Hshapiro: my 1m Kondo KSL is a doubled version of AN-Vz. AN-Vz is made of "four wires" and KSL-LP is eight. Similarly, Nordost Valhalla interconnects are rumored to be a double run of Quattro Fil.
Even though the Kondo stuff is expensive, my cables do not cost $19K. They're much less expensive. That person in the quote you made must have been using a 2 meter length. :) Seriously... I think with the Yen/Dollar conversion Kondo KSL is now retailing at $3500 but the US distributor has been selling for $1800 new.
A few years ago however I read stories of AN-Vz being sold in the US for nearly $22K for a 1m length - while in Japan it was only $5K. Weird stuff. Can't explain it.
I've never read of anyone who could bag on Kondo's cables for issues other than price. |
Psychicanimal did you get your speakers back yet? What do you think of the mods and the filters? I have been considering the filters since TWL recommended them a few months ago. I'm curious about the results. |
Dan Wright has finished the mod and wrote me an e-mail I published in this thread:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1027655496&read&3&4&
Dan and I had a phone conversation yesterday wrapping up everything that has been done. We definitely have an understanding on this subject.
From what I understand the Bybees provide a subtle but definitely pleasant refinement in the musical presentation. This is what Dan wrote: "The Bybee filters lowered the noise floor and improved soundstage and presence."
The Bybees were the most expensive--and undiscounted--part of the mod but Dan convinced me they were pretty much essential in doing this right. Also, the Bybees will allow me to use a homebrew speaker wire with less remorse.
I'm going for some (surplus) 12 ga silver plated copper w/ Teflon insulation and sheathing ($32.50 for 50 ft). It's a 25 ft run and Dan told me to go ahead and use it. A friend of mine has a supervisor who's got a fixed setup for speaker cable cooking, so I plan to meet this person and ask him a favor. I then plan to send the cooked wires for vapor cryo treatment. It should be decent and within reason...
I should have the speakers next weekend, GW. |
Psychicanimal, where do you get silver plated copper for .65/ft?
I'd like to try it. Thanks. |
Animal, why not keep the Bybees external in case you prefer not to use them, some people don't. Also, when someone throws out terms like lower noise floor and improved soundstage what do they mean? I don't think the noise floor will measure lower, and changes soundstage and presence are due to frequency responce variations. Is that what Dan did?
steve |
This is from the Modwright website:
"...I proceeded to install them in my speakers first as Jack indicated that this was where the Bybee filters had their largest and most obvious impact on system performance. I installed them directly to the drivers, one at the woofer and one at the tweeter in my Graybeard KB/2/2's. I soldered them directly, in series, at the positive terminal of the driver, soldering the other end of the filter to the internal positive speaker wire. This was done at each woofer and tweeter in my speakers. They could also have been installed at the crossover or anywhere in series with the internal speaker wire in the speaker cabinets. Jack indicated that the best place to install them however was right at the driver."
The Bybees work at a "quantum mechanics" level. All I can say is that Jahaira (José) is a friend of Dan and he kept telling me about how good of an engineer and a person Dan was...he insisted I send him my Swans. I did and when I talked to him on the phone my intuition told me he was authentic *and* decent. I just trusted what he was doing. He didn't ask me for any money for over a month and a half. The only choice I had was in the caps--I had two or three brands to choose from and I chose the most neutral (Auricaps).
When the "noise floor is lowered", soundstage expands--that's one of the most obvious effects of noise filters. Bybees are noise filters. I don't have the speakers yet and when I do they will have all the mods, so I won't be able to hear the differences step by step as Dan did.
CDC, if you want to experiment, Carol makes some decent, inexpensive silver plated copper in 12, 16 & 18 ga sizes. That's what I'm currently using. |
FYI - I have a number of Bybee's I've removed from my equipment one by one - after having them installed one by one. They do make a nice change to certain systems but are not for everyone or every component.
I would say that overall they tend to ad a subtle but darker character to the music and ultimately make it less life-like and less lively - dull, flat... but the back-ground is blacker... What's more important? Lively or a black background... you decide! The sound stage doesn't "expand" per se', it does however become muddied and thicker sounding perhaps giving the illusion that it got bigger? I dunno... But when you get excited about soundstage while listening.. think about how realistic the size is rather than how wide it is. Sometimes a consolodation of the soundstage is a more accurate representation of the performance than a great big through-the-walls soundstage.
There are components which would benefit tremendously from Bybee's like the SCD-1 and 777ES SACD players and maybe some solid state components. Bybee's should be avoided with tube gear unless you're using an ARC preamp - in which case the more Bybee's the better! ;)
Given that I have not ever listened to a Modwright player, I would have to say that it could be that the mods add so much "detail" that the Bybee's become a welcome addition to refine and tame the sound slightly.
For instance, on a stock XA777ES, I would hesitate to think Bybees would make any improvement and think they would make a negative sonic impact over the original design since this particular player leans ever so slightly toward the darker side of neutral when compared to the SCD-1, and 777ES.
A fully modified XA777ES may have far greater resolution and perhaps too much - making the Bybee's an effective solution which refines the overall signature. |
BWhite, I can't say anything about the sound yet...I don't have my speakers and I'll get them fully modded. There's no way I can isolate the efect created by the Bybees unless I sart playing surgeon. The Bybees were the first thing Dan installed on my speakers, FWIW. The gear used with the final audition is described in the thread "Modwright Swans M1", if you're interested in seeing what was used. Definitely not state of the art, but definitely along the lines of what I'll be using...
What you explained about expanded sountage does make sense and I have experienced it when comparing the Absolute Power cord to the Tice PC3. The Absolute's soundstage is smaller yet the sound is more accurate than the Tice's.
Dan placed one of my Tice interconnects between his DAC and preamp and liked it because it is "dark" and was a good companion to the extremely detailed high frequency response of the modded Swans.
I don't plan to upgrade to another speaker or amp or anything major in my audio train (except for another Melos w/ more than the three inputs my SHA-1 has & an ART Di/O, no hurry), so if it sounds good, so be it. That's why I have a modded 1200...I just want to *play* records.
I would like to hear what Dan has to say about this, though. |
Thanks a lot Phychicanimal. |
I have found that the Bybee filters do give the impression of 'darkening' the sound as a lot of HF hash and distortion is eliminated. I feel, after having listened with them in a number of different applications, that the effect is very good.
It is my belief that with digital, impure power, etc., that we have become accustomed to certain amounts of distortion, hash and 'noise' in our systems. When this is removed in varying degrees, some may interpret this as a lack of detail or a 'darkening' of the sound. I find just the opposite, as the noise floor is lowered, I feel the music is better able to flow and the result is much more musical in my opinion.
