On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:28:56 GMT, Leonard
wrote:

I would suggest that there are those among us that have a
mental dividing line that keeps their mental processes from
venturing further than a given point on the cable issue.

Indeed yes - it's called intelligence! :-)

If one cannot explain a phenomenon or strange occurance within
the framework of that "mental dividing line" then you have
made a mistake or you are treading on the land beyond that
dividing line. The land of the "strawman". The unknown, this
is not well taken by this mindset. In the cable realm, all is
known..we need not learn more. But, Mr. Anschuetz raises the
specter of having to tread in that land where all future
knowledge lies. Where deep research tends to thrive at times.

Nope, deep research is based on reliable, repeatable and falsifiable
*observations*, not wacky theories made up in order to sell product.
In the area of 'cable sound', such observations are notably absent.

Many thanks to Mr. Anschuetz for his thought provoking few
lines. An ability to admit to an unexplained occurance is a
sure sign of an inquiring mind and a degree of maturity.

Mind you, he was ridiculed for making these statements by
one of those that think cables are "all the same". "It was
just bad connections"...as if he would not have checked this
over and over!

He did. Did you not read that he suffered this condition *once*, and
was unable to repeat it? A classic case of a bad connection, usually
caused by a speck of dirt, or a connector not fully locked. Of course,
*you* would have us search for cosmic radiation, little green men, or
possibly your Indian spirit guide, but a poorly made connection is
just a little more likely, wouldn't you say?

It must be explained within the mental
barrier concepts..it does not exist if not explainable
by known concepts. Narrow!

I refer you to William of Occam. When you hear the sound of hoofbeats,
don't expect zebras.....................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Ref: Fixed attitudes...no room for modifications..changes..

Mr. Pinkerton has been on these audio groups for over
a decade and has rather pronounced attitudes about
cables in general. He does not detect any differences
in audio cable..he does not mince words on telling
you that, "...you cannot tell any difference either..!"

My stance is that there are differences and in varying
degrees. Simply put, we disagree! I contend that if you
try a variety of cable types in your system at home
and in the quietness of that environment you determine
a particular cable does indeed sound a bit better, then
by all means get it. Be wary of those that know what
is best for "you".

__________________________________________________

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:14:03 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:28:56 GMT, Leonard
wrote:

I would suggest that there are those among us that have a
mental dividing line that keeps their mental processes from
venturing further than a given point on the cable issue.

Indeed yes - it's called intelligence! :-)

Indeed, a stunted intellectual set, grounded in the
past, not willing to accept that things change and
not all is known about any aspect of our endeavors
at this early juncture. The dividing line is here.
In one of the examples in my initial note, it was
implied that we do not know, at this juncture, what
the most basic particles are..therefore, we cannot
know the reaction of other elements in the Universe
that affects them..until we get down to that level,
much of our knowledge is cut off on so many basic issues.

If one cannot explain a phenomenon or strange occurance within
the framework of that "mental dividing line" then you have
made a mistake or you are treading on the land beyond that
dividing line. The land of the "strawman". The unknown, this
is not well taken by this mindset. In the cable realm, all is
known..we need not learn more. But, Mr. Anschuetz raises the
specter of having to tread in that land where all future
knowledge lies. Where deep research tends to thrive at times.

Nope, deep research is based on reliable, repeatable and falsifiable
*observations*, not wacky theories made up in order to sell product.
In the area of 'cable sound', such observations are notably absent.

Somehow, you seem to be implying that those who consider various
cables are gullible to the "hawking" of the Vendors! Please!
We all live in this Capitalistic Society and all of the pressures
of the sales scenario. Enough already, we all know that Vendors
tend to go off into the "light fantastic". The real issue here
is involved in the comments made above about the trial of varying
cables in the comfort of your own audio environment...then saying
"yea" or "nay" based on "your" own judgement. That others,
somehow, know what is best for me..it just won't float! Get real!

Many thanks to Mr. Anschuetz for his thought provoking few
lines. An ability to admit to an unexplained occurance is a
sure sign of an inquiring mind and a degree of maturity.

