Nrchy: "So, in your opinion what is the better value, assuming the relative value of your components being about equal. Is it cheaper to buy great cables or great electronics? Then, which would provide the biggest improvement?
To restate: I was confronted with an impending test of Nrchy's question. It was by no means a controlled scientific test. However, it does help illuminate the dilemma. Two of us were to listen to our two systems, both of which were comprised of, in the owner's eyes, components of comparable value. They are both similar in dollars value. I will label the two systems A and B.
A is a Wadia/Coda/Spendor/Nordost system. The owner, listening to an "art = science" guru chose to spend serious money replacing twenty feet of romex with 8awg silver cored teflon shielded cable. Obviously, he hoped for a bigger improvement in his system than he might get replacing a piece of electronics.
Fair enough?
B is my Jolida/Pass/Apogee/Kimber system. I differ with system A's contention. My thinking leads me to believe I could best improve system B with another amp arrangement, say biamping, since I perceive it's only weakness being lack of power feeding the bass panel. I would choose this rather than upgrading wire.
Wrong?
Remember, Nrchy never postulated a base level of overall system value that would perhaps magnify the relative value of super wire.
It is my belief that system A could have been vastly improved if the money put into wire had been instead put into a speaker upgrade. Furthermore, the money put into the Nordost was a waste too, given the state of his electronics.
Choices is what this thread is all about, not science versus art, component semantics, Jung, or Buddha. By evolving my speaker/amp/front end to ever increasing levels of excellence rather than gilding the wires, I know I have made the right choices. Owner of system B now joins the score of audiophiles that agree with me whole heartedly after listening to my system.
Nrchy, the answers to your questions are system specific. Shoot for the stars systems like yours may well indeed benefit from wire rolling. I am not in the position to disagree. For us groundlings with sub twenty grand systems speaker/front end/amps choices are far more reaching. IMOH of course!
|
Greg: I agree with everything you've said. I got into this thread because some people who think wire is over-priced (yes, wire is over-priced, based upon your same reasoning regarding complexity of manufacture)but then, to perfect their argument, try to use their knowledge of science to say that, ergo, wire doesn't matter, or is not a "component"; a reductionism that the rules of science themselves don't allow. I don't like smart people picking on someone else with a body of knowledge (like lawyers do with their acquired vocabulary...)that is then used in such a way that is contrary to that very knowledge. Its obfuscation for the purpose of dominating someone else. The fact that they then call you "bullying" is somewhat ironic.
On the "Guru": yes, if you see the Buddha in the road, or the guru, kill him. Its strange: reality is suseptible to mathematical imposition, revealing truths about matter and energy and their forces, but to know "beauty" you yourself must make that journey, and the guru, ultimately, can not "tell" you, only point in the direction (hence, finally, to "see" you must "kill" your attachment to him seeing for you). We are all pointing for each other here, except when some try to use their scientific intellect to intimidate others who want to see more "beauty". But, different knowledge is state-specific, meaning that when you are attached to some type of knowledge that very attachment keeps you from seeing further possibilities, both in yourself and the world. This is where "science" is: claiming that there is no truth discernible outside scientific truth (materially/externally focused), effectively negating all future possibilities or capacities for truth, notwithstanding its own evolutionary evidence that says all knowledge evolves beyond its own parameters, always its core truths being integrated into the next, and even in the face of its own reductionist method turned back upon itself to reveal it own limitations (Popper, Kuhn etc; the seed for every next level contained in the power of the last). People who claim that only science (read: measurement/quantification externally applied) can tell us if wire has "truth" vis-a-vis a system of "components" are the same people, unknowingly, attached to the above scientism. And that is why scientism is just another ideology coersively attempting not to change towards seeing more - not coincidentally, just like medieval mythological theism attemted to do with the emergence of scientific method and its truth. The guru only points; people must have the courage to step beyond the illusory comfort of their self-limiting ideologies in order to see farther.