The Bybee filters are completely non-reactive, so they are not actually 'filtering' the frequency responce in terms of a passive device of an LCR nature.
In the case of the Swan speakers in question, the tweeters are VERY detailed and I feel that the Bybee filters do them a HUGE service in terms of removing distortion and 'noise' byproducts that would otherwise be glaringly obvious from the speakers.
I hope this helps. I do represent the Bybee products, so you may evaluate my findings and advice as you wish. I can't claim to be 100% objective, any more than can anyone else, but I will say that I am honest about what I hear and how I interpret the information.
Thanks,
Dan W. |
I don't want to drift back into something, but can someone explain to me something that I've never understood.
How can anyone who is interested in "scientific" explanations somehow differentiate one technology from another based entirely on irrelevant variables. In other words, both a piece of wire and an amp are just pieces of matter rearranged into different LOOKING forms, both which pass energy (music signal) through a lattice of molecular/atomic/quantum energy which we choose to call "matter". If you are a true scientific person, then how can you say one rearrangement of matter is the "source" and another is the mere conduit for that source, as if one appearance is somehow inherently more important than another? In a Newtonian way, how are they different?
These discussions always go on and on because a fundamental bias of one side is not recognized, namely, the categorization of one type of rearranged matter (amp) as "technology" and another type of rearranged matter (wire) as, somehow, not technolog-ic. So, am I to believe that amp-matter passing energy is different than wire-matter passing energy? To contend so, merely on surface appearance, is truly un-scientific.
I know it sounds like I'm trying to be abstract, but actually there is nothing more simple: It's all matter and its all passing energy; the "source" is the voice; the source of that voice is the mind; wire and amps are conduits of that mind and, in their fundamental nature, are no different for purposes of comparison (which is where every empiric observation begins).
If you believe that amp-matter is more of a "component" than wire-matter, then you are engaged in an irrational bias. All viewpoints which thereafter proceed from this irrationality are, inherently, irrationally premised.
Nothing is more logical than that. |
Asa: I think you're right. The whole system must be engineered correctly, amps, wires, speakers, everything. There is materials and electronics science behind the design of a good cable. However there are two issues upon which I currently refuse to buy high end cables:
1) I believe I can make my own wires that are 99% as good for 5% of the cost and in very little time. If I thought I could do the same with amps, CD players, speakers etc then I'd make these as well.
2) IMHO mega-buck cables can't possibly justify their cost in terms of R&D and/or materials. Amplifiers, CD players and speakers come somewhat closer to justifying their cost in terms of R&D and materials. In other word, I suspect they're a scam. The materials cost ... well go look at a military surplus wire site ... good wire doesn't cost so much (OFC, silver plated, PTFE etc etc). As for R&D, well just how many variables can there be ? Resistance, capacitance, inductance. Low C interconnects, low L speaker cables. It's not rocket science. |
Asa : Guess I disagree.
you say >In other words, both a piece of wire and an amp are just pieces of matter rearranged into different LOOKING forms, both which pass energy (music signal) through a lattice of molecular/atomic/quantum energy which we choose to call matter. If you are a true scientific person, then how can you say one rearrangement of matter is the source; and another is the mere conduit for that source, as if one appearance is somehow inherently more important than another? In a Newtonian way, how are they different?
Well, for openers I just do not understand the first paragraph. A Newtonian explanation will not speak to the molecular/quantum distinctions you make in the first part of the sentence so really I don't see what you mean. Newton had no clue what an electron was much less molecular-quantum distinctions did he?
More basically, components do more than LOOK different. It's not about appearance.
They DO different things. Some complex - Some not so complex. It's all technology but at different levels. You say it's all matter and its all passing energy. ( So are you and I , are we no different than a wire?) Well yes, but a lot more is true too. A wire's job, for the most part, is simply to pass energy as you put it. A signal goes in one end and should go out the other. Unchanged. It does not have to transduce it like a driver or amplify it like a tube circuit. A driver must transform energy from electric charge to magnetic energy then to mechanical energy then to acoustic energy. Each transformation requires distortion and presents special problems. A tube, driver and a wire are all components -- but one has a relatively easy job to do and one has a far more complex one to do.
I know (or they tell us) at some quantum level we and all around us are the exact same. But for purposes of audio and everyday life a failure to see the differences in 18 inches of wire and an amp's circuit topology is simply amazing to me. Even in Physics (as currently understood) the laws that explain big things (gravity) do not apply to or fully explain small things (quantum physics.) Your attempt to explain away all of the differences in everyday life based upon things that apply to tiny quantum worlds seems a madness if you ask me. It's like deciding to walk out in front of a car because at a fundamental quantum-molecular level the car and you are basically the same star dust and almost entirely empty space. Unfortunately youll be dead.
In any event, I think the differences are more than "irrelevant variables" and the issue is not that they are "different looking forms" of some fundamental single micro reality but that they function very differently and have very different levels of complexity in the world in which we live. Anyone who has tried to make a cable and an amp circuit can tell you. See Sean's point above.
> wire and amps are ***** in their fundamental nature, are no different for purposes of comparison. Again this argument proves to much. From a micro genetic point of view you could probably say that a mouse and a lion are the same in their fundamental nature. That being the case, its a fool who does not see the differences in them for practical purposes.
IMHO, Your focus on the similarities of objects (abstraction/generalization) at one level (usually the micro) has caused you too lose site of the more important differences that do not fall within your chosen categories of abstraction. Abstraction is dangerous that way. It tends to emphasize the similar and ignore the particular and individual. (I have to laugh; I'm starting to talk like you)
Sincerely
I remain |
Sean: yea, I agree. Wire is over-priced. If you can make it yourself and be happy with the result why in heavans would anyone pay someone else lots of money? Makes sense to me.
Clueless: thank you for the effort of your response. Actually I agree with most everything you say. You assume a difference because you make an assumption about what I said that is, er, fundamentally misplaced. I never said that applications of method and observation don't change as symmetries of complexity in matter arrangement change. Of course they do; everyone knows that. What I said was that when applying empiric parameters to varying levels of matter complexity, those attached to scientific materialist assumptions tend to categorize those varying levels not on complexity, or an empiric application of method to that complexity, but rather, limit the categories that can even be compared in the first instance (amp vs. wire) by categorizing wire-matter as something fundamentally different; so different that wire is not "technology" or a "component" and that anybody who receognizes this bias hiding behind abstractions is being un-scientific. We see this all the time in wire vs. amp discussions. Essentially, an assumptive bias runs throughout the relation of science and empiric method and technology that says that as complexity of the rearrangement increases (tools as rearranged matter work in concert, ie. a "machine") then, that rearrangement becomes more technolog-ic, and from that assumption, that the more complex rearrangement is "better". This then cascades into the reductionist assumption that the now "lesser" complex tool is too be dispensed in the categorization (wire is no longer a "component") which allows a complete reduction in its consideration. In other words, the discussion begins with an underlying assumption that wire is not "technologic" in any way and that those arguing from the contrary vantage are somehow being less "scientific" or empirically rigorous. None of this, of course, means that matter that manifests through our rearrangement into varying "complexities" does not respond to the application of scientific empiric method in differrnt ways.