Mind you, he was ridiculed for making these statements by
one of those that think cables are "all the same". "It was
just bad connections"...as if he would not have checked this
over and over!

He did. Did you not read that he suffered this condition *once*, and
was unable to repeat it? A classic case of a bad connection, usually
caused by a speck of dirt, or a connector not fully locked. Of course,
*you* would have us search for cosmic radiation, little green men, or
possibly your Indian spirit guide, but a poorly made connection is
just a little more likely, wouldn't you say?

Classic stuff here..you attempt to take a situation where a number
of examples were given where we are learning daily about many
"unknowns" and then delve into the "ole" little green men or Indian
spirit guide routine. This ploy tends to reflect so much of my
point in the note. The new knowledge is there beyond the
barriers..therefore, it falls into the "strawman" and ridicule
category by those that have "all the answers". The answer to any
strange occurance must be found in the "known". Nevermind that the
known is severely lacking in its scope. The inability to provide
for any "unknown" to have validity and not be explainable, in the
rational world, "is" the issue here. Ponder that!

This ploy to "play to the audience" and brandy about phrases
like "cosmic radiation", Little Green men, et al..is the
tool of those that truly don't grasp the issue.
The element of "ridicule" is always brought into play
when running into the aformentioned barrier! Classic - predictable!

It must be explained within the mental
barrier concepts..it does not exist if not explainable by known
concepts. Narrow!

I refer you to William of Occam. When you hear the sound of hoofbeats,
don't expect zebras.....................
__________________________________________________ ________________________

So, after many years, this issue has been hashed out on these
Newsgroups. Most people understand that they must be the final
arbitor on the selection of their systems. There are those out
there that say NO! I know what is best for you! Thus, one has to
ignore this type and proceed forward toward good music. Do
be ready to admit you can't hear and say "..you're right..
there is no difference..". They will be happy for awhile!

This case is closed, go about selecting your system as you so
desire! Enjoy! As stated above, Mr Pinkerton has his view,
I respect that, however, I differ! The world will go on!

Leonard...

P.S. As I have been around these Audio Groups for decades,
the following tidbits might be interesting to you:

1. At one time we were all ridiculed by thinking
that 16bit representation was not nirvana!
Much "fodder" on these newsgroups. It was the
ploy of the Manufacturers. 16bit was all we
needed, don't listen to those mean ole
Manufacturers..then new knowledge came from
over the mental barriers and newer better
concepts prevailed. We now have much superior
non-16bit sound!

2. Then some advanced Engineers noted that a clean
power supply coming into a solid-state amp
made things notably cleaner. The ridicule
began to flow by the same crowd. Ha! they
said: power is power, ad infinitum. But,
others noted that indeed the sound was
better. We now have better sounding pre-amps
and amps due to cleaner power sources.

These are just two items that this "we have the answers"
group failed to shout down! There are other issues there
from the past...The cable issue still lingers on..but,
it too will fade away. The real world will overcome
this group aided by information from across that
"mental-barrier" I have discussed!

Leonard wrote:

Ref: Fixed attitudes...no room for modifications..changes..

Mr. Pinkerton has been on these audio groups for over
a decade and has rather pronounced attitudes about
cables in general. He does not detect any differences
in audio cable..he does not mince words on telling
you that, "...you cannot tell any difference either..!"

My stance is that there are differences and in varying
degrees. Simply put, we disagree! I contend that if you
try a variety of cable types in your system at home
and in the quietness of that environment you determine
a particular cable does indeed sound a bit better, then
by all means get it. Be wary of those that know what
is best for "you".

I've conducted an experiment where the 'designer' of a regionally branded
interconnect was unable to reliably distinguish his $300 a meter interconnects
from a pair of junk box rcas using headphones taken from the headphone output
jack of a direct coupled amplifier and a cd player were in the circuit.

He complained that his cables "threw a big image that was not adequately
demonstrated with headphones." So we repeated the experiment the following week
where he brought his own speakers, amplifier, cd player and speaker cables.