Yes, if the Dominus makes the system sing - you see more beauty than with a more "complex" component, thereby rendering it more "functional" experientially - then what do you do? A Van Gogh painting is only a mix of paint swirls - its molecular construction is less complex - but does that make it less able to translate "beauty"? Is "complexity" in matter, although a consideration, nonetheless secondary to the "functional" result in listening of that construction? Even in science, isn't the result of the experiment, observed by the comparing mind, determinitive of the technolgy used to achieve that result? If you contend the opposite, aren't you being, in fact, un-scientific? And if you are claiming to be the bearer of scientific sobriety, while at once violating the very rules you hoist upon others, aren't you being irrational, that irratioinality fueled by you desire to be secure in your set of ideas, however misplaced? And, doesn't the need for security, the desire to be safe from other ways of thinking beyond your own, manifest, behaviorily, in a subsequent attack on all those who might point towards something more?
Wire, amp, price, pragmatism, a balancing that sees what is true in the moment of experience of listening and does not deny that truth, or its possibility, in default to fear of that possibilty - the Middle Path. |
Detlof, didn't know that about C-G. BTW, weren't we told to meet the devil head-on? Knowing he should NOT listen to music and acting upon it, Jung obviously brought his awareness to "passage a l'acte" level.
Funny thing, Asa, I trained as a lawyer (eons ago). Lost my way to Damascus & never practised! Oh well...
BTW, it's sometimes comical when one's officially supposed to be "in the know". The subjective (i.e. personal listening experience) becomes objective (i.e., whatever the guru says is objectively correct-- but let me check out this guru...). So, if following the "audio-guru's" suggestion yields a good experience, things are "staggering". If the perceived sonic value of following the suggestion is not perceptible to the subject, we completely reject the "guru".
Of course, one & all may stress the points "listen first, buy later", "in my opinion", "to my tastes", ad nauseam but to no avail...
Now, wires connecting pieces of equipment. I believe pricing is one thing, sonics another and I try to distinguish between the two: a) price, b) sonic qualities. If (b) agrees with my system and keeps my ears happy, I address (a): can I afford this? No. Good.
Likewise, comparing cables vs. electronics, bang to buck, is a nebulous matter -- akin to explaining the price of our equipment to the non-audiophiles.
As we've more or less accepted the prices for electronics, why don't we swallow the pricing for cables?? Probably a matter of visual conditioning or, "what do I SEE I am I getting for my money:
A full set of Purist Dominus (2xIC) costs about as much as one of my amps -- for which money you get a sizeable box containing ~150pds of circuitry producing a hefty current in class A. Ok, I've swallowed the asking price of those ~150 pds. But the same price for a few pds of wire??? I mean, I can't design & produce the ~150pds of class A alone, so be it, I'll buy. But wire??? Surely there's a way around the $7kx2 for THAT wire!!! (Remember, I LIKED that wire!) So, I compromise, and purchase (or make) another wire.
The question is: do I get closer to my sonic nirvana with the $7k x 2 wire and, say, a lesser chunk of electronics circuitry -- or the other way round? If it's the first case, cables offer equal if not more bang for the buck...
Admittedly, I've never tried it that way round (but many dealers I know, do)! |
Asa, Carl Gustav a tube type..definitely. By the way, he very rarely went to concerts or listened to music. He said it overwhelmed him, stirred him up so much, that he had trouble concentrating on work and patients, that the music struck right at his core. Interesting, no? |
Nrchy, what do you think?
Personally, just looked at your sysytem and I wouldn't put Dominus on a Krell Pre & Aragon 8008, and like Muralman says, in your system I believe that spending such money, even used prices on Dominus ($3200?) would be better spent elsewhere. Say, a Supratek pre ($2500), Muralman's Pass amp and some very good IC's like NBS pro series 1's ($500)? I used to help out more on systems than now (I'm a drop out from the audio industry world too), and one time a guy asked what were good wires and I told him that the NBS Pro's were good, which were current at then time. He then told me he had Vandy 2Ci's and I told him definitely NOT to get the NBS (he wanted to keep the Vandys and liked them) so suggested Discovery Signature (pre Sakura, Harmonix, Virtual Dynamics, etc. days) with money for an AirTight EL34 based amp and with maybe an Audible Illusions pre with NOS tubes. The next week he called me after dropping 5K to Fields at NBS retail and said, no surprise, that his world didn't shift on its axis. He sold them the next week at a big loss even though I told him to be patient and he'd get a better price. Another time sold my same 805 amps to a guy and sent him a five page letter and three phone calls on what he needed to do to hear them. A year later I missed the amps and called him. He said he never heard that they made any difference, then he said, when I asked, that he'd decided to put Radio Shack wire on them for spkr wire. I bought them back for the same price. Last year, a good friend with top all Pass analog system and large Planar speakers listened to a 1M pair of NBS Pro that I had and dropped by with. He didn't want to put it in because he said his Discovery Sig did everything, so I left it for three months. When I picked it up he said it was better, but no big deal. He put his back in and his face fell about three meters.
