Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

Detlof: fascinating, beautiful. Yes, the circle is closing (you felt that coming, uh?). I take back what I said: you are a teacher AND a healer. Who do you heal next? (its a mirror...)

6ch: you are being disingenuous, as detlof intuits. Let me explain why.

When we discuss the "what is" - the ground nature of "what is" - we are always limited in grasping it because language is dualistically-based (see the dualism reference above? How can I even say "ground" because that implies something not the ground and the Ground is all, nothing outside of "it" so where is the not-ground?). That's why I used Campbell's quote about twenty posts ago, namely, that "reality" always needs quotation marks around it because even the word does not encompass what it referring to; it only points (did you see the use of that quote above and a whole post on pointing?).

You said to me (in response to my using a pointing metaphor of a "mirror" to describe the relation of dark/light within, the self's belief in it thus creating it, and the dark/light it sees outside): "It is not a mirror".

As my response makes clear, I was talking about the light/dark, not its manifestation origination. You can always say that anything in language is not "it" and that would be correct, but the point is that we are talking in language. I could have just as easily said back to you "it" is not a not-mirror either. In other words, while you are trying to teach - and, yes, that is your presumption - you yourself are using words to tell people not to use words. When I say "beneath" you know that language binds me - the "it" has no location because it is ALL location, and, hence, the word "location" evaporates without its referential ground - so preying upon that - acting like you don't know what I am pointing to so you can be the teacher in your mind again - is disingenous. I could easily say to anything you say it is not-that, couldn't I?

If you answer, I hit you with bamboo across back. Go straight, don't know. Or, if you want to open your mouth and engage in dialogue accept that limitations of that dialogue - which, as I've told you, is also part of the "it" - and say your opinion WITH REASONS. Again, stop reading so much "zen".

On Jung: why did he not listen to music, or rather, why was he afraid of listening; afraid of the "purity"? Could it be that the same thing he recoiled from is what draws us (and then, draws us to talk together like this)? Music is "beauty" to many of us. Did Jung recoil from "beauty"? Did that action of his mind have anything to do with his "fascination" with "darkness"?

Let me propose an answer. Maybe not THE answer, but it may lead us somewhere.

As some of you know, I've taliked in these posts before about levels of listening, saying that when you first sit down you listen with your thinking mind that you bring from day-to-day life. This thinking mind controls reality - or so the mind assumes - through its objectifying (the basis of comparing in Time mentioned above, ie comparative rationality, hypothetico-deductive cognition). This results in "seeing" sound as an object and trying to control that sight by making sound sources into objects. Hence the reliance on "accuracy, detail" etc to bound sound into objects more. But as the listener falls deeper into the music - its meaning of "purity" - the thinking mind fades and "lets go" over control of the experience. Hence, the word "falling into the music" to describe the loss of control. But is it a loss, because isn't "beauty" gained in ever-more deepening ways? Could it be that it is only an assumption of loss from the perspective of the thinking mind that wishes to control? If the thinking mind's need to control emanates from the need to survive (fear of not-surviving - the "darkness"), the isn't falling into the music a "letting go" of that thinking mind that merely wishes to keep thinking?

With Jung, was he afraid to fall into the music because he "thought" that his loss of control would bring on the "darkness", act as its further catalyst? And, in seeing the "purity" of music - what it might do to his idea of himself, his thinking mind - wasn't he mistaking the "beauty" of music for a presumed "darkness", while that darkness was, all along, only his fear of falling into the music itself? Was the "darkness" created by his assumption that it existed?

As I drift into the music, letting my thinking mind fade ints its need to assert, the emotions are left; released of cognition, the emotions stand in relief (hence, emotionally-based language always used to describe this state). They become diffuse, fluid in that release, and wec experience music in yet another way, from another perceptive perspective.

Did Jung mistake the "beauty" of music for "darkness" in his fear of going their? Was the "darkness" only his fear of letting go itself?

Thanks Detlof, your mantra is my mantra. :-) When is it water is not waves? When is it waves is not water? Cheers!

Fascinating point you make Nrchy. I think the fear of the "red tide"..and the yellow one at that, was a real fear in the upper classes, in the haute bougeoisie and the nobility. Not so in the lower middleclass,the "Kleinbürger" where the "Bewegung" first fed on. I think the occult activity was more marginal in numbers,however highly influential, certainly in the upper classes, amongst certain intellectuals and with strong roots in the middleclass as well. As far as Jung was concerned I have no evidence and also do not suppose that he was DIRECTLY influenced by any of the groups you mention. You must not forget that he was Swiss and they have generally a deep mistrust as regards ideas of such ilk. But there is no doubt, that " osmotically", these ideas did influence his thinking. Some of the language and ideas he used, could be interpreted as pointing to a more direct influence, but I doubt that they took hold deeply, it somehow does not fit with the rest. He would in a bout of Freud"hate", more than direct Antisemitism speak of a Germanic spirit and a Germanic psychology, words which sound despicable to our ears, but were the normal language of his times in the German speaking world and must be understood in this context. The study of races was thought to be scientific, as you know, and he was interested in any religious or pseudoreligious phenomena. He saw clearly that the Nazimovement had strong religious traits, which however he did not share, his interests lay elsewhere. The Nazis courted him, because he was not Jewish and antifreudian and belonged to the "Germanic race". This is where he got involved on a societal level within the German group, trying to gain acceptance for his ideas and importance on the one hand, on the other trying to help his Jewish colleagues. He never was part of the party or moved up in it. On the contrary, his ambivalence was soon not well taken in Berlin and he was looked upon with mistrust. In a sense he was never a REAL Nazi, anyone who maintains that either does not know the facts or has other reasons for maintaining that. But he was not an Antifascist either. His break with Freud traumatised him in more ways than one and he fought on every level to get recognition for his way of depthpsychology. This is the point where he failed to see sufficiently clear and made a pact with the Nazi-devil, if you will. He condemmned Freud's psychology as Jewish and raised his as Germanic, and that was the language the Nazis spoke and for that they loved him and that is the point where he fell.
He did not influence the pagan groups you mention, simply because they did not read him and also I doubt very strongly that he was influenced by them directly. However it is not to be discounted, that academically, outside of his medicine, he was influenced by the same sources as they were. Interestingly enough, they had no basic influence on the main body of his psychology, but he certainly used a language, especially in his younger years, which had an unsavoury closeness to the sinister "Blut und Boden" romanticism of these groups. But basically and perhaps that saved him, he never left the deeply protestant (i.e. sceptical )Christian gound, he was raised in, not in a confessional sense, but in his sense of questioning, searching and in his way of trying to understand the importance of Christ as a religeous phenomenon per se and its importance for the "individuation of mankind".

