Do you believe in Magic?

Almarg wrote,

"Geoff, thanks for the clarification. Wouldn't that better be referred to, though, as "reaction" of the subconscious mind to the matter around it, rather than as "interaction"? "Interaction" would seem to imply that in addition to the mind subconsciously reacting to its surroundings, the (inanimate) surroundings are somehow reacting to the mind."

Good point. Actually the interaction does work both ways. In fact, the Mind Lamp from Psyleron (an offshoot of PEAR) was developed expressly to demonstrate that the mind is capable of influencing its surroundings, even inanimate things - in the case of the lamp an extremely sensitive quantum mechanical Random Event Generator (REG). Also, what PEAR primarily focused on for 30 years was to what degree a human operator could influence the outcome of scientific experiments. I suppose you could also call this direction of the interaction mind over matter.

Well, a belief in magic in its truest sense will certainly come in handy I suspect with a device like that!

Magic may be the modern frontier of audio tweaks after all! When all else fails......

One school of thought uses gestalt in visual perception. We see the whole and later discern the parts. Can it be that gestalt is also used aurally? In fact, since the limits of hearing are absolute (limited to that tiny opening and yes, bones and cartilage) wouldn't gestalt be the only way they do work?

We hear everything we do only to debate, here, just what it was and why it was. We tell each other that we hear the same thing or that it's impossible to hear what we heard, with our own ears.

Each of our experiences take different paths to get there, there being our auditory pleasure. When we sit down to listen. our ears are the final arbiter and I, for one, trust them explicitly. I've been around long enough to recognize a difference, be it better or worse, than what I'm accustomed to.

I believe that I hear everything all at once and almost as quickly, appreciate, evaluate and decide if what I'm hearing is better or not. It doesn't come in piecemeal but we debate it as if it did since we tend to dissect and analyze in that manner. In other words, once I've heard it, there's no going back. Something happened that made it different and I can either fret away and try to improve it or appreciate it all the more.

The whole is different than the sum of its parts. I guess it comes down to just how many parts there are and that is where disagreement enters: just how many parts.

All the best,
Nonoise

NoNoise- No doubt. Musicians can get the gist of a recorded performance over a crappy boombox, because they are listening to the song or performance for artistic reasons, and not the fidelity of reproduction. (Not to say a musician or songwriter can't appreciate a good system, but for artistic purposes, i think they are listening to something different).
Likewise, there are folks who are willing to trade off bandwidth for tonality- i am thinking here of single driver systems or some of the positively ancient designs that come from theatres. (I can accept this trade-off myself, one of the reasons I lived with old Quads, and even traded off dynamics as well for so many years).
There was a little experiment a few of us did on another site, listening over a lo-fi computer set up to a few tracks with the EQ set to max on 1khz and setting everything else down as low as it could go. You could get the gist- the gestalt as you refer to it- even though it was not a 'good' sounding reproduction- things were missing, but the performance was still 'enough' there to be able to go with the music in a non-critical sense.
You are right that we analyze parts, rather than the whole, when trying to capture the fidelity at a higher level. The analytical part of the brain is like the 'specs' in the sense that it is looking for explanations for why something sounds the way it does. When I am in that mode, I am not listening to the music, but it is, I suppose, a necessary evil- there are times when the system is just 'right' sounding and you can relax and enjoy it without dissecting it. For me, it's not easy to switch between the analytical and the more 'relaxed' mode- if I am trying something new in the system, my brain is often in analytical mode. Sometimes (usually with help, it is harder to do by yourself, i think), you can make a change and listen to the difference and change back and listen again, and based on your 'gut' impressions, decide what sounds more natural or more akin to what you think a real musical performance sounds like. I think, sometimes, listening late at night is good, not just because the electrical system may be less 'noisy,' but because you are a little fatigued- your defenses are down- you (or maybe it's just me), are more inclined to just absorb, without thinking.
I think i have pretty 'quick' ears in hearing differences that way (but the analytical part of the brain is kicking again). It's deciding what's better or 'more right' that's often the hard part. And, to complicate things, what works for one piece of program material may not work so well on another. So, rather than changing preamps or cartridges or speakers on a recording by recording basis (perhaps, at least in the case of cartridges, this is practical if you have multiple tonearms already set up), you (or I) try to strike a balance- what works across the board, on as wide a variety of program material as possible.
None of the above is meant to provide an answer to the 'magic' part, just echoing what you said about the 'gestalt' and how my brain- or what's left of it- seems to work in listening to music over a hi-fi system.

Whart, that makes a lot of sense and explains why I liked my old Hornshoppe Horns knowing that the highs weren't as extended as they could be and the lows weren't as authoritative at they could be. My mind filled in the rest since the greater aspect of the mids gave me the 'gestalt' of the music.

Cool.

By the way, if anyone is interested, here's a snapshot view on just how fast our brain processes info:http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-122756.html

I think it furthers the notion that we take everything in only to process out the truth later. Our brains can react so much faster than we are trained to. That's the underlying process in speed reading. We tend to sub vocalize each and every word instead of just scanning it. That is why we tend to forget what we just read and get bored since our brains are screaming at us " faster, faster."

All the best,
Nonoise