However, I will note that, psychologically speaking, many people who are attached to scientific assumptions that negate matter rearrangement (tools/technology) that are less complex, are also the same people who invariably assume that anyone citing that bias must be also saying that there are not any differences of application to varying symmetries of complexity, even though one may have never said that. In other words, if one cites the categorization bias above, then those attached to defending that bias always seem to come in and say that you are saying that all rearrangement is radically relative, when that was never said at all. That you did this may be a point of reflection...
On "Newtonian" etc., not enough space here. If you want to talk more on this, please contact me directly and I will respond. My name is Mark Bucksath. Again, thank you for your reasoned, well thought response; it was nice to see. |
Ok, from there, if we agree that amps and wire are both made of varying complexities of rearrangement, and that varying degrees of complex cognitive application are required for each varying symmetry, ie. its takes more complex thinking to design and construct an amp than a piece of wire, then does this necessarily imply that 1) wire is not a "component" or 2)that wire is "less" of a component than an amp (Clueless' conclusion after his experience with less and more complex tools)?
Since we seem to agree that wire is rearranged matter just like an amp and is subject to some consideration, the question then becomes: how much relative to more complex tools that it fits between?
Points to consider:
1) It is important to differentiate between the above reference between "design" and "construct". In other words, a design may be more creative even though the resultant tool is less relatively complex in its construction. For instance, if I build an amp that merely copies a 1930 design, is it a more "complex" design than a design of a piece of wire that incorporates new ideas on electro-magnetism and/or quantum fluctuations? I have pointed out that people attached to the scientific materialist bias cited above tend to default to a position that looks to the construction complexity as opposed to the design complexity in cognitive-creative terms. But since creating the amp/wire begins in the mind, wouldn'y it be more logical, even more accurate, to say that the "complexity" of a "component" begins in its design, rather than in the result of that design as constructed in matter?
2)Ok, apart from 1) above, arguendo, let's assume that the creativeness is equal in an amp vs. wire design. Does that difference in complexity make the amp more important in performance criteria than the wire? Clueless seems to say so, but what if, in performance, and regardless of the complexity in design or construction of either, the wire produces a greater accurate musicality jump in the system?
3) So, given the evident answer to 2) above, namely that performance is LOGICALLY the final arbiter beyond design and construction issues and their accordant complexity, or lack thereof, how important is "complexity" of matter rearrangement (the complexity of the construction of the stereo piece) in determining the importance of any given insertion of a stereo piece into a sysytem?
4) Is there any person who has collected the experience to be able to "construct" a state-of-the-art system who would ever say that wire isn't extemely important in the resultant sound of such system? If, in practice, this opinion is predominantly true for such demographic of users, then what possible validity, in practice, can the position hold that says that "complexity" in construction is determintive? If, empirically, I observe a sample of results ( advanced system constructors who say wire is critical) and I determine that this response/observation is consistent over time, then isn't my ignoring the results of this empiric observation (in default to my assumption that construction "complexity" is determinitive) itself un-scientific?
So we understand this time around, the operative term is "determitive". I agree that a strong correlation exists between design creativity and/or construction complexity and that these "scientific" factors are important to look at. The quetion is, can a bias in this direction as cited above be supported in logical, experential or even scientific ways? Or rather, is a continued adherence to this bias more symptomatic of an attachment to the rearrangement itself, and hence, an attachment to scientific materialist assumptions?
Just some things to consider. |
Oops, I just stumbled over Clueless' and Asa's argument. Its late here in Europe and I'm too tired to give it the serious thought it deserves. Will have to pospone it. At first glimpse, it seems that both are right, only their viewpoints are basically different and since I'm trained in neither, I swim in deep water....As far as I can see, Asa's point is philosophical, epimistological, following the lines of theory of knowledge. (Erkenntnistheorie, as we call it here). And from this point of view, he is of course absolutely right and it is an elegant argument to my mind, because it seems not to be concerned with the complexity of both forms of "matter" in question and rightly so, to my simple way of thinking, because "science" only knows what it can know within its concepts and do we really know, all that is going on in a wire, passing a signal, or in an amp, for that matter?
Clueless, as I understand him, also makes perfect sense to me, because he seems to argue on the basis of what is known about the functionings of amps and wires and hence it seems reasonaable to say, that the goings on within an amp are more complex than in a piece of wire.
Funny, though, I still, probably naively, prefer Asa's point of view, because intuitively I sense, that it encompasses both what is scientifically known and what is not. I leaves things open to the searching mind: Both wire and amp are forms of matter, about the goings in and about them, we don't really know very much. Since Heisenberg, Pauli and Jung we know, that the interaction of mind and matter can have an influence on both, where we don't know, what is egg and what is hen and what is doing what to which side. Of course we know a lot about what goes on in matter (Clueless), but since we do not really know what matter is in its essence, having no real Archemidian point outside of it, since yes, we are also part of it, Asa's view - in my naive understanding - puts amp, wire, the observing mind, all creation under the sun on one and the same level qualitatively. This makes for great openeness...also for the curious scientific mind.
Cheers, |
You put Heisenberg and Jung together Detof? Interesting. I much prefer Jung as a man. I'm not trained in that as you are but I suppose I've read about half of his collected writing in amazement. An amazing life. Where do you think he stands as a psychologist(if you want to label him as such) in the 20th century if you don't mind me asking?
(Also, I think I misunderstood Asa more than disagreed with him and my point was epistemological in that you have to apply a system of thought where it is meant to be applied. Einstein if you want to know gravity, Q physics if you are subatomic, Newton's calculas if you want to go to the moon and yes, even audio has a certain structure all it's own too.)