Guess what? He couldn't tell them apart in that situation either. I've also
conducted similar experiments with high-fi store salesmen with the same
results. Do you really want these people telling you what's good for you?

But I urge anyone considering a specialty wire purchase to be sure to include
some rudimentary bias controls in listening evaluations. Make the test blind;
keep score. If you ever make a mistake (heard the message when the wrong
preacher was in the pulpit) take note.

(Nousaine) wrote in message ...
Leonard wrote:

Ref: Fixed attitudes...no room for modifications..changes..

Mr. Pinkerton has been on these audio groups for over
a decade and has rather pronounced attitudes about
cables in general. He does not detect any differences
in audio cable..he does not mince words on telling
you that, "...you cannot tell any difference either..!"

My stance is that there are differences and in varying
degrees. Simply put, we disagree! I contend that if you
try a variety of cable types in your system at home
and in the quietness of that environment you determine
a particular cable does indeed sound a bit better, then
by all means get it. Be wary of those that know what
is best for "you".

I've conducted an experiment where the 'designer' of a regionally branded
interconnect was unable to reliably distinguish his $300 a meter interconnects
from a pair of junk box rcas using headphones taken from the headphone output
jack of a direct coupled amplifier and a cd player were in the circuit.

He complained that his cables "threw a big image that was not adequately
demonstrated with headphones." So we repeated the experiment the following week
where he brought his own speakers, amplifier, cd player and speaker cables.

Guess what? He couldn't tell them apart in that situation either. I've also
conducted similar experiments with high-fi store salesmen with the same
results. Do you really want these people telling you what's good for you?

But I urge anyone considering a specialty wire purchase to be sure to include
some rudimentary bias controls in listening evaluations. Make the test blind;
keep score. If you ever make a mistake (heard the message when the wrong
preacher was in the pulpit) take note.

What protocol did you follow in the "tests" you are recounting.
What are "some rudimentary bias controls". Will anything less than switched ABX do?
The devil is in the detail Mr. Nousaine.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 21:00:18 GMT, Leonard
wrote:

Ref: Fixed attitudes...no room for modifications..changes..

Also ref. physical reality............

I am sorry to report that even in 'high end' audio, it remains the
case that 2+2=4.

Mr. Pinkerton has been on these audio groups for over
a decade

No, it just seems that way! :-)

and has rather pronounced attitudes about
cables in general. He does not detect any differences
in audio cable..he does not mince words on telling
you that, "...you cannot tell any difference either..!"

More to the point, I and others have put money on it. There's a pool
of around $4,000 waiting for *anyone* who can tell apart two cables in
a level-matched double-blind conditions. This pool has lain on the
table for about five years, and no one has even *tried* to collect it,
despite numerous wild claims about 'huge' sonic differences by
'subjectivist' posters.

My stance is that there are differences and in varying
degrees. Simply put, we disagree! I contend that if you
try a variety of cable types in your system at home
and in the quietness of that environment you determine
a particular cable does indeed sound a bit better, then
by all means get it. Be wary of those that know what
is best for "you".

I contend that any such 'differences' exist only inside your head. As
noted, you can collect enough cash for some *really* kool kables if
*you* really can tell the difference.

__________________________________________________

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:14:03 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:28:56 GMT, Leonard
wrote:
The new knowledge is there beyond the
barriers..therefore, it falls into the "strawman" and ridicule
category by those that have "all the answers". The answer to any
strange occurance must be found in the "known". Nevermind that the
known is severely lacking in its scope. The inability to provide
for any "unknown" to have validity and not be explainable, in the
rational world, "is" the issue here. Ponder that!


P.S. As I have been around these Audio Groups for decades,
the following tidbits might be interesting to you:

A fine example of Leonard's dislocation from reality, as these groups
have not *existed* for plural decades.

1. At one time we were all ridiculed by thinking
that 16bit representation was not nirvana!
Much "fodder" on these newsgroups. It was the
ploy of the Manufacturers. 16bit was all we
needed, don't listen to those mean ole
Manufacturers..then new knowledge came from
over the mental barriers and newer better
concepts prevailed. We now have much superior
non-16bit sound!