How much of who Jung was do you attribute to the prevelence of occult activity taking place around him? As you know the Nazi party was more of a religious movement than a political movement. I have come to believe that the fear of Socialism and Communism was more of a pretext than a true reason for many of the events which took place between 1919 and 1945. The real reasons were much more sinister. Did the OTO, Thelema society, and numerous other similar pagan groups influence him, or he them? Who made who???
At that point in history one did not gain acceptance and move up in the political party without involvment in religious aspect of the party. What was the basis for Jungs acceptance?
Being of German descent I have studied this abberation in history, but admittedly have not studied "the man" Jung. Any opinions or fact based evidence???

You don't need a lifevest Asa the way you swim and I see your point Greg. I doubt that CGJ liked Goebbels though.
Again: He was fascinated by Nazism, which he saw as a collective psychosis, with Hitler as a head-shaman, possessed.
This fascinated him....and yes he was a Nazi, like most of his social class in Europe in the thirties, because he was scared of Soviet Russia and the Commies and a possible revolution, which he hoped the Nazis would prevent and disappear in the process. ( A very Churchillian idea )
....and yes, though he helped Jews and had Jewish friends and pupils, Erich Neumann, Jolande Jacobi and Aniela Jaffé being the most notable amongst them, he was an antisemite, again like most of his kind and social class.......and if you want to bash him some more, he had affairs with patients,the most important, a beautiful Russian Jewess, (sic) highly intelligent, whom he cured, helped her to study medicine and dropped like a hot brick, when the liaison became known and he had to fear for his professional stature. The woman, Sabina Spielrain, whom the Nazis murdered together with her children, when they invaded Kiev,
became a well known psychiatrist of her own right, with interesting publications on the question of a death-drive, which Freud later developed without reference to her groundbreaking work. She was close to Freud, the latter incidentally protecting and covering up for Jung in this affair. She cherished Jung, inspite of his callous behaviour..she knew more about loving than he ever did, but then he knew a lot about "love".
There was a "fascination with the dark" in all of his generation in Europe in those years. A terrible, destructive unrest underneath the surface,the roots of which were more than enconomic, which, as you know, errupted first in 1914 and again in 1939. If you wonder about the Europeans as they are today, it is perhaps a good point to remember, that the best of them on all sides were wiped out in those two terrible wars. Nobody thinks about that, because it is an eleticist view and politically not correct, but it seems to show. But that is another story. If you want to know, what Jung was really fascinated by, it pays to my mind to read up on a dream of his as he was three years old, which he recounts in his "Dreams, Memories and Reflections". It is a pointer towards what he had to face and contend with in his life. A later outcome and a waymark of his struggle is his "Answer to Job" . A wild and highly emotional bit of writing. His torment, which you can feel hehind his words, holds my deep respect and compassion to this very day. Yes, light and dark is as a mirror we gaze in and as we gaze we see some of our entanglement. We have to, in order to perhaps grasp - through suffering only - its illusive powers. Jung was a great man, hence his struggle was so obvious as was his failure. He failed of course, like all of us, and Maya's web is closest, when we think it is gone for ever.........
Help me understand one thing though, why couldn't he take music, why did it shake him up so ? He clumsily called it "emotion pure", but then that is not music per se, that is us, what it can do to us. Obviously his thoughts, his words, his theories must have been a barrier against what is "beyond the mirror" ,which he could see through, sometimes step through, but had to guard against, lest it would destroy him. He once proudly said, that what had destroyed Nietzsche and Hoelderlin and many others, had also engulfed him, but did not break him.......but what do I know...
This all may be off topic, but I have the feeling, when we discuss this man, we use him as a substrate (not substitute) for our own lives, which is so closely linked with music and I am wondering what the role of music is in our lives in our attempt to see through mirrors...I dimly sense here a circle closing, yet alas "everyone is clear, only my mind is not".
6chac beautiful, how much of that are you able to live? (-:

Light is Dark,
Dark is Light,
If there is no Light, there is no Dark.
If there is no Dark, there is no Light.
They are not two, not one, not others, not different.

"beneath it is not"
Beneath is not.

Beneath is not.

The light/dark is a mirror; that beneath it is not.

No, It is not a mirror...

Gregm, nice stuff.

But, light/dark is still a dualistic perspective. If you see dark as separate from light - assume that that is the last truth - then that will be the truth for you (reality, again, is very accomodating that way...). Beyond ying/yang, light/dark, order/dis-order is Light; Shiva the creator/destroyer arises from the ground of what is. Don't get lost in manifestation (says Lao Tzu way, way before me). If you believe Light is separated into light/dark in its most fundamental nature, then you will invariably move towards the dark, because, that perspective's recoil from the Light is ITSELF the dark.

I liked your point that Jung might have been pulled towards a tacit collaboration with totalitarianism out of his "fascination" with the dark. I would suggest that this was his karmic path given his assumption of dark/light as the primary focus and assumptive perception. Then, given his trans-cognitive peak sight, then coupled with the alleged attachment to darkness (power of perception coupled with narcissism - remember the attachment to darkeness outside is reflective of attachment to darkness inside) AND the rise of the zenith of totalitarian nation-states as the collective swirling about him, is such a pulling attraction not understandable? He got pulled back towards the Matrix in his fascination for it. But it was a mirror...

What do you think, detlof? i'm way out there now, aren't I?!! Help, throw me a lifevest!!

It is with extreme sorrow that I take upon myself the heavy burden of imparting the irreversibly sad news that Dr Jung is no longer with us...
It has been rumoured that he was a great admirer of Dr Goebbels aka the Ogilvy of pre-war advertising (or is it the other way round?).

As Detlof & another (old) teacher of mine both noted, Asa's two facets (dark & light) coexist usually as sides of the same coin.
The old teacher maintained that this situation is a dynamic paradox and will ineluctibly lead to one of the two taking precedence over the other. In his opinion, the devil is frustration, i.e., the force of destruction/negation. The "angel" is the mark of sublimation, the force of creation.
It seems Jung was fascinated by the Nazi (or maybe Mr Goebbels') ability to manipulate and focus collective negative energy. Deus ex machina, and then some.