Sincerely
I remain,
|
I still believe that the biggest problem we have in most fields of science is that we cannot get down to the smallest or most basic elements of physical existence. We try to measure what we cannot simplify. We still don't know the beginning or the end but we try to measure the middle. |
Gad, in rereading my little piece, the old Latin saying comes to mind: " si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses"... if you had shut your mouth, you'd still be thought bright. But never mind. Now to get a bit off topic:
Clueless, the man Jung is indeed fascinating, much light and much shadow there, very much a child of his times and on the other hand breaking barriers and pushing into unknown territory. Not an easy man, powerful of mind and body and at the same time often rather petit bourgeous in his every day value system. Politically naive and his view on woman has the feminists aflame to this very day. I know Jungians here in Zurich, who acknowledge his greatness in his field, but dislike him intensely as a man. There is reason for both, to my mind. He has been very much mythologised, which is bad. Both sanctified and made a devil of. But he seems to fascinate people to this very day. I know, because I've lectured on him the last 35 years and have seen generations of students both fasinated as well as apalled.
As far as Heisenberg is concerend, Jung himself mentions him in his theory of synchronicity, which I have indirectly aluded to in my last post.
His psychology is still very much alive today, but in very different guises. His theory of transference and countertransference, certain basic aspects in the understanding of psychotic phenomina, his typology, his theory of the collective unconscious have formed rhyzomes in very different fields. So his thoughts live on, often under different names than his.
Nrchy, I feel as you do, since we are part of nature, we will never know the ESSENCE of nature, so in a sense, even a dyed in the wool "scientist" bases his reasoning on metaphysical premises, if he likes or knows it or not. At the same time, these reasonings are not moot, because they advance our knowledge within the boundaries of our fields. What has to be fought against and refuted, though, I find, are the absolutists, who cannot differentiate between essence and outer form as it appears to our searching eyes. This seems to me, given that I understand him correctly, also Asa's point. Cheers,
Cheers |
Det/Asa
Not to "defend" his shortcomings but here in the states women were not given the right to vote until 1920. Jung was certainly of his time and unfair to the women in his personal life as well. I believe Asa also thinks he has been romaticized and mythologized and I think that is true too which is why it is better to read him than what other's have said about him. Anyway...
> you say "What has to be fought against and refuted, though, I find, are the absolutists, who cannot differentiate between essence and outer form as it appears to our searching eyes. This seems to me, given that I understand him correctly, also Asa's point."
Well if that is his point (Asa you are a difficult read in small pieces) I agree totally. To the meager extent I understand electronics it is almost completely a formal mathmatical model. Most of our science these days is purely mathmatical invention and has been at least since Galileo. We do not ask questions re underlying causes, the "essense" as you put it, but look for numerical relationships between different measured quantites. We (the observer)have to step in a isolate a quantity in order to measure and when we do so we can cause more problems than we think. This reminds me of Heisenberg in a way.
Nonetheless, if we did not do this, none of us would be listening to audio systems. So it has its place. That was the point of my post above. Tis a strange world.
Oh and Detlof, when you find the "essence" you're talking about, drop me an e-mail will you? That way I will be able to distinguish it from all the riff-raff I usually think about.(hehehe)
I remain, |
Clueless, if old Kant was right, that e-mail will never come, because being part of that "essence", we cannot look at it from the outside. We have to leave that to the fanatics, of what ever creed, breed and shape and size, who will not tire to feed us with their "isms" or try to wipe us off the face of the earth in the name of the great truth. Strange world indeed! |
I know this is an audio thread, but, guys who know lots more than me about Jung!! I can't resist an oppotunity to suck some knowledge out of someone else's head!
I certainly can't claim to have read a ton-o-Jung, but my share I suppose.
I see Jung as an individual had had transcedent peak experiences that disclosed to him certain deeper symmetries of perception that are integrated with "normal" cognitive functioning (Piaget's formal operational cognition) but that remain latent (Wilber's Centaur stage of transpersonl developement, which he got from someone else I can't remember); so-called trans-cognitive perceptive levels that are co-existent in operational function with "normal" levels (where ratio-empiric theories come from, BTW). However, his perception was not stable due to significant degrees of remaining "ego distortion" (which I would argue are prey/predator action-recoil reactions manifesting as so-called ego-centric behaviors). This stage of development has certain symptoms: as the cognitive functions move from concrete to systematic (what we are predominantly using here) to meta-systematic to paradigmatic (cognition integrating wider temporalities of human-centered "history") to cross-paradigmatic (temporalities integrating evolutionary span and generally less anthropormorphic) and the mind begins to both reduce and integrate at once, certain perceptions emerge. Namely, moments of perception of connectivity related to matter and change (physical matter/energy's relatiion to experience of temporality), or as Jung described it, "synchronicities". Other possible symptoms of such transitory perceptions are also the ability to watch the mind as it cognitively operates, disclosing archtypal matrices of the mind that, speaking in a collective sense, constitute evolutionarily-formed templates in the mind (and which, if you follow them back, exist after Kant's space/time matrix and Chomsky's language template, or lens, which is a term I prefer).
However, importantly, while these integral perceptions are revealed, and even can be further integrated into a theory on dreams (where the temporal projective force of cognition loosens, revealing "Jungian" archetpes, many times manifesting as mthic-magical images [hence, Campbell also being a Jungian]), these perceptions are not fully integrated into the developmental stage until ego distortions are themselves addressed. Hence, Jung's perceptive applications into theory that were incongruent with his daily behavior...
God! Clueless, please stop me!!! Many many apologies to everyone!
detlof and others who know more about Jung than I do, my apologies for my terminology that may not be the exact ones used by the "Jungian establishment." I think, detlof, you can still hear what I'm saying.
So, what's this got to do with stereo?!!! Well, nothing really, or maybe something. Just let some geeks have some fun for awhile! Be nice, ok...?
BTW, you can see "essense". The assumption that "essense" is unapproachable because you are part of "it" is misplaced and is based upon ratio-empiric perception assumptions. That level says that I can only see (only derive truth from matter mainipulation, hence, science) that is "outside" myself; so, ergo, if I am in it I can't see it. Sounds logical, but the problem is that you don't percieve "it", "it's" essense, with logic, or through the lens of its assumptions. You can percieve "essense"; admit the possibility and from that moment it starts; the denial of the possibility based upon logic exclusively IS the filter to that lens. Saint Augustine said, "close your eyes and step into the dark." The dark is not dark, it is not inherently unknowable, only your assumption makes it so 9argue for your limitations and, sure enough, they are yours...). |
Asa, your thoughts on Jung need time and careful consideration. At the moment I have neither. So the answer may come in little pieces. Only your last paragraph: Of course you can know "essence", you are quite right. But you cannot build a scientific theorem (or a religious system?) on that "knowledge", because it is experience , not knowledge in the way we use that term. It is not there to be "exploited" or applied, in the way mathematical formulas can be applied, so I think...and this is not a logic, but a value statement, my original reasoning still holds good.
ds good. He who is tempted to systematise or exploit Agustinus' stepping into the dark |
Yes, detlof, all thinking is only pointing, at least at it relates to "essense". But pointing is good, as long as you know you are pointing; as long as you know sytemizing cogniton is pointing at "essense". Its great for making widgets though! And, as i said, it can be fun.