A fine tale - but not supported by *listening tests*. Show me the
studio *master* tape that has more than 90dB dynamic range, and I'll
show you a *possible* need for more than 16 bits. Until then, you are
just off on another one of your flights of fancy.

2. Then some advanced Engineers noted that a clean
power supply coming into a solid-state amp
made things notably cleaner. The ridicule
began to flow by the same crowd. Ha! they
said: power is power, ad infinitum. But,
others noted that indeed the sound was
better. We now have better sounding pre-amps
and amps due to cleaner power sources.

No one who had even a smattering of EE knowledge, would have said any
such thing. You are simply making this up. A good power supply is
*essential* to *any* high quality audio electronics equipment. Of
course, if you are talking about rubbish such as line conditioners and
'audiophile' power cords, then you simply don't understand what the
power supply *does*. It is of course true that there's a *lot* of
*extremely* expensive so-called 'high end' gear which is quite
apallingly designed, but that's another matter.

These are just two items that this "we have the answers"
group failed to shout down!

That's because the first is bull****, and the second is untrue.

There are other issues there
from the past...The cable issue still lingers on..but,
it too will fade away. The real world will overcome
this group aided by information from across that
"mental-barrier" I have discussed!

The only mental barrier in this thread seems to be between you and the
real physical world.........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article cJ79b.445885$o%2.202854@sccrnsc02, Leonard
writes:

The short-sighted viewpoint that we now know all the characteristics
of cable and that it is a cut and dried technology..needs to be
reconsidered.

I work for Belden, the largest manufacturer of professional audio and video
cable in the world, and I can tell you that all cable is NOT "cut and dried".
Certainly after 101 years we know a lot about making cable. Let's say we know
99.9%. There are always new plastics, new ways of measuring,
computer-controlled manufacturing etc. etc. that send us back to the drawing
board. The video cables we make today we could NOT have made 20 years ago,
maybe even less. And there are some effects we can't quite figure out, such as
why our French Braid shield (a double serve braided along one edge) performs
better at RF than a full braid.

And there are many technologies coming down the pike (room temperature
superconductors, for one) that will turn everything you know on its ear. How
about zero resistance speaker cables? How about having your amplifier in San
Francisco and your speaker in New York, with no loss, no limit on current?
Boggles the mind.

Maybe in the next decade we'll get to 99.99% knowledge.

Steve Lampen
Belden Electronics Division

"ShLampen" wrote in message
...
In article cJ79b.445885$o%2.202854@sccrnsc02, Leonard

I work for Belden, the largest manufacturer of professional
audio and video
cable in the world, and I can tell you that all cable is NOT
"cut and dried".
Certainly after 101 years we know a lot about making cable.
Let's say we know
99.9%. There are always new plastics, new ways of measuring,
computer-controlled manufacturing etc. etc. that send us back
to the drawing
board. The video cables we make today we could NOT have made
20 years ago,
maybe even less. And there are some effects we can't quite
figure out, such as
why our French Braid shield (a double serve braided along one
edge) performs
better at RF than a full braid.

So, what? None of this has any relevance to audio with a measly
20kHz bandwidth. Name one wire, cable, or interconnect
advancement in the past 20 years (or even 101 years) that has
made an audible improvement in audio cables. Video cables are
another story but even competent cables of 20 years ago would do
just fine against the most recent cables of today. Cable TV was
born in 1948 with coax cable capable of over 500MHz bandwidth.
Even today's highest definition component video is under 30MHz
which is well below the state of the art of the early 1900s.
Sure with new materials and techniques cables have improved in
terms of cost, flexibility, connector reliability, etc but not in
terms of measureable audible differences.

And there are many technologies coming down the pike (room
temperature
superconductors, for one) that will turn everything you know on
its ear. How
about zero resistance speaker cables? How about having your
amplifier in San
Francisco and your speaker in New York, with no loss, no limit
on current?
Boggles the mind.