So many things "seem". I suspect that Detlof *knows* a thing or two -- from experience & otherwise..

p.s. Pls don't mistake my comment as a judgement on other posters. My knowledge on this & many other subjects, ex post & ante, is insufficient to judge the posters above -- but it is enough to acknowledge my ignorance!

Oh darn, detlof, and here I thought I was getting stoked for a good book burning! Went out back to the garage to get my rake and everything (mutter, mutter...)

Nrchy, I hear ya, though; that's why I questioned the "stability" of Jung's insights as a permanent structure. I think you have to understand, though, that like Jesse Helms, who likes to bandy about the Nazi word when convenient, fascism is used in many academic circles in reverse order: you accuse another of being a "Hitler", or a follower, or even an adherent of Nietsche, and suddenly the argument becomes that nothing you say has merit. Academics are, and rightfully so, sensitive to such associations that lead to censorship of ideas. I don't think you were doing that necessarily - I'm just havin' fun - but one has see how this can be misinterpreted (oh, I think detlof was just having fun too)

Besides, and trust me, detlof knows more about Nazism that you or I will ever know.

Thanks, Detlof. :-)

Rather not kill him ASA, we need him, since the righteous, the politically correct and the Philistines are generally in the majority. He certainly was none of that.

Kill Jung!! Kill Jung!!

Or, maybe not...

Nrchy yes, he was a political fool, realised too late what was going on in the "Reich", but was fascinated not by the man Hitler, but by the phenomenon Hitler and the sort of mass psychosis which was going on in Germany at the time, it seemed to fit his theories. He had an opportunstic streak, which let him play along with his Nazi collegues, at the same time he sincerely tried with some success to help his Jewish collegues as long as he could. It is a complex story, with lots of dark and some more positive sides to it and he acknowleged that he had failed in his later years. I feel as far as that.. and only that... is concerned,one has to differentiate between Jung the man and his findings. If I can use these, to understand and help people better, solid philophical base or not, I will use them gladly. But it is a different story of course, if I concern myself with Jung the man. A man may be a villain of whatever shade, but his ideas may change a small part world for better. It is not as easy as you suggest.

It strikes me as somewhat interesting that Jung has so many fans here, inasmuch as he was a Nazi sympathizer and sometimes fan. So much for a solid philosophical base!

detlof: yea, I know, part of me wants to say, yea, he did, then another part says, nah. Stable is usually pretty obvious, although I would suppose that Victorian remnants/attachments were a real bug to get past back then - big conformist pull of the exterior assumptions upon the individual mind. As I said though, there are transitionary zones, so to speak, so 'ol carl may have spent more time there than not. His "visions" of archetypes in the collective subconscious and especially synchronicity (archetypes can be constructed cognitively easier with less direct experience, but synchronocity is not deja vu, and requires, in order to percieve it as he did, more direct immersive experience) are both symptoms of the next level of consciousness emerging in him. Where such perceptions become stable, continuous and co-existent and integrated with "normal" cogntive-based perception is not a bounded line at that stage (at certain higher stages, symptoms can enable greater discernment of stage stability).

Order/Chaos: where does one begin and the other end? When water swirls in "chaotic" turbulence, where is it order-ly? Humans impose a cognitive construction that is binary and dualistic upon "Reality" (and, being the accommodating, maternal reality it is, it is suseptible to such imposition...). Dualism breaks reality into points of reference in which to compare over time, or comparison of data-events over the stream of change ("time" also being a construction), but that does not mean that at deeper symmetries of perception, that at once integrate those above, that the cognitive differentiation between order/chaos is not seen for what it is: a wonderful tool of the mind, a great gift, but still a tool. If 'ol Anna F. wants to break up reality into chaos face (evil) and order-face (bliss) thats ok, but it doesn't exclude its integration. And yes, recoil from the instinctual in one's own mind - seeing it as the beast - is merely a manegestation of one's fear from seeing oneself. Which, of course, keeps all of you Jungians in business! [that, and, of course, the yawning nihlism of the simultaneous recoil of the human mind from everything not it-self; recoil from instincts inside - seeing it in Judeo-Christian terms as the beast/sin and earth as sin-place - and recoil from all outside the ego - categorizing non-human minds as things/products (science and capitalism, respectively). Its ONE BIG recoil, inside/outside at once, not separate. You see, capitalism, scientific materialism and Judeo-Christian doctrine aren't all that much in disagreement afterall. Hmmm, I wonder what that means in evolutionary terms...?]

Subaru, oh thank you for keeping me company! Yes, becoming downwardly mobile is always a worry...

Sub, interesting, do they employ Jungians without a green card?
ASA he lived in it, I think and creatively, which is hardly comfortable and yes, he "co-existed", I think, in the way you so astutely describe. ...in a stable sense transcending..difficult to answer, I doubt it, have to think more about it, perhaps too much a child of the 19th century....archetype for wielding rulers and bashing heads with it ? No... but Anna Freud has it amongst her "defensive mechanisms" against the oh so chaotic and evil unconscous (-;

I know a pretzel factory in Pennsylvania that's looking for help.

I know, Unsound. I was just joshin' ya. But its still there, you're still here! Run for your lives, its the thread that ate Detroit!! My condolences...

Hey, SO, cable IS a component, even with Muralman's Apogees, even though he's not sure, and yes, scientific measurements are important, but to believe they are primary to the experiement of listening is itself heresy to the Cartesian God, and saying that Dominus is mis-spent money when you yourself spend $7K on a system and there are still (the last time I checked) Bangledeshis is somewhat hipocritical and revealingly self-serving, and, hopefully, enough scientific-attached guys with puny ________ have seen this and will think twice about beating people over the heads with their rulers (is there an archetype for that, detlof?) - until, of course, they get re-juiced by WWF (or is it WWE now?) and their, er, other needs (the puny part) - so, you know, it was a good thing, no?

Oui.

Asa, I'm disappointed. I thought if any one could see whats around my neck, it would be you. Hint, it's the thread.

