End the geekfest? Might as well shut down Audiogon right now:
Cables are lots of fun because they are very mysterious, a cognitive black box...
Since the first day I hooked up some $100 cables to my system oh so many years ago, I was simply amazed by how much it improved the sound quality and how different cable designs and materials can alter the sonic characteristics of a system.
Even 'til this day, my amazement with cables hasn't died. As Neitzche says, "There is no original text," I believe there is no perfect cable. And like every novel, each cable has something different to offer, so, as long as people are enjoying their audio hobby, it is intrinsic for us to audition all types of cables with an open "ear," mega-buck or not.
Yah, cables are heavily over-priced, but so are everything else that isn't mass produced and are high quality.
Another thought, should we boycott all mega-bucks cables until they charge less? = D |
1.machines, audio gear, are examples of rearranged materials, resulting from technology.
2.anti-megabuck cable buyers claim cables and electronics that are equal in monetary costs are not equal monetary and intrinsic values.
3.people in arguement two are objectivists who claim there are absolutes in terms of matter arrangements.
therefore,
4.objectionist are irrational.
I think this arguement is irrational.
Sorry, just stirring the pot. |
hmmm... the argurment I previously posted wasn't mine. It's Asa's arguement in simplified form.
I never really attempted to reduce human technology from a linear progressism to a circular attachment. I rather think the two goes hand in hand. On the same note, I deduce it's impossible for people such as audiogon members to listen to hi-fi without their objective goggles on: this isn't a symptom of technological attachment, but it is their intrinsic want to improve their system to result in a no objective goggle-needed enjoyment so long as hi-fi is limited and inferior to reality.
Asa seems to bring up many intersting points tho, not just about audio, but about the overall faults in human nature as concluded by the Buddha and Lao Tzu: Buddha claims human cause pain to themselves when they require attachment to materialism, and Lao Tzu wants us to reduce our objectivity to nothing, wu-wei.
I often thought audio is some sort of western technology meets eastern philosphy type of soup. |
Yes, it goes without saying that nothing can recreate "experience", and, as Zen would explain, any attempts to reconstruct retrospective phenomenon is further from reality:
I think audiophiles have often experienced a temporal sense of accomplishment where they've reached a point where they think their system is perfect until the next better cd player, speaker or cable comes along. Our subjectiveness is often fooled into thinking how much more real or better our system sounds by a tweak or an upgrade, but, like I said, it is only temporal. I would explain that their image of reality is projected onto their system rather than the system recreating reality. And we only realize this when we compare to a better system or live music.
This doesn't mean our enjoyment is diluted because it is not a perfect copy of the original live performance. However, we have intrinsic want to achieve the ability to replicate that live "experience".
Yes, the need to upgrade and the end result of an audiophile's achievements are nothing objective. However, in achieving this goal, the actions and science are purely objective. |
Wow, really interesting we can try to pull Kant into the picture of audiophilia. This sort of begs the question of whether the enjoyment of music via hi-fi is a physical or metaphysical one: i think most true audiophiles such as yourself will agree it's the latter. Just to make things clear, though, Kant never delved into subjectivity. Rather, he reinforced the validity of Hume's objectivity by combining it with a lens of a priori, which is super-real, not subjectivity.
It is also quite interesting how we audiophiles have a sense of space and time (would this be considered prat?). However, is this sense of space and time, in audio terms, a priori or synthetic? I would argue it is synthetic because it is an conglomeration of many things we've experienced before audiophelia such as the pace and rhythm of live performances, different degrees of spaciousness such as sight-seeing at the Grand Canyon (yes, space and time is deemed a priori by Kant, but, I think reproduction of space and time is semantically and realistically synthetic).
Regarding subjective vs. objective in terms of building a hi-fi system. I must maintain my position that it is an objective means to a subjective end. I have to say building a system of physics, engineering and trial and error. Let me make a strawman example, if subjectionist is in charge of producing stereo equipment, we might have a stereo company composed of surrealists that are trying to sell us breadmakers and claiming they are Krell amps (which reminds me of the king's new clothing).
Regarding audio neurosis, these people who are competing with the Jones can have both good and detrimental effects, based on their intelligence and taste. Their money is obviously going to the pockets of audio researchers and designers who will improve on the status quo. Lets hope these money go to the right people who have integrity and dilegence to reproducing true audio sound for the enjoyment of the end users. These people with neurosis have good ears too, I hope.
This being said, I am some what neurotic too. I enjoy audio, yet I am never happy truly with it. Maybe I should pick up an instrument and learn to play for myself. Nah, I rather like immersing myself in my own system; sort of like Zen and Motorcycle Mechanic...(or whatever that book is called). |
1. rationalism isn't the intermediary step between objectivism and subjectivism. It is the root of both. Without rationalism, where are objective and subjective notions from?
