JBorg, Jr. wrote:
JimC wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:




Why "accuracy"? For certain Usenet poseurs, this is the question
that dare not speak its name.

Normals (black magic flat-earth believers) and 'borgs alike would
surely accept that the purpose of an audio system is to enable us to
enjoy listening to recorded music. Normals choose the pieces of a
system that maximizes listening pleasure. How does praying to the god of
"accuracy" help attain that end?

It's really rather simple, Georgie. - Those of us who are not within
your black magic-subjectivism cult enjoy listening to recorded music
because we enjoy hearing the music as it was composed and/or
performed. [...]




What does black magic-subjectivism cult imply, Mr. Cate?
What does it signify? You seems bitter on something about
high-end audio in general.




A more helpful line of questions would have been, what does Middius mean
by the term "borg," "normals", "Kroogism," etc.; and why has he been
spending all that time, year after year, attacking those who disagree
with him on this ng? "Black magic-subjectivism" is the philosopy Mr.
Middius adheres to and promotes. It is characterized by personal attacks
on those who introduce logic into discussions of audio matters, and in
particular, those who have some knowldge of the relevant principles of
physics.




The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to
reproduce Beethoven's works more nearly as Beethoven intended them to be
performed, or to hear the Rolling Stones in a manner that
reproduces their concerts more nearly as they were performed (more
nearly than a small table radio, for example). [...]



Mr. Cate, how does Mr. Beethoven and The Rolling Stone intended their
music to be heard when played in the listening room in our home?

Is there a manifest enumerating all the specific list of requirement
where we can obtain these information so that we can listen to
Mr. Beethoven and the Rolling Stone precisely and correctly as
they intended them to be heard when performed inside our home ?



The point I was making (which I suspect you knew full well in the first
place) was that listening to music in on a system capable of reproducing
the music with greater fidelity to the performance (greater "accuracy")
is, for most audiophiles, more satisfying and enjoyable than listening
to the same music reproduced by a system with minimal accuracy, e.g., a
small table radio. In other words, greater "accuracy" generally provides
a more satisfying listening experience. YOUR interjection of the
suggestion that I somehow expect or require that we listen to Beethoven,
or the RSs or whoever, "precisely and correctly as they intended to be
heard" is, of course, your own invention. - I never said or implied such
a thing. - And I'm well aware that there are limits to realistic
reproduction of an orchestra or rock group in the home. My point was
that most of us generally derive greater pleasure from listening to good
music reproduced with accuracy (higher fidelity to the original
performance) than we do with less accurate reproduction, e.g., listening
to the same music reproduced by a small table radio.




It's because our
listening pleasure derives from the music itself, George, not from
distortion or manipulation of the music caused by our equipment.


Mr. Cate, are you hinting that audiophiles who listen to music
through their vinyl records derives listening pleasure from the distortion
and manipulation by their equipment, and not from the music
itself ?

Nope. I'm just saying that, in general, accuracy is in fact a useful and
desirable quality in audio, and that, in general, it results in a more
satisfying and enjoyable listening experience.



For anyone who didn't get it, the purpose of George's original post,
as usual, was to put down anyone who doesn't accept his black-magic
subjectivist biases. (And also, another display of his long-standing
inferiority problems when confronting those who know something about
the science.) It wasn't, of course, derived from an interest on his
part in learning from contributors with various viewpoints.

Jim

Incidentally Mr. Borg, do you disagree with my contention that Geroge's
purpose for posting his original note related to a point he was trying
to make and a philosphy he was tring to push rather than intellectual
curiosity, for example, or a desire on his part to learn from
contributors with various viewpoints?

Jim