Yes, paradox. Did he see it, merely touch it and tell others, or live within it, comfortably, stably? At the end of the power of the thinking mind is paradox of mind; as paradox is lived within, reality reveals, in the case of Jung most famously, infinite succesive temporalities (temporality being a foundation of hypothetico-deductive cognition; cognition operates upon reality through a comparative temporal construction). Linearity releases its grip and temporality becomes flux, revealing deeper symmetries of change. Jung's "synchronicity" (read paradox: coincidence not coincidence) is a perception that is temporally-based as much as "normal" thinking. In other words, temporal perception has not faded into paradox - it only looks that way to the temporal-linear mind - but has evolved: it sees "synchronous-ly" and the same way it always did at the same time. One level transcends the last, meaning that it moves beyond AND at once includes. I was wondering whether Jung co-existed in this way or merely had peak experiences of that level of perception that he then told people about, erecting an analytic structure to (partially?) describe it and (his innovative extention) apply it therapeutically. Was his perception trans-temporal, so to speak, moment to moment, or now and then with reportage thereafter?

On bliss/not-bliss paradox and transcending of its oscillation (not just seeing it from afar and reporting it to others), given your description of Jung's recoil and ego distortion vis-a-vis others, I would find it - and I say this with utmost respect - highly doubtful that he had transcended that oscillation in a stable sense (that matrix being much, much deeper than even the archetypes, much less transitory destabilzation of linearity producing "paradox"....detlof, see my personal message on that already sent).

What does this have to do with audio? (jeez, tee'd up on a teeball stand and everything).

I can hear the knives sharpening, the bushes rustling...Oh come on guys, its wide open, take a shot!! Muralman, Subaru et al what am I possibly going to do without you, my foils? (Script reads: high pitched moan, flying monkeys looking on [how about that for an image, detlof!]): I'm melting...I'm melting...oh, my world...

You only have to click your heels three times. You always could go home (ignore the thinking machinating man behind the curtain...). Stop thinking about equipment, that mine is a "component" and yours is not, that experience is secondary to my experiment upon it, etc. and click your heels... chop wood, carry water.

6ch what do you think?

Asa, I am with you as regards psychology and those "treating" in the name of it, not so in the case of Jung. It is not a question of coexistence, that is far too comfortable, it is a paradoxon, which has to be born and lived through until it becomes unimportant. Come one, you know that......

Where is Muralman?!! I must be loosing my touch...

Unsound, yes, incidious, it must be stopped, stone the witch(es). Yea, BTW, isn't that a cable hanging loosley around your neck, you know, lookin' kinda like a noose? :)

Gregm: interesting point, thank you. I knew it was too much to mix the material relationship of Jungian (or is it Neo-Jungian?) archetypes together with the idea of bliss/not-bliss, and their sequence, if any. Ok, let me think... Each "coexist" you say, like in an integral, dynamic relationship where ones existence necessarily implies the other? I think that occurs as the dynamic in oscillation between the two (as prey recoil from the fear of loss, and as predator grasping towards the potentiality of bliss, or absense of loss). So, at the deepest level of consciousness, is a binary oscillation bewteen seeking bliss and avoiding its absense. But isn't that always about bliss? Isn't a predator created (in human consciousness) by the fear of becoming prey in the first instance? So, which is first, or are they both merely reflections of each other, each manifesting different to the eye based on their relationship to fear? Tao Te Ching says that this is the spinning wheel (hope and fear are still rungs on a ladder;the amoeba's binary instinctual program of light/dark, prey/predator, eat/be eaten, etc.) and that you can, by seeing this oscillation within yourself and, thus, seeing below it, step off the wheel, or step beyond it, realizing that it was powered by your own beleif in it. So, if that is true, then the oscillation spins as you describe, but its existence does not exclude the possibility of transcending it. What is your true face? Hope I understood you and not too confusing here.

Psychanimal: yes, it can become a spinning wheel if you get focused on the things of audio too much, switching too much. But what I found interesting is that you think your wires now have a greater performance envelope than the electronics. A materialist who thinks only amps are components might say, how can you tell that; if the components aren't translating? How can you tell its the wire? Of course, under the same reasoning, then how could we ever tell if one piece of electronics is superior to another? BTW, I like Tice wire, good value, good harmonics, should respond well to the cryo in its weak spots.

Detlof: what is Jung's true face, even if he doesn't see it? Love and fear at once; how Old Testament of him. It looks as if Carl J. couldn't escape his demons, so he just said they must "co-exist". First Rule: don't limit the Tao/God/Jehovah with two faces - that's a binary thing. When you listen to beautiful music what face do you have, predator-face or prey-face, or no-face? What is your true face-not-a-face? But you know this, don't you (the answer you have, before you started to answer to yourself)?

Detlof: yes, consciousness states are corrolated with material parts of the brain, although they are not bound by it. I was just wondering, since I pretty much stopped reading all the technical stuff a few years ago, if there was anything new. Not really important, though, just curious. You have better things to do than listen to me yap, I know. But thanks anyway. "Greater truth"? Why do psychologists always want to be scientists, or have a knee-jerk reaction to wanting to seem "scientific"? I think before one practices psychology one should know what it is. If you want to conduct experiments on things, go be a scientist (unless, of course, you can get to categorizing a rat as a thing...). Since the practice of psychology - therapy - is only as good as the therapist, it always has struck me as disconcerting that the one "treating" is more interested in the efficacy of his/her method than seeing through his/her own ego to see the fallacy of that attachment. Hmmm. Detlof, I am confident your are a very good therapist (read: healer).

O.K. after over 200 posts I'm convinced I'm a pervert. I keep returning like someone who goes to auto races to see the crashes. I'm just waiting to see if the first person to hang themselves does so from the lenght of this thread or from an appropriate length of the latest fab cable.

LOL, Asa, no he won't. He'll follow this thread in silent wonder only to break from the bushes at the right moment.
To your question briefly, lest Arnie and the others chide us, that what the Catholics tell us in their idea of the privatio boni, is that the horned one is, as you say, only an epiphenomenon of ultimate goodness. Not so, says the old man from Zurich, the devil is the other face of GOD. Therefore you have to love and to fear him at the same time. He had all the theologists of his time aflame of course. Not so, that the behaviorists hijacked Jung. They don't bother to read him. But the Jungians proudly point out, that some of their master's ideas seem to be corroborated by "modern science", as if that was the greater truth. LOL again.......
Greg, read you post only now, your marketing plan is truly mephistophelian, i.e. blissfully good and no, you need neither Kant nor Feuerbach, just read the book of Job. But your point is excellent. Cheers,

Hey Psychic, why don't we hammer out the B-plan just in case there are takers... this is a crazy world, you know!