Don't beat me up too much on the jung, ok? Look forward to your thoughts, as always.
BTW, on your first 10-3-02 response to mine and Clueless's yapping: exceedingly lucid and diplomatic, in the best sense of the word. I'm jealous actually; makes my rambling look over-wrought, which, perhaps, it is...
Clueless: one thing I forgot (oh God, NO, he says!!): in first post, "irrelevant" was meant to apply in a different way, not to all science, so to speak. My first post was not meant to be rigorous, but actually, to spark dialogue - which, hmmm, it seems to have done. To all of our benefit, I think. Anyway, I can see how it catalyzed you to jump on it and i would have written it better if I had to do it again. Like I said, we pretty much agree on things, just from a little different tangent of "pointing". |
Asa, a wire and an amp do not both 'pass energy'. A wire simply dissipates energy and an amp converts energy from one form to another. Thay aren't really similiar.
steve |
Asa--your thoughts on Jung - and since you've brought them up here, ( Arnie please forgive us ) and dear brothers in arms here on A. please have patience - here is an attempt at a response:
Reading between your lines, which essentially and as far as I am able to understand them, are not off the mark, I suddenly have the suspicion, reading your criticism of Jung the man, eg.: " his perception was not stable, due to significant degrees of remaining "ego distortion"..... and later again "--J. perceptive applications into theory, that were incongruent with his daily behavior" , that in your value system, you are either "enlightened" or a "predator", and you ( rightly so of course, if I have understood you correctly) fault both Jung the man and his theories as well, of being inconsequential so to speak. You are right, Jung was neither Buddha or Christ. On the contrary, he wanted to make his place in the world, rise from his small beginnings into the spheres of the haute bourgeoisie and heal the wounds which his psychosis struck him, by turning his expierence into a goldmine of concepts and ideas, which not only was a rather successful and heroic attempt at selfhealing but also laid the foundation for "analytic psychology", the fruits of which obviously give nourishment to many. What started with his "septem sermones ad mortuos" and ended with his dream about a tree bearing fruit frozen, which nourished a multitude of people, one may rightly call a descensus ad inferos, a stepping into the darkness, a road to possible enlightenment on the one hand. His making a professorship out of it, his thirst for recognition, his harem of valkyries, the institutionalysing of it, can be looked upon as a predator's betrayal.
I don't know Asa, if my translation of the feeling content underlying your thoughts is correct. If it is not, you need not to read further. Our concepts of man, obviously differ. Perhaps this is no coincidence, that I give SS a chance next to tubes in opening the road to true musicality, because I hold it with Luke,chaper 16 in the New Testament, that you have to predate on the world, not only to feed you, but more importantly even, to hold your deeper inner treasures safe from the world and alive. I do not see a dychotomy in the two forms of perceptive experience, I see it rather as paradoxical form of existence, which everyone of us must live in, suffer in and balance out for us, as best as we can. We will starve,though obviously on different levels, if we only live one side. Jung, who was not a small man by any means, throws a large shadow, as he once dreamt of himself, but there was also tremendous light behind him, to make that happen. Those who knew him, when he was in the last few years of his life, descibe him as a witty, still immensely curious and lively old shaman, with a trickster's twinkle in his eyes. So I reckon, he must have been fairly content with the balancing act, which was his life. Cheers, |
Detlof. Yes, you misunderstood me. I did not mean to reduce Jung's contribtions to the evolution of collective consciousness - which I consider significant - through a categorization of either "enlightened" or not. While it is true that one is either "enlightened or not, there are graduated levels on the path towards that level (which is actually the ground of all levels); just like there are graduated levels in traditional psychology from pre-natal to formal operational levels; we can graduate, for discussion sake, the levels that are not presently recognized just like we have already done with the traditional ones. However, at post formal operational levels, cognitive development takes a back seat to empathic identification, or permeability of self to "other". The nature of permeability is acceptance of the world in the now and as permeability increases predatory remnants fade; it is not a separate dynamic. That Jung was at a transitionary level between one level and another (a varying dynamic of predatory instinct and permeability) does not necessarily imply that he was either at post formal operational or "enlightened" and no other levels are possible. The assumption that you are either at the present level recognized by psychology or at some other-worldly "enlightenment" state is a bias of the current paradigm - both scientific, psychologic and Judeo-Christian; it is the dividing of the world into earth and heaven with no path between (which is not what Gautama Siddhartha or Jesus said, regardless of teachings that grew up afterwards from egocentric minds). I would note that if Jung had accepted the current paradigm as it existed around him, he would have never embodied the "light" you speak of, which as you note is exactly what he did do. With that said, "Light" translates all the time, through all levels; that's what moves it along; that's each level's ground. Your given permeability to your "light" is in direct proportion to your seeing of the "light" outside the self (in environment or "other"); again, and not coincidentally, it is not a separate dynamic. If you assume in thought constructs that the the "light" outside is the predator of your self, then that is the world you will live in; your assumption in thought makes it so. "God" is very accommodating that way. That the world may tack you up to a cross for saying that the world is all Light does not make you the predator of that world. No one ever said it would be an easy path...
As for stereo, it does not make you more "permeable" to the "other"; it has no function of self-observation. So, the assumption that I meant that deeper levels of stereo listening are synonomous with post formal operational levels of perception in non- stereo listening modes is, again, misplaced. Listening to stereo does not "make you" able to "see" more. That's why I said this had little to do with stereo, and offered apologies which I hereby renew, and why all reactions to what I've previously said on liatening levels - which tried to say that I was saying that it was "value" judgement - were similarly misplaced.
Now here's the interesting part. It is very clear from our discussions - the integrated form of your thought, the striving for belonging-ness between people, the default to poetic lucidity when rigid formulation looses its power, the awe before beauty - that you yourself are not at the current traditionally recognized level (I think Maslow's authentic level is about as close as traditonal psychology may venture), even though in thought construction you opt for an assumption that denies where you are and are going. Hmmm...
I always learn from what you say detlof. You know, apart from all these words - like mice running through a block of swiss cheese looking for the Cheese! - we never disagree at all. Many thanks for your response. |
leme: each is a lattice of energy (energy coalesced as matter) that acts as a conduit for the passing of other symmetries of energy (electric). I didn't intend to imply that different rearrangements do not effect that transference in different ways - directivity, etc. - but that at a fundamental level they are the same and that scientific positions premised upon the manipulation of energy/matter (scientific materialism) are irrational when they claim that they are fundamentally different based on their surface appearance.