Hmmm.... |
Muralman, sent you a response on the Coda. On Sony, yea, it could go, but its pretty musical in a nonfatiguing way. I don't do as much heavy listening on the second system and listen alot when I'm writing. Also, the Spendors are limited so no need to load money there that I don't have -one of the material prices of not being a lawyer (but I've picked up a bad Bordeaux bug! Detlof, save me, a referral please!). Your tubed CD probably kicks its butt (!) but as someone who came through the CD wars (I had 4 PC's and a dedicated conditioner at one point just for digital components...arghh), I'm a little more reticent about CD money out than other things in (incidentally, I DO also feel that way about wire, especially on that system, but it doesn't last because you NEED good wire to make the rest go; you know, Ferraris don't like bad plugs and they let you know it, and not subtlely.). To be honest, given that system's parameters, I'm probably looking at a TT there or speakers first. With the amp's 8W spkrs, speaker compatibility becomes a pain (Coincidents? Any sugestions that equal the mids musicality of LS3/5A's?) so still mulling that over (speakers are a very personal choice as you know) but definetly have my eye on a Teres TT. I'm spoiled and only have space for an integrated there so Audio Aero or EMC-1 would probably be my only itch, and with that 2500-5000 I can go analog in the second system. Different strokes... |
Greg: What I know about Jung could probably fit in a thimble, especially relative to what detlof knows. I know about achetypal awareness, that's about it. On law: barely escaped with my life! Don't let your children go there, to the void of narcissism and the alter of glorified self-interest, whatever you do! Not many lawyers know, from an experiential point of view, about archetypal awareness...
I'm guessin' 'ol Carl J. would be a tube-man...What do you think detlof?! (yes, that's chumming the waters...)
Yes, Albert is usually right, which is why I shamelessly drug him in here, having an idea what he'd say, knowing that the scientific ones would have difficulty shifting to personally attack him (knowing that was all strategically/cognitively left to them)given his demeanor and reputation on audiogon. On a personal level, I'm a much easier target (Stone the witch!!).
Thanks for the system compliment. |
So what conclusion can we draw from all of this anamus, or has the original question been utterly lost? |
Beautiful systems ASA, assembled with love. Prosecutor? not bad, obviously you were on the road to Damascus once.... |
I'd be interested in your review of the Coda, Asa. Can you send it? I will actually return a thank you.
My entering a forum is determined by my leisure time, not who's posting. By the way, I am an artist, not a scientist. I have to trust my ears, and, unless I need to check for component compatibility, I never look at specs. In fact, I rarely see someone touting their amp's specs. Like you, I don't like analytical sound. I know people who utilize the TacT system. Everything is clearer, if you are sitting stone like in the sweet spot, but oh so forgettable. I'm surprised you employ a Sony, albeit your second system. I used one when I started; then someone brought over their tubed player. I went out and bought one the next day. Like you, I use tubes because they are more real sounding, call it air or whatever.
Peace |
Interesting bio note, Asa (& enviable system(s)!); as a side note, did you find Jung more present in this hobby -- or your "past" profession?
On topic, Judith & Albertporter (10/10) summed up my experience with cables... |
Thank you, Ohn. I hear what you say - best to have fun, and I will try to remember that more in the future. Again, thank you for reminding me.
My system is obviously tube-based, and on that basis, may be open to criticism, if not my views. I should have posted it so others could look, but never got around to it. Notwithstanding my admitted irrasciblity in some contexts, and given some people, I try not to trot out the stuff other than the ideas - which everyone can have, authentically proposed - regardless of their components or education or whatever. The problem is when people use science to perfect their lack of experience, or cognitive rigor, at the expense of other people. I was a prosecutor for ten years; running to protect is a bad habit, notwithstanding the fact that I resigned from the "law" many moons ago. |
The Cable Company.
