Bernd
08-15-2006, 10:44 PM
Interesting points raised...concerning reviews
"One of the oddest things I have noticed about the world of high end audio in the last few years is the failure by many audiophiles to understand that no component—no piece of scientific equipment made by human hands, no human—has direct access to what Robert E. Greene confidently calls "objective reality." Every manmade thing is an interpretation. Everybody interprets. The microscope interprets less than a novel, but the difference is in degree, not in kind. This is not a statement of disbelief in "objective reality." I believe in it as much as Robert Greene does. But neither Professor Greene nor I have direct access to it, any more than a religious believer has direct access to his god. Both are matters of faith. I find faith in objective reality to be the far more reasonable of the two, but I don't delude myself that this is anything more than an inference I draw from its apparent solidity, general predictability, and success in winning a broad consensus about its nature. Clearly something is there, which is not something I can say with confidence about the almighty(s).
What is this preamble about? It is a reminder, mainly; a form of caveat lector that I find is increasingly necessary. To wit: when you read in a review that Speaker A is more accurate, more transparent, more truthful, more correct, smile knowingly, understand that you are listening to rhetoric—a reviewer's interpretation of a designer's interpretation, and look elsewhere for less ambitious and more knowing counsel. To wit: Reynauds—even these marvelous little creatures I am about to describe—are not more (or less) truthful or accurate than Harbeths, Spendors, Quads, Merlins, Josephs, or Sonus Fabers. They will not provide you with superior (or inferior) access to the ding an sich than these other worthies. They offer an interpretation of the world of music that differs from that of the others. Their interpretation, their point of view, their choice of priorities, interests and has come to appeal to me, which is why I have spent the last few months exploring and writing about Reynauds. But when I rave about them, as I sometimes do, you must understand my raving as rhetoric: personal enthusiasm taking the form of persuasion. Speakers compete with each other rhetorically: they attempt to persuade you that their designer's point of view is "the best." Enthusiastic reviewers will often do the same. We are rhetoricians. Robert Greene is as much a rhetorician in his way as I am in mine. Even the Gospel is rhetoric, an interpretation which represents a point of view—many actually; and you'd be amazed at some of the interpretations the editors left out! Which is why Christians have their favorite versions of it: why some find the King James "truer" than the Revised Standard and others will only read it in Hebrew and Greek. And we won't go into ‘the rhetoric of science'! "
Bob Neill
Peace
Bernd:16:
"One of the oddest things I have noticed about the world of high end audio in the last few years is the failure by many audiophiles to understand that no component—no piece of scientific equipment made by human hands, no human—has direct access to what Robert E. Greene confidently calls "objective reality." Every manmade thing is an interpretation. Everybody interprets. The microscope interprets less than a novel, but the difference is in degree, not in kind. This is not a statement of disbelief in "objective reality." I believe in it as much as Robert Greene does. But neither Professor Greene nor I have direct access to it, any more than a religious believer has direct access to his god. Both are matters of faith. I find faith in objective reality to be the far more reasonable of the two, but I don't delude myself that this is anything more than an inference I draw from its apparent solidity, general predictability, and success in winning a broad consensus about its nature. Clearly something is there, which is not something I can say with confidence about the almighty(s).
What is this preamble about? It is a reminder, mainly; a form of caveat lector that I find is increasingly necessary. To wit: when you read in a review that Speaker A is more accurate, more transparent, more truthful, more correct, smile knowingly, understand that you are listening to rhetoric—a reviewer's interpretation of a designer's interpretation, and look elsewhere for less ambitious and more knowing counsel. To wit: Reynauds—even these marvelous little creatures I am about to describe—are not more (or less) truthful or accurate than Harbeths, Spendors, Quads, Merlins, Josephs, or Sonus Fabers. They will not provide you with superior (or inferior) access to the ding an sich than these other worthies. They offer an interpretation of the world of music that differs from that of the others. Their interpretation, their point of view, their choice of priorities, interests and has come to appeal to me, which is why I have spent the last few months exploring and writing about Reynauds. But when I rave about them, as I sometimes do, you must understand my raving as rhetoric: personal enthusiasm taking the form of persuasion. Speakers compete with each other rhetorically: they attempt to persuade you that their designer's point of view is "the best." Enthusiastic reviewers will often do the same. We are rhetoricians. Robert Greene is as much a rhetorician in his way as I am in mine. Even the Gospel is rhetoric, an interpretation which represents a point of view—many actually; and you'd be amazed at some of the interpretations the editors left out! Which is why Christians have their favorite versions of it: why some find the King James "truer" than the Revised Standard and others will only read it in Hebrew and Greek. And we won't go into ‘the rhetoric of science'! "
Bob Neill
Peace
Bernd:16: