"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
[ Lots snipped]


I've now had a read of the reference you gave, although I've not finished
it or re-read to check my initial reactions. However it seemed to me quite
a decent description of the situation in social science/anthropology
terms.

Having also read the reference, I agree that it seems quite sensible in
Social Science terms, but even in those terms, it was quite limited.
It didn't analyse the role of the designers and manufacturers of cables and
tweaking products. In my experience, the effect of these is great in
influencing magazines through advertising and placed editorial. In turn, the
magazines influence readers who can become purchasers.
I also didn't see enough mention of the effects of the magazines in moulding
attitudes. Those of us old enough will recall how single-speaker
demonstrations became de rigeur, and how one particluar manufacturer managed
to convince pretty much the entire industry that the source was the most
important aspect of hi-fi.



[snipped as I agree with it so deson't need comment]

The other point that struck me about the reference was the way it neatly
described the tendency of what they called the 'Golden Eared' to give
their
experience 'privilidged status'. i.e. the presumption that both their
perceptions *and their conclusions* cannot be wrong. So any other evidence
which casts doubt on them must be attacked or dismissed. This at one point
was combined with the idea that "science can't explain the difference
reported by the Golden Eared" as showing that "science has things to
learn".

When I read that, I took it to be irony, not a serious point. However,
overall, the document makes many good and serious points, but doesn't come
any closer to settling the subjective/objective arguement which will run and
run for as long as people without hard scientific training are buyers and
users of technology they can't understand. This is equally true of
computers, mobile 'phones, TV and satellite equipment, cars and so on:-
people make decisions on what to buy and defend those decisions on emotional
grounds, not considered technical grounds as they are not equipped for such
an understanding. Whatever our speciality in life, we are all consumers of
technology we don't understand to some extent, and have to rely on
advertising, peer pressure or whatever for our decision-making.

S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com