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!) |
I STILL say: Kimber and 6500.00 worth of vinyl :) |
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. |
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!). |
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, |
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! |
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.
|
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, |
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? |
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. |
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, |
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 |
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, 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 |
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...). |
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! |
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, |
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 |
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. |
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,
|
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, |
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. |
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. |
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 you’ll 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, it’s 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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
Thanks a lot Phychicanimal. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
Psychicanimal, where do you get silver plated copper for .65/ft?
I'd like to try it. Thanks. |
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 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. |
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. |
WOW... Gone a few days and look at the action! Ah.. it looks as if most of you have started to realize something...
Albertporter! Outstanding response on 09-15-02! That made my day. :) Pure class and well written indeed. Touche' |
Albertporter/Nrchy -
If you will allow me to wipe egg off face, I will admit that I was a bit overly enthusiastic. I do not expect anyone to be swayed by my opinion, after all I build cables as a passion and a business.
On the other hand, CD's do not "throw away" information intentionally, as MP3 and other lossy algorithms do. They just suffer from a slightly lower sampling rate than desirable. This is fixed incidently by DVD-A, which is completely lossless and very high sampling rate. The only problem with DVD-A is the absence of content, but that will hopefully improve over time. |
Psychicanimal, marry me. You take me and I'll take a vacation. If I married you I'd need a vacation. Ahhhh I can see it now, you bending over a hot stove, but I can't see the stove!
Say, you better get out of here. I hear they're gonna tear you down and put up an apartment building where you're standing. You know you haven't stopped talking since you got here. You must have been vaccinated with a phonograph needle. If you don't like that you can leave in a huff, and if that's too soon you can leave in a minute and a huff.
GO and never darken my towels again! |
Being serious, I need help with the finishing touches of my system. My little Swans should be back from MODWRIGHT next week and I have some serious speaker and power cable issues.
Dan has done an *impressive* modification including 4 Bybee filters, Auricaps, Deflex panels, Jena Labs deep immersion cryo treatment of the four crossover boards and their speaker wire used for internal wiring. Dan says they will "blow me away".
My weak points will be speaker wire and power cords from my 220V ONEAC iso trans to my Tice A/V Solo and PS Audio Juice Bar, as well as all the smaller iso trans I have floating around. I need to find a reasonably priced alternative for my nomadic lifestyle. Also, right now I'm using a mixture of CAT5 and 18 ga Carol silver plated copper wire from The Home Depot. Deano auditioned my system in Chicago and liked the speaker wire--but I moved again.
I e-mailed Bob Bundus the details of what I'm thinking, since he was already informed of my progress as I went along, but I'll appreciate any feedback.
I live in a small 1 bedroom apt. Please realize I'm aiming at a near field system capable of successfully playing any recording of any type of music regardless of recording quality... |
Hey, I think you're insulting Harpo.
Sincerely
I remain |
|
Quote: "Sometimes this site is better than a Marx Brothers movie, and I do mean the better ones."
IT IS!
And now we have an audio engineer playing *Harpo*... |
Bwhite said:
In order to explain I have to first say that I tried countless cables in my system before settling on Audio Note Kondo KSL-LP (which is the newer doubled version of the old Kondo AN-Vz between my source and my preamp), NBS Statement between my preamp and amp and Audio Note Kondo KSL for my speakers. I read a review from Hi-Fi Review Magazine, which said the following: "After using AN-Vx for more than 2 years, I decide to upgrade my system by borrowing a pair of AN-Vz balanced cable from the Elephant Holdings Ltd. (Each pair worth $19,000/m" Are you saying that you have the doubled version of this interconnect? What does this monster cost? For anywhere close to this price, it had better be one of the all-time best! :) Bwhite said:
With the VD cables in my system, the first thing I noticed was the added "sledge hammer" bass and a "gimmicky" sound quality. I had worked very hard to make my system as organic as I could with the cables I owned (and NOS tubes I selected) but for whatever reason the VD and the NBS didn't mesh well together. It brought on a harshness to the sound so I pulled out the NBS and inserted the Kondo and the sound was more livable but still not right. I felt that the harmonics were inaccurate in my system and the bass was overloaded. The highs were shimmery & like a school of fish I could never predict where they were going next. It was a bit more coherent in that setup but certainly not an improvement over where I was before VD. This past month, I bought a new VD Nite PC for my Electrocompaniet EMC-1 MKII and a pair of Nite IC's to connect my Spectral amps and preamp. All of my other cables are from the VD Audition cryo'd line. The latest Nite line of VD cables is a substantial improvement over anything they have previously produced. It is as if you are peering further into the soundstage and their transient response is the best I have heard in my system. Still, it took about 200 hours even after Rick cable-cooked them to have them settle into my system. I agree that they can sound somewhat bright and forward before they are fully broken in, but in my system they settled down and opened up after the break-in period. Bwhite said:
Even though my experience with the VD cables wasn't all that spectacular, I cannot say its a bad cable. In fact, they have qualities which would be pretty good in the right system. Not that price guarantees performance, but any cable might have a hard time competing with the doubled version of your Kondo AN-Vz cables. Bwhite said:
While I only spent 72 hours with the VD in my home and even less time listening to them, I heard the VD as a pretty dynamic cable which was more ready to kick ass than it was to give me a kiss on the cheek...but I must say, in a nice way of course, that problems I found in the cables were more in regard to my preferences & system than to the cables themselves. The first thing I noticed when plugging in the VD cables was the increase in dynamics over other cables I have tried. It was only after the long break-in period that dynamics were no longer the dominant characteristic, and their other qualities came into balance.