Again, so what? Sure superconductivity has great applications in
the power utility market but audio? Even if you have a
unrealistic 1/2 mile of 12 gauge speaker wire you only need twice
the amplifier power compared to a 1 foot speaker wire. Even
buying the cheapest 1/2 mile of 12 gauge speaker cable will cost
over $800 per channel. The cost of doubling the amplifier power
will be less than the wire cost and it will certainly be cheaper
than any superconducting cable.

In all practical situations the driver coil resistance is the
dominant resistance in the system. Now for extra credit what
happens when you have a superconducting driver coil?

Ref: Realities from differing viewpoints...

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:41:38 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 21:00:18 GMT, Leonard
wrote:

Ref: Fixed attitudes...no room for modifications..changes..

Also ref. physical reality............

I am sorry to report that even in 'high end' audio, it remains the
case that 2+2=4.

Granted: 2+2=4

Mr. Pinkerton has been on these audio groups for over
a decade

No, it just seems that way! :-)

and has rather pronounced attitudes about
cables in general. He does not detect any differences
in audio cable..he does not mince words on telling
you that, "...you cannot tell any difference either..!"

More to the point, I and others have put money on it. There's a pool
of around $4,000 waiting for *anyone* who can tell apart two cables in
a level-matched double-blind conditions. This pool has lain on the
table for about five years, and no one has even *tried* to collect it,
despite numerous wild claims about 'huge' sonic differences by
'subjectivist' posters.

Does anyone care? Really?

My stance is that there are differences and in varying
degrees. Simply put, we disagree! I contend that if you
try a variety of cable types in your system at home
and in the quietness of that environment you determine
a particular cable does indeed sound a bit better, then
by all means get it. Be wary of those that know what
is best for "you".

I contend that any such 'differences' exist only inside your head. As
noted, you can collect enough cash for some *really* kool kables if
*you* really can tell the difference.

Really, who cares if another does not agree on differences..
Consistantly abusive attitudes tend to alienate people from
this view "..I have the answers..you do not.." Be happy with
your answers..I differ, most Audiophiles also disagree.

You're right about the differences exist in my "head"..
It is there where the final arbitor resides..the land
of the Subjectivist!

__________________________________________________

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:14:03 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:28:56 GMT, Leonard
wrote:
The new knowledge is there beyond the
barriers..therefore, it falls into the "strawman" and ridicule
category by those that have "all the answers". The answer to any
strange occurance must be found in the "known". Nevermind that the
known is severely lacking in its scope. The inability to provide
for any "unknown" to have validity and not be explainable, in the
rational world, "is" the issue here. Ponder that!


P.S. As I have been around these Audio Groups for decades,
the following tidbits might be interesting to you:

A fine example of Leonard's dislocation from reality, as these groups
have not *existed* for plural decades.

I should have said a decade..but, this gives you "fodder"
for ridicule.

1. At one time we were all ridiculed by thinking
that 16bit representation was not nirvana!
Much "fodder" on these newsgroups. It was the
ploy of the Manufacturers. 16bit was all we
needed, don't listen to those mean ole
Manufacturers..then new knowledge came from
over the mental barriers and newer better
concepts prevailed. We now have much superior
non-16bit sound!

A fine tale - but not supported by *listening tests*. Show me the
studio *master* tape that has more than 90dB dynamic range, and I'll
show you a *possible* need for more than 16 bits. Until then, you are
just off on another one of your flights of fancy.

So we haven't improved a thing..you've got be kidding!
As mentioned above..I think there is still a meeting
of the Flat-Earth Society! Not supported by
"listening Tests"..who cares? Fall back on ye ole
dynamics..but, then there are other parameters that
come into play, i.e., sampling rates, etc.

2. Then some advanced Engineers noted that a clean
power supply coming into a solid-state amp
made things notably cleaner. The ridicule
began to flow by the same crowd. Ha! they
said: power is power, ad infinitum. But,
others noted that indeed the sound was
better. We now have better sounding pre-amps
and amps due to cleaner power sources.