Like Muralman, your point MAY be that such a bias may exist in some - which, if you look at my first post was all I was trying to say - but that, regardless, such rearrangements at our hands DO produce different results. And, moreover, we can draw strong correlations in patterns between complexity vs. performance. As I said, I agree, but point out that the experience of listening is the final arbitor.
I know what you mean: that wire is "passive" towards the energy that passes through it, while we have purposely rearranged amp-matter to be "active" towards the energy passing through it should make a difference, shouldn't it? But ask yourself, is a wire "passive"? A designer of wire might say that the rearrangement he constructs directly leads towards performance differences; same with the amp designer. So what is different?
A question: you say that wire only dissipates energy and an amp converts it. Without going into the semantics of the ACTIVE verbs "dissipates" and "converts", if wire only performs a dissipative function, then what is it that ends up at the speakers, non-energy? If all is energy (Einstein, you remember him...), then what could possibly end up at the speaker that wasn't energy?
As energy passes through any other form of energy, it changes, not in nature but how it manifests to us. There is no "perfect" wire. How you rearrange that matter (design a la Homo faber)effects transference and, accordingly, our observations of them, in listening or a "scientific" experiment.
Question: if amp-matter is designed by us to "convert" energy, and wire is designed by us to "transfer" energy (dissipation occuring from both forms BTW, regardless of our design intentions...), then does our design intent make wire "less" a consideration in system construction than an amp? In other words, by differentiating varrying ways we've designed our components to behave - both, as I've shown to be "active" upon the energy they pass - then arent we just right back to the complex/less complex argument?
Here's what people have been trying to say to me:
An amp, by the way it more "complexily" and "actively" acts upon the energy passing through it, is more important than wire in constructing a system.
My response: yes, but less so as the instrument/system increases in resolving power; in systems that are analytically focused, wire is only needed to transfer "detail", but in more advanced systems, wire is needed to transfer both detail and more subtle nuances.
Interestingly, those who argue for analytic systems and are attached to scientific explanations are the same people who say wire doesn't make a difference, attempting to categorize wire-matter as fundamentally different to perfect that argument.
Coincidence? |
Asa, thanks for your beautiful and and immensely kind and touching response. We will have to move to private conversation to go further. Please give me time. I have so little. A fond wave across the oceans, |
At last I have entered into the "wire" realm; a place of no interest to me. I feel... Not inspired.
So I look around myself, feeling like a babe in toy land. Teasing myself with such a glorious thought; allowing oneself such largesse as to spend 7 K on wires. I am so jealous. Really.
Of course, there are a lot of other things in audio alone I can spend 7 geeze to improve my audio enjoyment. Things I don't have, like a truly great turn table, the perfect cartridge... Wall to wall Persian carpet (room treatment).
I really shouldn't have walked into this candyland. You see, I'm on a married man with kids in college budget. How serendipity. It just dawned on me, my entire system is worth seven thousand. Now, how about that! What's more, is it is a music system that I bet would bring tears to nearly every one of you; yes, perhaps even you, Asa.
In the next few days, I will have visited one of our audiogon contributors, an audiophile. This man has wires for his system that would make Asa blush. He has gone so far as to rewire from breaker box to dedicated outlet with "8 awg teflon wrapped silver core wire." The "metal matter (Asa)" trail ends up with venerable 1980's Spendors. His front end is more costly and reportably superior to mine, and his amp may just be superior as well. I don't know what to expect.
Hmmm, 7 big ones, and probably more. I pray Nrchy and Asa aren't right.
Of course, in short time, the same gentleman will visit me for a listen to my WIRE POOR system. I hope we can both relate our observations. I'll be happy to, at least.
|
Muralman1, I see your point, but we're all on different budgets for different reasons; we all have different levels of audio experience; we have different levels of interest, and even that varies form topic to topic (i.e., analog vs. digital). Yet, I don't know of any A'gon member (and certainly not Asa, Deltof or Nrchy who started this thread) who outwardly boasts about his/her expenditures just to impress fellow members. (That would be sad, indeed.)
It helps, however, to communicate details about your own system(s) to establish your point of reference. Many members who have $5-10K systems (or even less, and like yourself, are happy with the results they've achieved) contribute meaningfully to this forum on a regular basis. Knowing that someone has experience with $50K and $100K systems (whether their own or through other listening experiences) helps me (the reader) to gauge that particular contributor's perspective. Whether I wish to emulate that person's spending pattern is an entirely different, and intensely personal, matter.
I'm not in the market for $7K wires either, but the topic of this thread is of interest to me in general terms, and although the depths of the philisophical exchange between Asa and Detlof is not of particular interest to me, it was easy enough for me -- and others -- to skip over without the necessity of hurling insults in their direction! |
WMmcmanus, apologies to you and to all the others, for my selfishly misusing this thread to veer off on a tangent from it together with ASA. Glad, we didn't get any flak, which would have been quite understandable but also shows the generosity of our colleagues here.
For myself, I've learnt the importance of wires through the years and I try to use them as discernedly as I am able to, it makes me always uncomfortable however, if I feel tempted to use ic's as an instrument to better voice my system. I only try to do that as a last resort, when everything else fails. Basically wires should neither add nor subtract anything from a well set-up rig, but that is purist theory, I suppose. Cheers, |
Muralman, I was wondering how long you could listen to my posts without saying something; always something about me but never at me (where's 6ch to tag team with you?). Three Asa mentions in one paragraph, the foil for your frustration. I guess when we ended our last conversation and I extended an olive branch by saying "Be well" that that didn't stick too long with you? Hmmm...
Again, I will repeat what I said the last time when you and another member started to get things personal (at the expense of cognitive rigor): If you want to have a "mature, reasoned" dialogue, contact me personally. You have my name and number and, again, there won't be an audience.
However, I know, Muralman, what you mean about $7K wires. I'm sure Natalie would point out that that is an extravagence and hardly justifiable given other wires' performance at lesser prices, a valid argument (then again, someone, say a person from Bangledesh, might then point out to you that your $7K is similarly obscene given another context...). But this doesn't seem to be your argument, because underlying it is a tone, one that seems to both lust after more expensive wire while, in value-laden, absolutist tones, decrying its existence at all. Laced through this is a cavalier cynacism just to make sure that we all know your are somehow above such waste - justified by your all-american nuclear family (which, if I remember from our last thread, was the reason that you gave that you couldn't contact me directly, "I have a family and don't have time to do that" et al, evidently a reason you use in several contexts when, er, handy..).
