my father.

There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint and
squirted them out on canvas.

My father claimed that this was not art, that it was disgusting, and that
anybody could do it. He was horrified that the artist was paid $250,000
for this work.

I asked if he would be willing to do this for $250,000, and he said that
not for a million dollars would he be willing to paint with an enema.
"That," I replied, "is what makes it art."

He glared pretty hard at me.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
I remember being about nine years old and going through the Hirschorn
museum
in DC with my father.

There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint
and
squirted them out on canvas.

My father claimed that this was not art, that it was disgusting, and
that
anybody could do it. He was horrified that the artist was paid
$250,000
for this work.

I asked if he would be willing to do this for $250,000, and he said
that
not for a million dollars would he be willing to paint with an enema.
"That," I replied, "is what makes it art."

He glared pretty hard at me.

I even see parallels to what passes for "music" these days.
Gotta agree with your father. :-)

paul packer said:

Actually, George, this poster is touching on something you brought up
in another thread when you talked about synergy. And he has a valid
point, I think. Many moons ago I wrote an article for an Oz hi-fi mag
where I raised this same question: how does one grade components on an
absolute sound quality (as opposed to measurement) basis when no
component operates in isolation, when every component's sound is
determined by its synergy with the other components in the system?

Did you get paid by the word? ;-)

I agree with Mr. Weil's opinion. Unless you can establish a correlation
between your preferences and the reviewer's preferences, a review is only
a rough guideline.

"I agree with Mr. Weil's opinion. Unless you can establish a correlation
between your preferences and the reviewer's preferences, a review is only
a rough guideline."

This helps not at all. If a reviewer says he likes a hot top end etc. and
you concur, any gear in his current review still has no meaning to you
because you haven't the duplicate system etc. by which he reports his
perceptions. The mags often take the dodge suggested, find a reviewer you
like because you agree and follow him. Which of course has all manner of
inherent non audio mine fields and really lends nothing about really
knowing about the reality of perceptions reported.

Most likely the room is the source of hot high end perceptions if he
reports it as a particular item in his reviews, it is about dispersion
patterns and interactions with the room and the speakers

Any amp, for example, said to have one type of high end or another is
really a report of what that room interaction is. Reviews are almost
useless for any relevant information except what one might deduce from
specifications and how they are known to potentially relate to sound, such
as would be evident with the radiation pattern of a speaker.

Scott Dorsey wrote:
snip

I remember being about nine years old and going through the Hirschorn museum
in DC with my father.

There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint and
squirted them out on canvas.


That's not art. That's fart.

DAve

On 9/22/05 3:03 PM, in article teDYe.22433$zG1.10749@trnddc05, "DaveW"
wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
snip

I remember being about nine years old and going through the Hirschorn museum
in DC with my father.

There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint and
squirted them out on canvas.


That's not art. That's fart.

Dave
Fine Art...
F'art

In article uK3Ye.120911$Ep.61696@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

"Audio Magazine" was for me the best all round publication with it's
attempts to attach sound differences to technical differences and to
the
hands on diy articles that provided insight from the ground up, so to
speak. I greave still for it. On reflection the hand writing on the
wall
for it might have been when they hired greenberg to do stereophile
type
fancy writing with heavy breathing and entertaining little throw away
bits
of information and personal perceptions that were of no value to
anyone.

But what really killed it was all those tech type nerds, among which
I
count myself, who got their jollies with electronics moving to
computers
in large numbers, or it at least diluted the pool of such people
across a
greater range of diversions which left too few to support the niche
the
mag filled.

If I may repeat something that I've said here before, the same thing is
starting to happen, IMHO, to music in general. The state of cultural
literacy in our county is sickening, and is getting worse. The very
reason for the hobby that we enjoy is in danger. Ask the next 20
people
under age 30 that you meet who George Gershwin (or Bernstein, or
Copland...) was and be ready for a shock. We had best take care of our
cultural institutions and how we educate people about them, or we will
only be playing synthesized violins and pink noise on our beloved audio
systems.

Uuugh.... the elitism of this is a bit shocking IMO. You seem to be
asking that young people be forced to understand and appreciate art
forms that aren't part of their generation's interest.

In the same way that I would ask young people to be "forced" to learn
Hemmingway and Shakespeare, and Renoir, yes.

If you're gonna
do that why not impose appreciation of the best (my favorite) bands of
the 70's or Jazz greats...or Frank Zappa?

I would include them as well!

The problem is not in what is included... the problem arises with the
exclusions.

I suppose so. If you carry your argument to it's logical end though, it
seems that you're advocating for not learning anything that happened
previous to today!


Exactly what is cultural literacy?

In my view, CL is the "shared canon"... that which we should all know
and/or experience in order to have a society that is not just broad, but
also deep;

If we all knew the same things and shared the same experiences...
how broad and deep a society would that be?

I'm not advocating that. I'm advocating for a common cultural base-line
knowledge... not a "maximum". You're free to learn whatever you want to
learn, after all.

knowledge that leads to a deeper understanding of ourselves
and others. Students need to know Shakespeare, Basie, and Bernstein.

I prefer Heinlein, Fripp, and Weber.


Who decides what is and is not
worthy of cultural maintenance which is what you appear to be
advocating?

Good question!

If everyone studied only the so called masterpieces of our culture would
they remain masterpieces?

Yes, but that's not what I'm advocating, of course.