My system is posted right here, right above your post; you rushed in to respond so fast, jumping in together with Ohn (jeez how did I know you'd jump on that...?), that you typed your seconded request while I was typing mine, even though Ohn had only had his posted for a short while. Just can't keep from jumping when you've got company, eh? Hey, what about my third suggestion? |
Thanks for listing your systems. At first I didn't see the point of this Audiogon feature, but I now find that it can give added insight into peoples' comments. Again, thanks. |
Yes, I understand that when someone makes people abide by the rules they impose on others, namely "scientific" rules of objectivity, or make them see the faulty assumptions they operate under, in an effort simply to level the field so such people don't go around beating people over the head with their measuring rulers, that they then start regressing from responding to what you've said and try to paint you as a "bully", or "condescending" or an "alchemist" (read: pre-scientific mythologist), or as an aristocrat (the implication of your "common" man comment, although you to can't quite bring yourself to say it...). All of this because someone had the audacity to cite that those who throw around the scientific jargon and arguments don't themselves seem to have a clue regarding the assumptions of their own thought system - the same one they are using in absolutist fashion to talk down others.
I have fun most all the time, but loose hope when people of obvious intellect and intelligence make such unself-reflective arguments - and always trying to use their intellect to beat up on someone who is not an acolyte of scientific measurement. They just don't like a little of their own medicine. And they usually start ganging up when it doesn't go their way...If they get a little perturbed that they aren't able to have their way in an cognitively authentic fashion, or think that now is the time to paint me from the bushes as an "arisocrat", so be it.
Yes, my system is relevant:
First system -
TNT 4 w/ Graham 2.2, Cardas Heart cart, Hovland phono cable, SDS, M'pingo disk on plinth at arm board, BDR Source top shelf, VPI stand for TT modified, Joule Electra LA200 (the one I reviewed in TAS)line stage & OPS-1 MkIII phono, all NOS-tubed, electronics on Magic Sound Production stand with isolation platforms, Cary 805B 50W SE monos with NOS RCA/GE/United 211 outputs, WE300B drivers, Brimar mil-spec inputs with Shun Mook resonators, all matched on dedicated stands (can't remember name, about $2K and outrageously expensive - I got for $500 used, but unbelievably good for you 805 owners out there), ESP Concert Grands & Harps, Quad US Monitors Crosby mods selectively, Electraglide PC's mostly, NBS Pro and AudioNote Kondo Az series IC's, Omega Micro Planar III copper with battery boxes skpr cable elevated, dedicated room with dedicated lines, cryod outlets various, Pentagon integrated CD player (CEC/Timber before that). Most everything custom tweaked by manufacturer because reviewing (you knew that didn't you...?)
Second system: Sony CD (the $3K obsolete one that goes for about $1K used now, XA7Es or something or other), AudioNote Kondo Az to Supratek Syrah (NOS black glass KenRads 6SN7's, Mullard rectifier, etc.) through NBS Pro IC to AirTight ATM300 8W SE amp (WE300B's, Mullard 12Au7's etc.), Electraglide & Discovery PC, cryo'd outlets etc., Spendor LS35A vintage spkr's, Rix Rax custom designed stand, AudioNote Kondo KSL copper spkr wire.
When reviewed, lots of amps, which I like and think are critical to a system - like wire - Rowland, Plinius, Coda, Joule Eectra, Spectral, etc. Tons of wire (too much wire!!) etc. |
Asa, Why the fixation on the Coda? This was a first meeting, it's purpose being an introduction to each other's systems, not components. The Coda's attributes did not get a fair shake played through the Spendors. The Dominus would have helped nothing, for the same reason. That is my point. If wires were the be all of components, his system would have bested mine. I have Kimber. Dominus MIGHT help me. I will gladly audition some. Where can I find a loaner?
I second Onhywy61's request. |
Asa, I'm sorry it's so exasperating having to deal with us common people, but to your credit you make a sincere effort. If I can make a suggestion, take the time to list your system(s). It will help many of us to understand what is possibly at the outer limits of audiophilia.
One last point, this thing that we do is supposed to be fun. Are you having fun? |
"Condescending" "bullying"? Muralman, can you ever chime in without taking a gratuitious swipe at me, evidently now on behalf of unidentified others. If you want to mix it up a bit, that's fine, but let's do it without the audience and where we can speed it up a little, or alot, its up to you. As I said - repeated here for the third time - and assuming that you can find the time away from your family, which, er, selectively, you seem to be able to, contact me directly and we will have that "reasoned, mature" dialogue I spoke about. Otherwise, keep the gratuitous personal comments to yourself. Say something constructive beyond absolutist statements, step up or put a lid on it.