Greg, we just subcontract an extruder--and if it's in Mexico we'll discuss business at the 'restaurant' where my girlfriends work and we'll charge on the Visa (actually the charge says "Restaurant Bar Alvarado"--my kind of place). Get the point?

On a serious note, if the Purist was that essential for recording someone like Mapleshade or Chesky would be using it--then a more sensible marketing structure would follow...and someone true to the music would become an evangelist about the product--just like Kevin Barret is a 1200 evangelist.

The more I play with my newly arranged system the more I reallize how futile it is to keep upgrading. Truth is my system's limit is the recording I am playing. No amount of money will be able to compensate for that--especially with the music that I listen to. This I emailed to Sedond a few minutes ago:

"In my system, I've realized the new homebrew speaker wire is not limiting--it's the source components. I need to get a modded ART Di/O and properly damp my CDP's transport. My 1200 needs better cabling (cryo'ed)and proper burn-in. I need to get rid of that Sumiko headshell and just use the silver wires in the Technics headshell, which is *much* lighter. Then get the upgraded Power Supply for my Monolithic and have Dan Wright put a top of the line Burr Brown op amp and some high speed Shotsky rectifiers. That's what will really kick my system in--not a $700-800 interconnect. The Tice ICs will get LN2 cryo & TPT retreatment, though...best bang for the $$$."

My mind is very clear.

Asa, shouldn't they should coexist, the one taking precedence over the other through the fear of loss (Kant?) -- or the expectation of bliss (Feuerbach?)?
(Have I masked my ignorance of Jung well enough? I wish I were as assiduous as Detlof when the time was ripe...)

On topic: Psychic, you're not going to invest in an extruder now, are you? FORGET capital intensive projects nowadays... Just come up with the cable & price it @ $+10k. It'll be A'gon approved (that's our contribution) and there MUST be at least ONE taker -- surely. Word of mouth & you'll soon have a small but devoted following, ready to swear in your favour. THEN, we'll work out the Mk II model together; previous owners get a special "upgrade" number & price; new buyers are only admitted to the "wire purchasing club" (i.e. to spend their $11.767 - price has gone up) after being recommended by TWO other MkI owners. We'll issue a personalised card that allows access to the most esoteric information on music. Three tips per annum is max.
The objective is to build a small, select, ultra-elitist global community.
Of course, ALL our products are and will continue to be built by hand (who needs to spend a mill. on extruders & the like). We'll enlist the names of various members here on the management/product development team for marketing credibility reasons: a shrink (psycho-acoustics, VERY important): +5% on the asking price), an EE (obvious), philosophers (more than obvious; +5% on the price). Maybe, even a lazy middle-European (me, please).
Who can beat this cable?

On a more serious note, I wonder what would happen if Dominus were priced @ mass-market level: would the manufacturer be better off? I doubt it: imagine the investment required to cover the demand. I doubt they'd ever break-even, poor devils!

I know what Carl J. would say about "Muralman and me" (soon to be a major motion picture directed by Michael Moore): heys youz, lighten up on the mining of the bad guy archetype! Hey, detlof, a question: is the devil archetype embedded in the "sub-conscious" before the angel one, or after? In other words, does the devil only exist as a recoil from the loss of angelic bliss, or anticipation of loss, or were they imprinted at that evolutionary epoch, deep within the brain, deep within the consciousness, at the same time? And, what is the relationship between brain physiology - say, the triune brain theory - and the matter originations of archetypal awareness/effects of its prism? Have the matter-attached behaviorists tried to highjack Jung with a matter-focused brain matter theory? You see, I am thinking of jung.

Oh my GOD!!! Clueless, stop me!!

O heck, ASA and I thought I would bootleg the tape and show it to my students in CGJ studies. )-:

Hey, hand 'em over!! No really, isn't it somewhat entertaining while we wait to see if this thread will resusitate? I don't think Muralman's ego-skin is pierced too much by me, that's someone/something else's job, not mine. Its just when someone goes back months to mine through threads to find a place where you said you were hungover, so sorry (after the other person had apologized first for their fall off the deep end, which, in all, wasn't really bad), you only had three drinks but because you had lung cancer at 28, yourea lung-less wonder and your body doesn't metabolize alcohol too well and it made you sick the next day, so someone takes that and tries to say, or insinuate, that you are a drunk, or were drunk when you posted. And, of course, all after the above.

Now, who owes who an apology? Did Muralman really loose his last post in the mail - the dog ate it, as it were - or did he just need the time to dig through a ton of my old posts looking for a place where he could call me a drunk, and by the time he got back the thread had moved on?

Hmmm. That irritates me, yes.

Oh, by the way, I want international rights on that videotape.

Asa & Muralman: I should give you guys boxing gloves, videotape the fight and then sell the copies here on Dutch auctions! I bet we would sell two hundred copies in a week...

Muralman, don't say nasty personalized things to people that you are afraid to be heard. If you talk with different degrees of nicety depending upon your audience vs. anonymity, well, we're back to that self-reflection thing again. I told you, given my accepting of your "Peace" gesture, that your continued nastiness in private was "tactless" and told you, on that basis, that I wouldn't talk to you privately any longer. Yes, I can see why you wouldn't want to talk about it. Now, insinuating drunkeness, that's petty - and I would say, once more a symptom of what I've been saying about your credibility and inability to put your views forward authentically, shifting contexts when it suits or when you don't want to respond in a forthright manner. My, what a memory.

On your system, once again you are putting words in my mouth, even though I've told you before differently and you know so. Specifically, I have told you before that I respect the Pass stuff, and your own amp too. I've also said that I liked your Jolida, especially with the NOS tubes - a nice 'lil piece (and a very good buy at $900 and a good choice IN THAT CONTEXT). But again, my citing of your system and its limitations - which you still have not conceded or sufficiently addressed beyond a quote from your neighbor, and now saying that any speaker not ribbon-based is inherently inferior and implying that all tube gear by its nature can not get you close to the source - is the point, and especially given the context of your absolutist statements concerning wire like the Dominus (even though now you seem, in between statements of converting others, to be backing away from).