No one who had even a smattering of EE knowledge, would have said any
such thing. You are simply making this up. A good power supply is
*essential* to *any* high quality audio electronics equipment. Of
course, if you are talking about rubbish such as line conditioners and
'audiophile' power cords, then you simply don't understand what the
power supply *does*. It is of course true that there's a *lot* of
*extremely* expensive so-called 'high end' gear which is quite
apallingly designed, but that's another matter.

I don't remember his name, but I think that after
designing some Amplifiers/processers he went to
maybe, Monster Cable? Anyway he was somewhat renowned
for his work prior to moving. Classe' has been utilizing
some of the work done in this arena...again, you really
don't want to believe..but, so be it. Be happy in your
insights. It is not "made up" just because you don't
believe it. What a mindset!

I am talking about "line conditioners" and the movement
of some filtration processes into the Power supply
area. Now brace yourself...improved power cables!!


These are just two items that this "we have the answers"
group failed to shout down!

That's because the first is bull****, and the second is untrue.

There are other issues there
from the past...The cable issue still lingers on..but, it too
will fade away. The real world will overcome this group aided
by information from across that "mental-barrier" I have
discussed!

The only mental barrier in this thread seems to be between you and the
real physical world.........

__________________________________________________ _______________

I don't think that Mr. Pinkerton is going to change this aging
view that has been espoused for "less than a decade". He had
lambasted, called various respondents names and generally took the
exchange of ideas into the gutter...time and time again. I stand by
the statements above. He has chosen to carry this interchange into
his normal discourse over the years.

This seems to strike at his ego...manners, decorum and general
politeness tend to fleetingly go away and old manners from
other Audio forums reappear. How did I know this interchange
would end up this way? Experience and close observation.

This case is closed. I stand by my statements...you disagree..
So be it! Nothing will be resolved here. We differ!

Leonard...

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:48:01 GMT, Leonard
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:41:38 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

There's a pool
of around $4,000 waiting for *anyone* who can tell apart two cables in
a level-matched double-blind conditions. This pool has lain on the
table for about five years, and no one has even *tried* to collect it,
despite numerous wild claims about 'huge' sonic differences by
'subjectivist' posters.

Does anyone care? Really?

You seem to care enough to post endless handwaving about magical
mystical effects, when the physical evidence that there is *no*
audible difference lies before you.

My stance is that there are differences and in varying
degrees. Simply put, we disagree! I contend that if you
try a variety of cable types in your system at home
and in the quietness of that environment you determine
a particular cable does indeed sound a bit better, then
by all means get it. Be wary of those that know what
is best for "you".

I contend that any such 'differences' exist only inside your head. As
noted, you can collect enough cash for some *really* kool kables if
*you* really can tell the difference.

Really, who cares if another does not agree on differences..
Consistantly abusive attitudes tend to alienate people from
this view "..I have the answers..you do not.." Be happy with
your answers..I differ, most Audiophiles also disagree.

Ah, another one who speaks for 'most audiophiles'. My constant advice
is never to believe what I say, but to get out there and do your own
listening *under controlled conditions*. You willl find no need for
magical mystical theories to explain cable differences - because they
don't exist in the real physical world.

You're right about the differences exist in my "head"..
It is there where the final arbitor resides..the land
of the Subjectivist!

I rest my case...............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Leonard wrote:

You're right about the differences exist in my "head"..
It is there where the final arbitor resides..the land
of the Subjectivist!

This is a really a rather extreme view that reminds me of an incident when I
was teaching an organ lesson. The student played a G natural instead of a G
flat in the soprano of a passage of the Brahms 'Herzleibster Jesu' chorale
prelude, turing the harmony from E flat major to E flat minor, which
essentially ruins Brahms' beautiful harmonic progression during that part of
the piece. It is routine for music teachers to point out note mistakes to
beginning and intermediate students because they often aren't aware of them,
and when I did so, he replied in a serious tone 'it's only a half step'.
Not wanting to insult him, I tried to refrain from laughing, but it is true,
in his mind, it was okay, because a half step didn't mean much to him.

Keep in mind that as a whole, seeing music reproduction as more subjective
than music performance would be a position virtually impossible to successfully
defend.