I sent the Signature power cord back to JC Audio and sold the interconnects three days later. But.. I kept the low end cable and ripped it open to find out what Rick does inside there to make them tick.
The low end VD cables are completely different in construction from the high end VD cables, lacking some of their proprietary materials and technology, which put them in a different league from the VD Nite cables. Bwhite said:
Another thing I didn't mention is that the VD power cords replaced a pair of more refined yet anything but transparent Shunyata King Cobra V1 power cord and an ElectraGlide FatMan K. The Shunyata ads a surreal quality to the digital front end and the Electraglide adds a vividness to the texture and a smooth seamless intensity to the dynamics. Whether or not the VD's were broken in, I do not know but they certainly lacked the refinement of these two cables. After a lengthy break-in, the VD cables become much more refined in my system, particularly with the Nite series. But that's in my system, and everyone's mileage may vary. |
Sometimes this site is better than a Marx Brothers movie, and I do mean the better ones. I have owned lots of CD players, maybe too many. I guess they all must have had either the wrong DACs or just plain bad DACs. None of the CD players I have owned ever compared to vinyl regardless of which TT I owned at the time. How is it possible for a medium that only reproduces part of the music recorded to sound better than a medium which reproduces all of it. I prefer all the music to BITS of it! The BITS I have heard BYTE! |
Cd's and the newest incarnation of cable. Hummm...Didn't Sartre call that hell?
Sincerely
I remain, |
Now I am REALLY confused.
My Swans will be back from MODWRIGHT in two weeks and they've been internally rewired with 20 ft of Jena labs cryo treated wire. I am still a nomad, so I am totally confused as to finding a reasonable solution for speaker wire. |
Audioengr, you have made your position perfectly clear and now I understand why our discussion has rambled along for so long on the "Romex behind wall" postings.
It's a shame Nrchy has a better grasp of high end reproduction than an engineer producing product for the audio business.
Again, I wish you well in your quest to sell cable, but will likely reduce or eliminate any further responses to your posts. |
Nrchy - I believe your experience with CD's has everything to do with the DAC's that are doing the converting and the cables that connect everything together. Given the cables that you are using, I can understand why you are having this experience. If you could hear my system, I believe you would come away thinking just the opposite. I have never heard the coherency, detail, dynamics, finesse and "liveness" that I get in any other system with other cabling playing CD's.
I am also a EE with 26 years experience, who has heard a lot of systems. I agree that vinyl can be very good, but it just does not capture the dynamics of a modern well-mixed CD recording. |
I find SACDs and especially CDs disappointing in comparision to vinyl. I have a $3500 SACD player and when I do direct comparisions with music I have on both formats the SACD falls short. CDs are fine for having something on to listen to while you're vacuuming or working around the house, but they sound so small and compressed that for actual listening they are practically unlistenable. The only time I will buy and listen to something on CD is when I want something by a particular artist but it is not available on a better medium.
For him who has ears to hear... I can sit and listen to SACDs for a longer period of time than I could CDs. Their sound is much more "real" or live sounding where redbook CDs sound too artificial. I bought the Sony SCD777 ES because I got a real good deal and for what I paid I'm not disappointed pricewise but my Sota/Rega/Benz combination sound more like live music.
I don't know what your cables are but I use Purist, Kimber KCTG and Cardas and have been happy with them. I still con't understand how cables could overcome all the design flaws of CD though. It is a bad design that has been tweaked about as much as is possible in the last twenty years so it is almost comparable with poor to moderate quality turntable now, but it will never be capable of producing what a good turntable/arm/cartrtidge can.
I'm not trying to be dogmatic but I wonder how this question is still debated. My brother-in-law Greg has a friend who is an electrical engineer who questioned the accuracy of his staements about TT vs CD so Greg had him listen to his system and then brought him to my house. The engineer was shocked to hear the quality difference. He came in convinced digital sound was better and went home muttering under his breath something about buying a turntable. This is a guy who designs and builds his own equipment for fun not some neophite who knows nothing about musical reproduction.
For him who has ears to hear... |