This was never a thread seeking to warn "budding" audiophiles away from the evils of over-priced wire, nor did it ever exclude consideration of wire such as the Dominus; in fact, discussing Dominus and Dominus-like wire was its main thrust. It was an in-depth discussion of many issues, many of which you engaged in. To now claim, after your assumptions and empiric methodologies have been questioned, that it was always something else is, again, a manifestation of your inauthenticity.

Yes, I can loose my patience, but most always with people who act like you do, publicly or privately. Its a disappointment given your intellect and intelligence.

Now, shoo shoo, fly away.

So, Nrchy you want to start the Groucho Wire Co. w/ me? We can start selling stock....we'll even give the Audiogon staff stock options. Extruded super duper cabling for the recording industry & audio enthusiast. Profit = (margin x volume), right?

Let's find an extruder in Mexico--I've got the connections (companies like Extrumex) and the CD ROMs. Did I forget to mention my girlfriends in Monterrey? They dance for a living! I'm sure you will find them appealling-- I am a man of good taste...

Sounds like a good project--send me a few Dominus for evaluation!

Hardly Asa, they are not hearing things. I've edged closer to what I consider to be a live rendering of instruments and voices in real space by the judicious use of cables. There is no doubt about that and I am not finished with this process.

Psych:

Yes, just based upon construction costs, but a capitalistic system is based upon supply and demand dynamics; the system should be based upon cost IMHO, and competition forces should drive prices down, but with "unique" products cost of construction is negated, ie a painting. This is where the mega-buck cable manufacturers fall in performative terms, or so they would contend. The question then becomes: is the performance worth it to you, in the context of such an economic system? Again it is relative. Reject the premise of the system, the capitalistic God, or reject the idea that mega-buck wire is unique. Saying it is not unique may be an argument, ie mega-buck cable is not sufficiently different in performance terms than cheaper stuff, but unless you make that argument, you can not point to construction expense as the determinitive factor in determining marginal utility, or value of use (read: performance). A factor to look at, but one that becomes incresingly irrelevant as demand increases and you have uniqueness of product. The mega-buck cables prices suffered from both, as did all components. Specifically, in the 90's the Japanese SE market propelled prices exponentially higher, and particularly in wire like Purist and NBS that excell at stae of the art tube systems; the Nordost Valhallas/SPM's which are consumed by bothe SS and tube afficionados came later. We are still suffering from this escalation. And although I may consider its escalation artificially high based upon irrationally high demand, capitalism doesn't care about irrational demand or not; it absorbs infinite greed, buying or selling.

So, again, you are left with the idea that people are stupid to pay so much. But then again, our economy is premised upon the climb towards such objects, the incentive to become "somebody" through acquisition. If you want to argue that some buy mega-buck cable simply to say they are owners, adding to their idea of themselves, that's a valid argument because surely it occurs. But again, is it determinitive of value in terms of performance?

Yes, agreed, extrusion of metal is not as complex form of construction as an amp, either in terms of matter arrangement or labor or means of production. But if that technology performs better, regardless of those factors, and IF it cost you nothing, which one would you pick?

You see, its the COST OF PURCHASE that bothers people, the $7K, not the construction cost. But if you were to make that argument, then you would have to argue that the cost of other "components" in a stereo is also not justified based upon construction complexity, ie. a tractor would have more absolute "value" than an amp because its more complex. You know why that doesn't sound right, like comparing apples and oranges? Because value is not to be considered in a vacuum but considered in terms of a tool's USE. "Use" describes, in stereo terms, its performance - so there you are back to that.

Then, you are left making the argument that construction costs do not justify that level of performance, the DISPARITY thing again. But again, that's relative based upon income and you desire (your demand).

Is a Van Gogh worth $54 mil? Should wire be considered tha "unique", or since the NBS's of the world have been caught up with by the Virtual Dynamics of the world, is the disparity not justified.

I would say incresingly less so, and thankfully so. But yet, the Dominus does "do" something in state-of the-art systems that people who have them say is critical - the space and harmonics thing. Is that true, or are the Porter's and HP's of the world merely hearing things?

Psychicanimal, if there is little or nothing to the construction of these $7000 cables can you make a few pairs for me? I will pay you $1000 per pair for every one that sounds as good as the cable I currently have, which by the way is not as good as the Dominus. You should be able to get rich on this deal.
Why are people willing to justify the cost of expensive electronics but not cables? Electronics degrade the source signal more than cables can!
There seems to be a degree of inconsistancy here.

Sorry about the delay. my computer ate my monologue. It was a lot more fun and spontaneous than this will be.

Asa, I knew it was a bad idea when I opened a private dialogue with you. I Had been warned that you might use underhanded antics of injecting excerpts from private mail exchange where it suited you .

Such a breech of conduct puts a pallor on my writing. You know you can be abrasive. You have even, on occasion, excused yourself in subsequent posts, invoking excuses like drunkenness and colds.

re: my last post. You continue to inject your disingenuous spin on my sober account of my audio system comparison. Nrchy’s questions that I quoted speak for themselves, Nrchy’s late seemingly coerced “clarification” not with standing. His questions have legs of their own and it was to those questions I addressed. It should be obvious there is no need for the name Dominus to be interjected into my example. My point was, and still is, there are many thousands of budding audio enthusiasts who have been slid down hyped wire. Yes, I am proud to have influenced my neighbor. He was throwing money down a rat hole “improving” his wires. Now he is attending the basics of good home audio, like replacing his Spendors (how's yours, Asa....If you need advice...).

