Philosophy of GAS

[Swerd]

I saw this link on Audiocircles, a talk about the Philosophical aspects of the Great Audio Debate … are you a subjectivist or an objectivist? It's about 20 minutes long and it's V-E-R-Y B-O-R-I-N-G. I took one philosophy course in college, and therefore I'm an expert. (Hint: I sped it up to 1.5× speed, but it still took forever.)

The one thing I liked was the term GAS = Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

The next time AH has a Great Audio Debate topic, I'll have to remember this video. It will put everyone to sleep.

Watch the first half minute. Look at the speakers on the wall behind the speaker. That's the real reason I posted this .

 

[ryanosaur]

Cool, I'm not going to watch it... Thanks for the warning, Swerd!
But I do like a good acronym!

BTW, I thought copious amounts of alcohol were all it took to be a philosopher... At least that's what I learned on my way to minoring in it!

 

[ryanosaur]

I lied. Watched the whole thing.

Nice Boxes. Blonde Curly Maple.

 

[ryanosaur]

He showed AH in an early screen grab... I wonder if he participated here... what name he posted under?

 

[lovinthehd]

That room does look familiar....

 

[Swerd]

I lied. Watched the whole thing.

In a few sentences, what was his main point?

My take … neither side of the great debate between objective and subjective evaluations of the playback of recorded music are all right or all wrong. Both are partially right. He's saying you can't enjoy the benefits of transparent playback without also enjoying the music as an art form. I'm sorry, but that's rather bland.

I think transparent playback is a technological goal, regardless of the music being played. Enjoying music as an art form is a personal preference, regardless of the playback technology. One is apples and the other is oranges.

The speaker avoided taking either side. A philosophical cop-out. Very disappointing.

But he has good taste in speakers .

 

[ryanosaur]

In a few sentences, what was his main point?

It's complicated. But mostly, he lacked one.

The speaker avoided taking either side. A philosophical cop-out. Very disappointing.

Yup!

But he has good taste in speakers

Agreed!

Frankly he would have been better served doing 3-4 7-10 minute shorts with each focusing on one premise each. Taking a stand and making the case for one over the other would be nice. If Descartes can do it, so should he... even if he were wrong. (Now, am I talking Descartes or DH in that last "he?"