The High End and Glubglub


The High End has had many arguments in which certain types of equipment were and are considered inherently inferior for a variety of reasons: among these the single-ended tube amps which were dismissed by many, single-driver speakers, the ever-popular idler-wheel drives which I espouse, let's not forget tube amps which were practically universally dismissed in the late 60s and through the 70s, and so on. So what was going on in these varoious and ongoing debates? I sumbmit for your perusal the following gem I found in a discussion of logic: "What he (the skeptic) wants it is logically impossible to supply. But doesn't the logical impossibility of the skeptic's demand defeat his cause? If he raises a logically impossible demand, can we be expected to fulfill it? He says we have no evidence, but whatever we adduce he refuses to count as evidence. At least we know what we would count as evidence, and we show him what it is. But he only shakes his head and says it isn't evidence. But then surely he is using the word "evidence" in a very peculiar way (a meaningless way?), so that nothing whatever would count as a case of it...Might he not just as well say, "There is no glubglub?""
johnnantais

Showing 4 responses by rsbeck

Making a good argument, like virtue, is its own reward. If your goal is to *convert* someone to your way of thinking (or hearing) and you find yourself frustrated and angry when your subject fails to transform -- that's pretty good evidence that your goal has degraded your enterprise.
By all means, be opinionated and entertaining, be passionate, but in the end -- it's only music. A little perspective is in order. At the end of the day, each of us is entitled to like what we like, hear what we hear, to worship at the alter of whichever audio god we choose. After all, we are all bound by a common love -- of music.
I'm saying I have absolutely no problem with skeptics -- especially when it comes to high end audio. I wouldn't trust any "movement" which would seek to do away with skepticism. So, I am saying, if you find yourself frustrated when others won't suspend their disbelief and accept your argument or -- gads -- movement -- you're probably trying too hard. IMO, the goal shouldn't be to convert others to your "movement" -- I like to be spared from 99% of the TRUE BELIEVERS in the world --
you can usually count on me to move to the other end of the bar just as the foam starts to collect at the corners of the angry zealot's chops --
long before they start stretching my lapels -- the goal should be to trust your own ears, like what you like, vote with your pocketbook, express your opinion as passionately and entertainingly as possible and let the quality of your argument be your reward, rather than the number of converts one has made. That's my opinion.

I hope that's more clear.
The problem with any movement is that eventually it will seek to identify itself as the in group with god or logic on its side and to demonize all others. IMO, replacing one "movement" with another is not the answer.
IMO, the answer is to realize that every ear hears music differently. I get
tired of seeing these little movements and efforts to create "in groups."
Vinyl versus digital, tube versus solid state, measurement versus golden
ears, etc. There was a couple of weeks awhile ago where I saw repeated references to "those who listen to music" versus "those who listen to their systems." IMO, this is all very human, but also very silly. We are talking about the enjoyment of music. The message I get from the
measurement movement isn't that it was the wrong movement, it is that
there should always be a variety of approaches to this hobby and those
within it would do well to express all of their passion, while practicing tolerance. Just my opinion.
Anyone with a healthy dose of skepticism who ignores "experts," movements, peer pressure, prevailing "wisdom" -- who trusts his/her
own ears, likes what he/she likes, and votes with his/her own pocketbook will be okay in this hobby. And -- those are also generally
the types of individuals who develop new ideas.