My neighbor’s quote, once again:

“The mid and high frequencies from your system are fantastic!, that rig
really brings out the expressive qualities of the musician. Hope to hear
more stuff there soon.”

re: My lowfy system: I used an abbreviated equipment list because it was simply not germane to my conclusion. Yes I do have a pre amp, the Pass Labs Aleph P. My main players are all first rate, thankyou. Three of the four were graded SP A, though that’s not why I chose them. The Jolida 100 with NOS tubes is little known, but who cares? At $900 It is the best buy out there for great sound. The Aleph P is wonderfully engineered by Nelson Pass who’s wizardry is obvious on his current X and XA amps. I have the Pass X-150. I use balanced play because that is when the super symmetry circuit kicks in. All audible “white noise” is canceled without the use of feedback. Sheer genius. Even the faintest anomalies present with various tubes in the front end are faithfully passed on to the listener without a hint of veiling ss nasties. Next there is the room. One needs a great room when using large dipoles. Mine is a large rectangular stiff plaster and panel room. Its ten foot ceilings are cross beamed. Now you need a great speaker that can articulate those faintest of signals.That is what the Apogee Duetta Signature is for.The big Apogees first impress you with a wall of sound, then lets your hair down wiith it’s holographic staging and imaging. All the uncanny tactilenss of musicians in their venue environments is captured. Asa, you could do a lot better with your speaker choices. I don’t see how you are enjoying underlying nuances if your speaker is not as fast or uncolored as a ribbon. Then again, your insistance on utilizing microphonioc impared tube gear for the sake of ”air” precludes you from any source nuances anyway.

Anyway, have fun zoning out on the color pink. It occurs to me you are not mollified by your noise floor focus system. You wouldn’t be so irritable. Oh well, this is not a forum made for personal jousting. I’ve made my piece perfectly clear to the willing listener, and will not be returning to this particular thread. Til another discussion....

Wow Asa, as I was about to click the submit button I read your last post. Right on good man! I take back all the bad stuff I said....After I post.

An extruder is a very sophisticaded machine--a good one will cost about one million dollars. My last job was in idustrial inkjet sales, mainly to the extrusion industry (yes, the coding that repeats itself on and on and on...).

Quite the contrary, because a good extrusion machine is capable of putting out a well made, sophisticated product in one run that's why good cabling shouldn't have such high prices. Look at companies that have their own extruders and what they can produce for the money (Belden & Monster among them). Extrapolate this to state of the art product and one can see that there's no reason (in a capitalist system) for the prices to be unrealistic.

Psych, well now, that is a different consideration, one of pragmaticism and relativity. If a wire is "extruded" - and I take you to mean that because it is less complex in its manufacture then it should be priced less - then what of the situation where someone builds an amp using old design theory that doesn't sound very good vs. someone who designs a wire with new technological know-say, say, electromagntism, that sounds great?

Here's what I think the real problem is, and one I sympathize with: many people believe that the "technology" or design creativity behind wire, regardless of its complexity in structure or lack thereof, does not justify the price vis-a-vis other more complexly constructed "components." And, that wire being so expensive - while admittedly being important in a system, and perhaps even increasingly important in systems as they advance - nonetheless, the DISPARITY in value of construction vs. maginal utility of performance is so imbalanced as to be suspect. Moreover, since wire makers seem to rely on scientific theories ("Golden-stranded") that appear less to do with science and more to do with marketing over-priced wire, this suspicion becomes heightened. In this heightened state, therefore, we should be on guard towards over-priced wire that claims that it will transform your world.

Sounds like a valid argument to me, pragmatically speaking. Yea, if a guy is taking advantage of a good product by hiking the price, then we should perhaps look elsewhere. The problem with that argument is that this is not the country that you live in; capitalism is premised upon the assumption of infinite greed, with the further assumption that lessened demand will result in corrections to over-priced product. Its not robbery to take money from people who pay, which why some people here did not take that tack, instead choosing a "scientific" or "empiric" approach. So, if its not the seller's fault - given the theory of our economy - then it must be the buyer, which is what the real motivation for what alot of people are saying but not saying: not that wire isn't a "component", not that "complexity" is determitive, not that the capitalist system is flawed (which, er, could be your next argument, another kettle of fish), but that people who buy such wire, regardless of its subjective performance even if true, are STUPID for spending that much.

But again, its relative: would the Bangladeshi think that your stereo purchase is STUPID in his/her context? You see what I mean?

I don't spend that amount on wire because I don't believe in a system premised upon infinite greed and don't respect the wire maker who takes advantage of the flaw of that assumption - I simply don't want him to get the rewards of an allegiance to the assumption of infinite greed. I don't think its a good way to set up a system - encouraging everyone to prey upon each other mentally because you won't take the courage to think of something better - so I CHOOSE not to buy it; my philosophy and orientation determines that choice, not an inauthentic "scientific" argument. That doesn't mean, however, that its not great wire in performative terms.

Oh come on Muralaman. I come in this morning and nothing. You say you want "Peace" - which was nice - said you'd thank me if I listed my system publicly and then contacted you - which I did, and nicely, notwithstanding that I'd invited you to contact me three times and you hadn't, and had said I was a "bully" etc. - then you replied, privately, by saying that I was "authoritarian" (read: dictatorial) in my posts, "insulting" and "thin-skinned", and no "thank you" to be seen. So, I take you to task for making absolutist statements in your last post - once more revealed in your position that, somehow, your friend has been converted by your faulty, one-off experiment on a flawed system against your pre-less, mid-level CD system - and not even a burp. Actually, psych was right; it was bread on the water, bamboo across the back, 6ch's koan-like utterances, a bear trap for your ego, so I applaud your restraint. With that said, my points in content remain outstanding.

Thank you detlof. I will call this morning first thing.

Nrchy: I didn't mean to say that you didn't or couldn't hear the difference - I think you DID. But, many people don't and I didn't think it was such a good idea to just say to Muralman that he should just get a piece of Dominus and he'd find out. Nor did I think it would be fair because I know that Muralman wouldn't do that and the expense and hassle would be prohibitive for him given that he probably wouldn't be interested in purchasing it. Yes, a piece of Dominus can be heard on many systems of all different levels, and it can even "do" more in more advanced systems. Again, whether it is worth $7K is a matter of financial relativity. I couldn't afford it, but that doesn't mean that it might not be a valid choice under certain circumstances.

Which leads me to this. Yes, I hear you, Gregm. A way to look at it is symmetry breaking. If you are flying above the earth at a lower altitude, the coastline looks like a jagged line. But higher, it looks more like a staight line. The higher knows the lower, but the lower, if it claims that you can't ever go higher, claims the coastline is only jagged (knowledge is state-specific). Interestingly, if you say to the low flyer that he can remember being lower and the coastline was different then too, so why can't he believe that it might be different higher than he goes, he continues to illogically say, no, there is no higher; thus, by his attachment to his level of sight he limits his own possibilities; the "donkey" sees two equidistant stacks because of the assumptions he brings to them. All the flyers are equal in their potential to fly - they all are in the same type of planes - and it is only your limitation upon yourself that limits how high you can go. "The Kingdom of Heaven is within and all around but men do not see."