Wmc, in a deeply mature post, is right, on all of it, but I want to be more pointed. I think its crass to say to someone that because I have more expensive wires you can't talk or contribute; many people with great ears and systems use less expensive wire. With that said, however, there are also people who lack a sufficient point of referrence to make absolutist statements, and their continuation in doing so in more symptomatic of their envy, inauthentically directed, than the issues that they are allegedly engaging in (and a single listen to an audio bud's wire does not necessarily solve this, especially when one's psychologocal orientation in biased towards refutation, never a good thing for empiric objectivity...).
Again, Muralman, I am happy that you like your system. But you need to stop diving into threads seeking to provoke people to make yourself feel better about your decisions, family-based, value-based, or what have you. A dollop of self reflection might be in order.
With that said, I, like others here, will be interested in your reactions to your friend's wires and I look forward to that "reasoned, mature" contribution. In THAT context, and regardless of your analog-less existence, I will incorporate your observations with my own and others - which is really what this forum is all about.
Again, thank you all for indulging detlof and myself, and thank you audiogon for allowing it too. I will TRY not to do it too often (Ha, sure! says the grandstand!). |
Wmcmanus, I'm sorry if I hurt your sensibilities. That was not my intention. I also didn't mean to insult any of the above. On rereading, I don't see insults, Jung, or Detlof there.
I feel my contribution is on topic and valid. True, I can't make an honest judgement call on Nrchy's cables, because I doubt I will ever run across them. However, I've seen hundreds of magic wire testimonials, usually planted in amp sections, giving the impression without the golden wire, the said component is just OK. It's all made me a bit cynical.
I will now bow out of cableville, realizing I am just a spoil sport to the true believers of cable alchemy. |
I STILL say: Kimber and 6500.00 worth of vinyl :) |
Oy! Wires are simple conduits whose imperfections can be labelled those of a "filter" of some sort. Amplification devices, CDPs, transducers have MUCH more complicated functions. Thus a reasonable approach is the apply one's resources in proportion to the complexity of the function(s) required, given cost/benefit equations.
The majority of us then agree that the transducers (CDP, TT/catridge, and speakers) need highest priority, then the amplification required to achieve proper SPLs, and then the
appropriately-resolving and MAYBE tonal-coloring cabling required to ice the cake. Does it really have to be any more complicated than that? Ernie (a Maslowian!) |
A corollary to Ernie above: "I wish to have the "best" transducers & amps I can afford, so I know I HAVE the sound in my house even if I can't actually HEAR it YET (because I don't have the appropriate connecting wires, support, etc)". Likewise, some of us have been happy living in a city where a lot is going on -- even if we don't actively participate (I'm one these people -- pre-Maslowian?). |
Subar: what you say, as I noted above, seems to hold more true with less sophisticated systems. As systems become more sophisticated (read: able to replicate not just sound sources with detail, but supplement that detail with deep harmonics in the source and continuous space), wires seem to become as important as other "components".
If I was, say, helping someone put together a $1500-5K system and opted for tubed pre and SS amp - a valid choice balancing several important variables - then wire would be less a priority. I would look at Coincident or Discovery (which sounds good with Pass gear, the Aleph 30 being a nice place to start with such a system). But, say, if I was Albert Porter and was driving Soundlab Ultimates that sang with the Dominus, and I could drop $ on a '86 Ch. Lafite without blinking, and I knew from experience that as a system became more sophisticated the wire became more integral to that sought-for experience, would you decry his use of such wire, or given his experience, tell him that his other components are more important and that he should always look there first to effect such a change? Or, from your vantage of experience, would you tell him that because wire is less "complex" in its matter rearrangement, that he doesn't know what he's doing?
So, we admit that wire IS the same as an amp in terms of its fundamental nature - we can't just dismiss it as if its not a "component". But then, we now have another argument trying to reduce the importance of wire-matter based on an allegedly less "complex" FUNCTION. The problem with that assumption is that it is not true in our experience of listening. Again, the absolutist statement that function importance between wire-matter and amp-matter stays constant throughout all systems is, again, inconsistent with our experience (assuming that you have that experience and have conducted the experiements in listening sufficient for you to make such absolutist statements). Again, I would argue that the default to such absolutist statements that continually seek to reduce wire as a consideration in a system are more symptomatic of a scientific bias/attachment than what we actually see.
What I've seen is those that have less sophisticated systems (I would say SS-based predominantly, where, again, wires are less important because the spatial nuances cited above are not as well replicated)assume that wire is less a priority because in their system it is - of which I agree with. However, they then cascade that assumption, in a void of experience, to conclude that their situation applies to that that they have never heard, and perhaps, are not able to hear.
Certainly, there are lots of scams working out there on wire because its easier to construct IN MATTER, but that does not necessarily mean that some wire in some systems do not perform as a "component", or do not perform an equal FUNCTION as does an amp. To conclude so, in absense of your own experience, in contrast to others' experience with far more advanced systems (like Albert Porter's) who clearly find that wire is indispensible to the proper function of their advanced systems, is not only un-scientific, but disingenuous. |
"Absolutist", "disingenuine", "inauthentic", (Asa, You forgot to throw in witch) and, oh yes ...of course, we've only been around "less sophisticated" systems.
Sincerely
I remain, |
Oh, I just can't help baiting Subararu sometimes. He can take it and dish it out, though; so, clueless, you don't need to ride to his aid, watching attentively from the bushes. Clueless, clueless, how-oh-how do you maintain your delusion of radical egalitarianism? Everyone hears equally, or thinks equally, etc., or is that just an idea you like to maintain, that you're the nice kind-of-guy that thinks so, even though its not true, even though, if you bothered to say what you mean, you would have to admit its not true? Everyone is equal in their potential to hear, not in how they actually exercise that potential. Your assumption of aristocracy - the politically correct foil for your references looking to rile in your aid others so offended - is, in that context, misplaced. But I guess you were too eager to jump out of those bushes to think about that one, eh?
I thought about "sophisticated", but thought that defining it would be sufficient to assuage those knee-jerk reactions to the word. Guess not. When I responded to Muralman and his tone and what I thought it represented, I was very clear on what basis I made those conclusions. This in turn allowed him the opportunity to respond to my observations. In other words, I respected him enough to offer him a response that could be responded to, if he so chose (which he did not). By making tangential references about me personally, you don't allow me to properly respond. But, then again, perhaps that was your intent. My observation of your postings, which I've always enjoyed even though we may not agree, is incongruent with the AUTHENTICITY of your last chosen response.
I remain, amused...and still mildly hopeful.
PS: Clueless, what do you think of the notion that wire becomes more important in a system as the system increases in "sophistication"? Don't react to the word, even though defined; answer the content. |
I don't know what clueless thinks, but I would like to stick my 2 cents in here. I disagree with the statement that cables are less important with solid state. If the system has subtlety (which increases with sophistication) then cables matter. I have worked hard to build a VERY sweet sounding solid state system with detail,resolution and bloom. Cables matter in this system.