Has anyone ever heard a Coda sound "sweet"? My, my...when one conducts an experiment, one must ensure that the components used to test the hypothesis are actually able to translate results either way. Has anyone ever, ever heard of taking a Coda SS amp and matching it with Dominus, or the like? Yea, I can see how an Apogee ribbon with tubes in the line can sound better than a Coda amp...
Sub: you pulled the trigger too fast again; seeing what you think I will say, thinking that's what I said, then reaching a conclusion due to your preconcieved bias. While we could have a discussion on the mind as a "component", I did not say that and think it would be out of context and confusing here; I said the mind was in a continuum (a sequence) that included components "thereafter", meaning components after the mind. That's what "thereafter" usually means...I don't know what you mean by "cleaving" external effects from sound. Maybe I missed something; you said you might have ventured afield with the rug thing - the only external effect I "cleaved" - and then say I "cleaved" inappropriately. I took amp and wire and integrated them on a fundamental level, forcing the accuracy-attached to say that it was "compexity" that mattered. I then integrated complexity on wire v. amp, saying that there were priorities at different levels of system sophistication (a point still unchallenged), at which point "functional" became the measure, which then I said that in the listening context (which, again, is the final arbiter) they were functionally equal in most advanced systems (another point that has gone unchallenged), then said that adding the "rug" was self-serving and cognitively disingenuous. Oh well...
Hey guys, I'm really sorry that you had to concede that wire can be important and not always a scam, that you can't continue to swoop into threads with your science garble seeking to down talk those who hear something beyond the measurements. Sorry, sorry, sorry, but maybe you are going to have to admit that just maybe something out there beyond a "Coda amp", or the measurements that say it must be better, or the misplaced, uninformed bias against a piece of technology vs. another just because its appearance, or because it doesn't fit in with science's bias for more moving parts in their machines (a bias originally swallowed whole).
Exasperating... |
I realize I checked out of this forum, but then noticed I had left behind an open ended question. As I stated in a recent post, I had an appointment to listen to a fellow audiophiles system, and I was to return the favor. How was the system with gilded wires all the way to the breaker box, and how it compares with my modestly wired system?
There was no way to judge the wire. That was because of the two systems disparity between space and speakers. That isnt quite accurate. My speakers require good space for proper function. The others Spendors were better than most box speakers, but they paled on all levels compared to my ribbon speakers. In his own words:
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. The superior space you have is obvious after
listening here (his home) this morning.
My impressions of his Wadia/Coda/Spendor/small room system were that it is noticeably veiled, a bit colored, and had trouble negotiating complex passages. This was probably all speaker related. His Wadia was neutral and very smooth. It controlled bass at high volume better than my tubed player, but the quality of the bass was again compromised by speaker. His Coda, class A, was very smooth, and sweet enough. With a positive change of speaker, he will have a marvelous sound.
I do think, though, the tubes in my system impart a specialness to the music beyond speakers, the Wadia cant match. Soon, I will find out. Both systems have inaudible noise floors. That is important to me.
My conclusion remains. Active components should be attended to first, before any hard money is spent on wires, because no wire made can make up for a poorly matched amp, speaker, or front end. Nrchs question is answered.
Asa, oh Asa. You are a talented writer, when you dont gild the Lily. It is your condescending manner, to the point of bullying, that puts off a number of us. |
Asa, good stereo = aural sex.
I've always wondered about gumby and gumbydammit. Was there some big interent name blowout? |
Asa,
Yeah, the pillow was a cheapy, but how can you then concede that mindstate is also an ersatz "component" to Detlof's inability to get off in his system that night...immediately after hogging the sandbox by cleaving "external" effects on sound propagation? Trying to have it both ways?.................Detlof, yeah I'm still really struggling with the sciatic pain; hoped that the medication wasn't making my wit abrasive, though. Not my intent.
Give me a break, here Asa, I can only take one pain in the ass at a time!
Cheers. |
I am sending a pair of Marantz Ma-5 Class A Monoblocks (SS) to Stephen Sank for complete overhaul pretty soon.