Psych, house in the woods, house in the woods, house in the...but the same world is there too, albeit a little quieter (my choice also).

Wire/cable is an *extruded* product. A $7,000 interconnect is robbery anyway you put it. Doesn't take much to figure that one...

Detlof, Asa, others: NOW we're getting somewhere (ref to Bourgogne, Detlof's latest post).
Isn't it unfortunate that the guru can only *point* but cannot carry you there; the actual journey cannot be made by proxy, each for, & by oneself... but we all know that, whether we accept it or not.
Asa, I believe I understand the path to which you're pointing.

If I may, so does this thread's iniator, Nrchy -- in fact, his initial post and his latest (16/10) sequel are quite clear.
Fortunately, we all have our opinions on this thread's subject without which, we could fall into Descartes' trap with the donkey: a hungry donkey is contemplating two IDENTICAL hay-stacks, at equal distance, without ANY elements (visual or otherwise) that could draw its attention to one particular stack. The donkey has to START eating one of the two stacks, mouth is watering -- which stack to choose? None, because there is no data allowing it to make the choice, so the donkey will die of hunger :). (nowadays, maybe order out for a pizza!)
Sorry for ranting -- clink!

Referral ASA?, Certainly: "Jadot&Freres" Dijon, "Caves Ropitaux", Mersault, to start off with..the only cure from Bordeaux is a good address in Bourgogne....Cheers.

I'm not sure what some of the above comments mean, but I did a review of Albert Porters Purist Dominus several months ago now. If I understand correctly some people don't think my system is of sufficient quality to hear subtle differences in cables. I will say again that the difference between the Purist Colossus and Dominus was not subtle in any repect. I exhaust the list of superlatives when trying to describe how HUGE it was.
Purist Dominus is by far the best interconnect I have ever heard in any system, regardless if the owner prefers tubes or SS.
The crux of the matter remains: would I find a greater improvement spending $7000 on Dominus ICs or in a $7000 amp, pre-amp, speakers, or front-end???
If I had the money I'm not sure if I would buy a better amp or the Purist ICs. That's how good they were.

Good Asa, you're cooking again...Muralman's getting the best of you? No, I'm not chiding ewe (I had to look up that word in the dictionary--it's *Saxon*).

As for me, I'm happy where I am---I'm starting to focus on a farmhouse, a horse and a boat--adiós audio gear!!!

Muralman, yes, wrong.

A Coda high current SS amp (what vintage, the one designed for the Legacy, as old as the Spendors, not that it makes much difference?), Nordost IC's (assumably the SPM's, some of the most denuded upper mid IC's around), and silver speaker cable into what you described as a badly constructed room, only digital, and you think that is fair point of departure for determining whether a cable such as a Dominus is good value for the money, or has a value at all? Are you crazy?!

Digital with silver through Nordost IC's and an arc welder SS amp hardly known for its harmonics and air into a crap room and you want us to value your opinion, reached conclusively from this one foray into what you assume is a fair and determitive test? This is a system that DOES NOT and WILL NEVER excell at the performance aspects that a Dominus is designed FOR.

And what do you use to compare? A Jolida CD straight into an SS amp with silver wire and ribbons? No pre, just the Jolida running the volume through what kind of volume control? Do you know why 'ol HP just did a survey of the best line stages around and they were all tubes, and, wonders of wonders, he found out that they made a large difference in performance in ADVANCED CD based systems, and even ADVANCED phono ones? (You remember, don't you, Stereophile mags failed attempt about five years ago via the now departed Steve Stone to get us all to go passive? So, other than price considerations, why isn't the world running passive? Hmmm...)

Yes, we can return to the original thread question (remember, I asked Nrchy to respond a little bit ago), but this thread has also been about much more (the bwhite and audieng dialogue for one). But my point is that the alleged objective experiment that you set up is flawed before you even started in the context of judging a piece of wire like Dominus, which IS the context of the question. And since, to support your argument, you are using this experiment and its results, that becomes, well, kinda important - you know what I mean? "By no means a scientific test". Ya, I'd say so.

So, if you want to stick to discussing whether Dominus is the right CHOICE for Nrchy, as I already said, obviously not. But as you said, THAT'S NOT HIS QUESTION. He asks: in a system where components are relatively EQUAL in value, what would I do, given the Dominus experience.

Muralman, let me repeat this so you understand and can respond, which you haven't as of yet: as the system becomes better, wire becomes more important. In other words, with Nrchy's Aragon 8008 he would probably do best with your Kimber, just as you do best with your Kimber, or that the Coda system can't hear harmonic and spatial performance beyond Romex (eeck!). But in Porter's SoundLab Ultimates/Aethetix/Dominus system one can hear a LARGE difference between cables BECAUSE his system excels at subtle harmonic and spatial nuances that a yours can NOT replicate. If your system keeps "increasing in excellence" as you say, yet you continue to regard wire as you did when you started, ignoring this CHANGING DYNAMIC regarding wire value to a system as a whole as the system improves, then that assumption will hold you back. If you've only got $20K, that's fine, OK, but to continue to deny this dynamic based upon your experience, or your system, or the one-time test-not-a-test you present to us here, is, well...

I don't like to comment on people's systems because its, well, crass, but since you seem to think that yours and the one you cite seem to give you some big experience on making conclusive statements, it seems appropriate, if not overdue.

As far as Jung & Buddha not being about choices, the lack of knowledge in that statement leaves me, finally, speechless.

Muralman has put the thread back in track! after I requested closing it--damn...

I have just talked to Dan Wright updating him on the details of my system. The Modded Swans are letting me hear things in a totally different way and since I have moved to a different appartment I have lost my reference point. That's not all bad, either. It will just take me a little bit longer to figure things out.

Muralman has a very valid point--like his system, mine would benefit most with another amp, an electronic crossover and a sub--simple as that. I am not placing a lot of emphasis on esoteric speaker wire when I just purchased spec'ed 12 ga. silver plated copper (Teflon insulated & sheathed)50 ft for $32.50. Some Bananas ($26), silver solder and vapor cryo treatment @ $10/ lb will give me more than decent performance and free my cash for other priorities.