So, is the final arbiter REALLY in the land of the subjectivist?

And what was that you said about 'narrow'?

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:32:08 +0000, jjnunes wrote:

Leonard wrote:

You're right about the differences exist in my "head"..
It is there where the final arbitor resides..the land
of the Subjectivist!

This is a really a rather extreme view that reminds me of an incident when I
was teaching an organ lesson. The student played a G natural instead of a G
flat in the soprano of a passage of the Brahms 'Herzleibster Jesu' chorale
prelude, turing the harmony from E flat major to E flat minor, which
essentially ruins Brahms' beautiful harmonic progression during that part of
the piece. It is routine for music teachers to point out note mistakes to
beginning and intermediate students because they often aren't aware of them,
and when I did so, he replied in a serious tone 'it's only a half step'.
Not wanting to insult him, I tried to refrain from laughing, but it is true,
in his mind, it was okay, because a half step didn't mean much to him.

Keep in mind that as a whole, seeing music reproduction as more subjective
than music performance would be a position virtually impossible to successfully
defend.

So, is the final arbiter REALLY in the land of the subjectivist?

The final arbitor is in the ear-mind complex..and the ear-mind
is an integral part of the Subjectivist processes. This was
somewhat out of context. This was stated in conjunction with
statements about about one making decisions on systems in
his own private audio listening environment. Then the comment
that this is the land of the Subjectivist. I think it is!

And what was that you said about 'narrow'?

Ref: subjectivist thoughts..application of concept.

Interesting query there jj. In my sense of the application of the
word Subjectivist. I was referring to the issue of when listening
to music via a recording with all your grand components..your
ear-mind construct is extremely "subjectivist" in nature. One
is making value judgements on how close the system sounds to
some real, or perhaps imagined, representation of that source.

The the ear-mind construct has to considered, in my way of thinking,
as an extremely subjectivist ole soul. It has to do with so many
variables, experiences, education and a myriad of scenarios that
one has gone through. It is the product of all that has been
input to it over the years. It is not consistent at times, depending
on age, etc. There is a myriad of balancing acts going on, all
based on that "input" that has been fed into it for many years.

So, to my logic, the scenario you painted regarding the student
has to do with his interpretation of how to play the note and
a value judgement as to its importance..it is this judgement
that is wrong..he accesses no importance to the sloppiness
you mentioned. It is a two step process..first the physical
to get the right note and if he/she misses it..the value
accessment that it is O.K. This might well be due to a general
lazyness, even though they knew it was not quite right. A seriousness
regarding their "value system" seems to not be fully developed..
..we tend to pass off as immaturity.

To me, the aboved mentioned scenario of Student attitudes is a
bit different than that of the listener sitting in the quiet
of his Audio room making decisions on how close the Flute
with its air escaping sound is to some real or imagined
representation. Or perhaps the timbre of a well played
Sax as it lumbers down the scale. Note, I said real or
imagined..we tend to recall various recording, or live
music, as we play selections and attempt to make decisions
on its truthfulness to our memory. We make these instantaneous
comparisons to memory all the time when we listen. To me
this is an aspect of the Subjective that is somewhat different
than the scenario you painted. Correct me if I'm wrong or
not even on track!!

As to the comment on "...music reproduction more subjective than
music performance..." I would have to think about this and go
through an "unlayering" process mentally. I've never thought
of those elements as being mutually exclusive. Again, step
me through how this idea was articulated to you. I'm willing
to listen and absorb.

Anyway, I find the note "thought provoking"..and the last
question a bit of a mental challenge..as I'd never thought
of the two factors in juxtaposition. Interesting.

To me, one's view of the Universe is seen through the Subjective
glasses..as one gets wiser it has to be tempered somewhat if
it runs roughshod over basic logic. In my view, we're stuck
with some of the foibles of "Subjective" direction. Perhaps
this is not too "narrow". There is not much we can do about it
at the present time..we can't measure it or give some
numerical value to it..we must suffer with what we have!

Anyway..interesting note!

Leonard...