Right now I'm using my oldie but goodie Proton AA-1150 Dual Mono. I just hooked it up to a ONEAC 1.2 KW isolation transformer--it's sounding really good. I have a Melos SHA-1 hybrid linestage, which is also a goddie goodie. Tice interconnects throughout, with a cooked (by Sean, of course) Phoenix Gold digital cable between Cambridge D300SE and Soundstream/Krell DAC-1. The DAC sits on a non resonant Caribbean Moca wood board supported by Mapleshade Triple Point cones. The CDP on Sound Qwest Isol Pads with a Bob Regal foot on top of the transport mechanism. Three BR feet under the Melos. All this on IKEA RACK tables.
Dan did a *superb* job. I take my hat off...
POP UP THE VOLUME!!! |
Psych, a guy I know got a great deal on a pair of Swans as they were going out of business, just the parts, then put them together. I know they sound very good with triodes (heard them at length at several CES's)and I've had some Dan W. mod'd stuff, before he started the mod business, so I'm intrigued by your new project. You know, if you take those Swans, mate them with a WE300B based SE amp, put a Supratek pre in front of it, you might not chide me so much.... Are you thinking about triodes with the Swans? What model are they, Batons, etc.? |
Detlof, Patti is in the room. ;-) |
Asa, yes, I KNOW I'm right. Nothing more simple, every child knows that, but later they forget. Healed myself and the system by listening to Patti Smith for the very first time in my life and on vinyl no less. Oh megosh, that power, frailty, resilience, tenderness, scorn and lust all packed into one voice. I fell in love with her and my system again, wires included, integral part, yes, Sub and Clue, integral. And "they" say, stators cannot play loud, cut back dynamics. BS, isn't it Albert. You either need big ones like Albert, or lots of them ,stacked, like me, to have the best of both worlds. No horn colourations, no sluggish cones...just music. Speaking of water, 6chac, me and my system, it can pee as far as the best of them... or almost, at least tonight, not that I cared about that, while Patti was in the room. Only turned silly later. Tomorrow is another story. Carpe diem..... WOW, what a woman.......life is great.
Cheers, (-; |
I *know* what I'm talking about--the person that got me into high end and darkroom photography is a friend of my father. He taught me that the most important thing to look for in audio was "resolution". WRONG. Having worked at record stores, everytime I went to his house he would show me his latest wire and/or gadget (like the VPI brick--ha!)--he in turn would *always* drool with my new LPs. He was listening to equipment...
It was so much fun when I brought my Yamaha NS-10M studio one night...he had a multi-thousand dollar transport and DAC, a Klyne SK-5A pre and a Krell sliding bias beast hooked w/ $100 @ foot speaker wire to some B& W 801's. My $315 Yamahas were *uncomfortably* close to the $6,000 801's!!! I wonder if he learned the lesson...
What *if* he hears my Modwright Swans? They would really kick the s**t out of them 801's!!! |
Asa,
"The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflections,"
You mean to tell me: when you have to dump, you just dump. LOL
Have a nice weekend everyone. |
Detlof, here is the other half your mantra.
Water is waves, wave is water. :-)
Cheers!!! |
Psychanimal: you crack me up! You chide me, asking that the dialogue end and then, jump right in yourself! Now that's funny! "Mental masturbation"? Well, its a relative thing, I would submit for your ever-continuing consideration.
ernie: thank you for rising to my bait, and with a pretty good attitude. Yes, alot of tube systems are veiled with euphonics and are IMHO boring. But I'm not talking about these, just like I'm not talking about SS systems that commit the more extereme ills of raspy highs, etc. I'm talkng about the best, and best executed, in both in comparison on spatial/harmonic nuance perceived at a deep existential, trans-cognitve level (its not just about the size of the soundfield created, another default BTW to the assumptions of Galileo that form one of the planks of Cartesianism...). Like I said, the Pass stuff is nice, and the Parcifals too - very...precise would be my guess. I think, to perfect your arguments (by the way, what exactly are they...?), you went a little bit far with the "rug" thing. Yes, matter that comes into contact with soundwaves in sufficient proximity to our listening is a consideration, but we are talking about energy transference WITHIN the system as an energy transference/converting system, not how that system may thereafter interact with other energies. Like I've said, when the scientific ones are confronted with the logical inconsistencies and faulty assumptions on the very method which they use to beat everyone else over the head with, they tend to regress (or say thaty now you are regressing to something before science, like mediaval astrology, like Muralman saying that anyone who hears beyond his Apogees and assumptions is an "alchemist"). A little too far; I think you gave yourself away on that one. In fact, I was feeling a little bad about the "disingenuous" bait (see, clueless I am listening to you after all..) - you know, because ignorance necessarily excludes conscious intent - but I'm feeling better about that now. Hey, BTW, how are those cryo-treated outlets doin' ya?