They were quite a bit less important in my $6K system. |
Let's lock this thread, please... |
Thank you Judit for your response. I too believe that cables make a difference with SS, and that some SS systems can be very satisfying. I thought twice about throwing that out, so let me rephrase and try to bring it back to the point I was mostly trying to say: Do you think that cables make an increasingly important contribution as a system "component" as that system gets better? If so, then that could go a long way towards explaining why some people with some systems claim that amps are determitively important - to the point of claiming that wire is irrelevant and fundamentally different than an amp, or is more "complex" or more "functional" to keep their point going - while others with more advanced systems, both SS and tubed, predominantly claim that wires become just as important. In this sense, a wire's "function" in the truest sense - to make a system more musically accurate - changes over a system's level of performance as a whole. It is an exponential performance/utility curve.
I shouldn't have mixed it in with the above (mostly did it to pull the accuracy crowd back out of Muralman's "amp section"), but since I brought it up, I'll follow up. At the highest reaches of the present art of system building, I believe that SS has several important limitations, and that these have been constant since its inception (which is why every few years we have to ask whether SS is yet as good as tubes, a discussion, by its existence, that confirms what is being asked). Namely, the realism of space on its own and its RELATION to sound as it projects therein. SS has made great strides in reducing mechanical artifacts in the source projection, resulting in greater "bloom" directly around the source boundaries, less distortive aspects of leading edge transients, etc., but in terms of continuousness and deep harmonic fabric, wetness in leading edge transients, and the deep existential quality of dimension (the terms that HP can't quite find, although he knows what he is experiencing), SS still falls short in the best SS systems v. the best tube systems (NOS tubed). It is my position that these are qualities of sound/music that wire tends to become nearly a necessity in translating. This is not to say - which I should have said better - that wire doesn't also follow the pattern of needing better wire as the SS system increases in performance, but that with the best systems - and Porter's system with Dominus was used as an example for this reason - namely, tube based systems, this phenomenon becomes even more critical because its performance parameters are higher and wire seems to become critical for that 3% performance envelope. Hence, when I said that cables were less important in SS systems, I meant it in a relative sense and in the context of advanced systems.
Actually, I think wire makes a difference in all systems, but can understand why it would be less of a priority in less expensive systems, a point I have agreed with. I also believe it is important in SS systems also, but qualified as stated above. The SS crowd who argues that "accuracy" is most important, have source-detailed systems at the expense of a unitary balance between source and space, believe that "scientific" measurements are primary to listening, are, not coincidentally, the same peoplem who claim that wire makes no difference, or makes less difference because its less "complex", or then say less "functional", etc. AND these people invariably, and again no coincidence, favor SS systems. This does not mean that some SS afficinados have not produced excellent results - musically and in terms of accuracy - in their systems, and that these people also know the importance of wire (which, and I can't remember if clueless has a tube, SS or hybrid system, is a group I believe he falls within - namely, music lover).
Hope that is more clear. |
Damn it Gumby, or is it gumbydamnit, I think you may be right! How about a Teres TT, Shelter 501 cart and Origin Live arm mod'd out ($3K abouts) (uh, twl?), with a used NBS Pro series 1 IC ($500) and $3.5K of vinyl?!
I hear ya. |
If you don't like it, turn the channel - you know, to Nickolodean or something comparable. Besides, psych, and speaking for myself, I won't "lock" it unless we get some of your deservedly famous humor with the request. You know, that might have done it... |
Ok, Ok, the subphase pathologies of the scientific ones have taken about all they can muster, so unless someone else wants to prolong Psych's crushing angst as I'm leaving, its time to let the accuracy-attached take their rulers and go home...
Hopefully, we won't have to ask, or defend, whether cable is a "component" for awhile... |
It's frustration--not anger!!!
It's frustrating how some people are unwilling to experiment and find things out for themselves. Instead, irrationality is brought to the table. Then the thread rambles on and on and on till someone gets irate and/or insulted. Not to mention mental masturbation episodes here and there...
At this very moment I am burning in my Dan Wright modded Swans (I got them yesterday afternoon). I'm thinking what cabling will bring the best synergy to the already synergistic mod. I am trying to absorb as much knowledge as I can.
The mod has transformed my little Chinese babies into a top notch speaker. It's so good Dan e-mailed me they outperformed his 6.5K Greybeards. Want some humor? Five hundred for the Swans plus the *heavily* discounted mod :)
Something serious? Today there was a little Priority Mail box in my mailbox. I didn't order anything...the box contained a modded integrated headshell Stanton 500 MKII fitted with a NOS Stereohedron stylus. There was a note that said: "For your evaluation."--in my modded 1200, that is. Some serious people are trusting my ears...
POP UP THE VOLUME!!! |
Cable is a component.
I had to say that. Will I be punished? |
Albert, you're the man! What you have done takes more than money--takes a good ear, patience, goals and, above all, love for music.
It might not seem so, but your approach to building your system and mine share many many similarities--I just don't have the financial resources nor the stability of having a fixed residence. We do share a good ear, patience, goals and, above all, love for music...
POP UP THE VOLUME!!! |
Ok, cables are components, y'know, like a rug, or a pillow propped up on a sofa narrowing a sidewall flare. So yes, if a damned wire is as important as a transducer, than so are room treatment apparati, for example. Asa, I can't help but think that semantics issues are just becoming vehicles for highly sophisticated passive aggression.
So I took your damned bait!
And oh, is the digital equalizer that's needed to reflatten the VERY high-ender's speakers' in-room response after being trampolined by high output impedence tubes a component too?
Given what I experience spatially with Aleph P and Aleph 2 monos pushing my arsifal Encores, are you really sure that
my system's deep and palpable sounstage (extends 15-20' BEYOND the speaker plane (this is predominantly due to nearfield geometry using EXTREMELY matched drivers, BTW, and LESS the quality of amplification) is somehow compromised because it's solid-state?
Yes, tubes are great with harmonic TEXTURE (at the expense of amplitude response flatness), and have a TON of compression built into them, so they don't overload harshly
with those ultrashort huge transients we surmise are doing in ALL solid state systems, eh? Talk about absolutist statements, Asa. I oscillate between suggesting that you shame yourself by being self-blind of aspersions you cast that are pure projection...and suggesting from fatigue after wading through the monologues that we just turn the thread off! I sincerely DON'T want to hurt your feelings, here, NOR insult you, and I willingly admit that my human foibles perhaps run deeper or wider than yours. But please, try to wear life like a loose coat, 0k?
Good Night. Ern |