Detlof: right again, what more to be said; mind is primary, all "components" thereafter seeking to capture the musical meaning from one mind into our own.
6ch: there you are, knew you were slunking around somewhere...here's one for you:
The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflections,
the water has no mind to receive their images.
Don't know, go strait - but that doesn't mean you can't have FUN.
Albert: shameless of me to drag you in. Hey, what can I say, no one here would say bad your way, so too hard for me to resist. You know, easy to bang chatty-catty Asa, hard to bang professorial Albert, even though he's the one with/had the Dominus. Thank you for letting me borrow you.
Have a nice wkend all. |
6chac, Ernie is....hey Pychic turn the volume down......ahem, Ernie is a Guru, steps into rabbit holes, swears like a trooper doing it and sells Submarine...ahem ..arus, methinks and ASA loves to wrestle with him. Its lots of fun...and yes both can spell too. |
Yeah, turn on the volume! Now that's the human thing to do!
She loves me, yeah, yeah, yeah...She loves me, yeah, yeah, yeah... |
|
By this time everyone probably know that I am a worst of the worst speller, and my English is also stink, sorry. Oh yeah, it's not the gear, it's the HUMAN THING! (logic/no logic (baggages), etc..., what a drag!)
What is passive agression? Hmm, the lion does not have to do anything, all he need to do is to show up? :-)
Let me do the logic thing:
Mind = a component and one with all components, complex cognitive.
All components = good and bad
Good and bad = diamond and cow dump
Mood = good mood and bad mood
Lousy mood = stereo just sounded like crap
Sorry Detloft, but you only got half of the mantra. LOL. This is because you did not approve for my use of "your quote" in the last thread. ;-)
Detlof, who is Ernie?
You guys just love the "neurotic thing"?, don't you? :-)
Here is the first half of the Ten bulls quote. Enjoy!
Too many steps have been taken returning to the root and the source.
Better to have been blind and deaf from the beginning!
Dwelling in one's true abode, unconcerned with that without --
The river flows tranquilly on and the flowers are red.
If you are sick, you go to the doctor. Easy isn't it? One just don't realize if he is sick. That is where all the trouble start. Wow I sound like Clueless ;-) You poor souls...
You guys call these craps "ZEN" LOL
It's Friday, cheers everyone... |
No, this is not on Jung:
6chac: Wasn't it Spock? He with the pointed ears, but then I'm of an older generation and you said V didn't you? Didn't know Star Trek was like AR gear: MK I, MK II ad infinitum.....
Ernie, the rabbit hole has proven an inspiration to your abrasive wit. Great post Ernie, though I somewhat beg to differ. What is passive aggression? Sort of like the significant other not talking to one for a week? Can't be though, ' cause ASA, though significant, sure is erudite and talking! My mantra for the week: My mind is a component and one with all components.....('tis true by the way, was in a lousy mood last night and the stereo just sounded like crap. Perhaps that was THE moment of truth...)-: )
Cheers, |
Mr. Spark is it a logical thing to do? No, Captain its a human thing to do.
Star Trek V?
Dwelling in one's true abode, unconcerned with that without --
The river flows tranquilly on and the flowers are red.
Ten Bulls
It's beautiful tonight. YO, I am sleeping! Who's waking me up? |
So Ernie, how are those Subaru's and the herniated disc doing? ( Damn rabbits ).
I can't decide if your comments mean that you will or will not want to be included in our group "Cryo treated Hubbell" purchase. |
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 |
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!!! |
Cable is a component.
I had to say that. Will I be punished? |
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!!! |
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... |
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... |
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. |
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. |
Let's lock this thread, please... |
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. |
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. |
"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, |
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. |
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?). |