2. I have no idea what points you are making, and I read your post atleast 5 times already, ezmeralda.
Clueless, Kant studied to be a lawyer before Hume's writings inspired him to be a philosopher. Since he would probably claim there is no primary or a priori cause that a cable would improve the sound of a system, one would assume he'd go for the cheap radioshack stuff. But, I believe Kant to be an open minded person, or else he wouldn't have accepted the thought that people are born with innate ideas that are not derived from the real world. Thus, he'd still buy radioshack cables because Kant was a poor man. |
Ok no more talk about philosophy. Fun while it lasted. But like all good things, it must come to an end. Why? Who knows. Just to answer some of your questions, Anton something, father of surrealism, coined the word surrealism, meaning super real, suggesting the subconscious contains a view or reality that is more real than real reality. Physical and metaphysical in the Aristotleian sense. Sight-seeing is what tourists do. Synthetic ideas is a concept created by kant: new ideas are created by combining older ideas. Anywho, bye! |
Asa, how did the dogs let you back in this post? = D
In regards to language, there has been a great deal of debate about how it is used in the realm of philosophy since the great Buddha (one of the first major philosophies to cross over to cultures of varied language and metaphysical understandings). Even modern philosophers such as Wiggenstein and Lacan have delved into the importance of language being used to describe topics of philosophies such as sansara, wu-wei, unconditional regard, and a few terms that has been adopted by audio manufacturers such as sunyata and satori. To understand each of these terminologies, one must, or at least I have, read hundreds of pages of primary and secondary texts to get a crutons worth of empathy for the "philosopher".
And you want me to qualify the text I used in my previous posts? I once did that for a 3 page essay because my professor, snob from Stanford, disagreed with my arguements, so the paper turned into a 15 page research paper (he still gave me a B for the paper, bastard).
I haven't received your email yet, so I am sticking to the post. First I must qualify that your questions are fascinating and requires some thought before answering, but I am impatient so here goes:
My assumption is that it is possible to temporarily forget your objectivity. However, your mind never stops doing three things unless you achieve satori sainthood: perceiving, interpreting perceptions and reinterpreting perceptions. You only temporarily perceive without using objective-goggle.
This brings up an interesting new/old audio dichotomy: Objectivity vs subjectivity. But I dont want to get into now.
Welcome back, haha. |
Asa, somehow I didn't receive your emails. I emailed you, so just reply to that.
In regards to your previous post, I have to admit I am overwhelmed. I do not know how to respond to it. I have a hard time differentiating the main points and supporting arguements. Using smaller paragraphs with topic sentences would help especially with this subject matter (emotive language) that I am not familiar with. Also, I have hard finding relavancy and purpose for this semantic exploration of semantic language. Forgive me for my inability to further this post, but I am still on the ground floor.
However, you say that it is pretty much inherent that we use visually oriented language when describing audio experiences at first and we develop emotive imagery as we continue to listen and forgo our objectivity. This is not a false statement, yet I can't totally agree with you. It happens and it doesn't happen depending on the mood and expriences of the listener on an individual basis. To assume the "force" is pervasive in every situation will fall under the fallacy of all conclusive.
Clueless, I take offense that you describe these posts and ad homs and sophistry. Furthermore, Jl is merely expressing his own experience as an engineer. His inputs are completely valid. He expressed an arguement and showed his qualifications. You can't ask for anything more. Oh, talking about ad hom, I can't resist: "You sure live up to your name". = D |
Is Zaikes using a "ivory tower" metaphor hidden behind his objective arguements?
If so, I'd have to say this post interests me because we're examining the factors of audio system building holistically with the understanding of technology and the human understanding of it.
Ok, I am going to digress and practice writing in Chinese now. I've had enough of audio for now. |
The VMPS website is very interesting. Puts a lot of seperate issues in the hi-end audio industry such as hi-end's demise, trend towards home theater, reviewer and factory buddy systems, and low return on investment on well hyped megabuck products into relevant coherence.
All these proves two things: Good audio doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg, and you too can be a smart butt in the industry without trying to please everyone and still survive in the high end audio industry. VMPS seems to be both. Coincidence?
Thanks for suggesting the page. |
I just had an epiphany that what ASA is talking about has alot to do with classical conditioning.
It's quite abstract.
Anyways, I think he was talkin about the evolution of terminology being used in audio--how visual words such as resolution, bright, dark, openness, etc became daily jargon in terms of describing audio.
Classical conditioning is when a subject is sharing one stimulus response to various stimuluses. Consequently, when we see sudden flash of bright light, we evade our eyes from the source. This is tantamount to our ears wanting to evade a sound that is piercing our ears, because it is too bright.
So, we have two different types of stimulus, but only one word to describe the two differenyt stimulus, because there is only one stimulus response.
So, we describe, or give adjective, to stimulus, not based on the stimulus, but rather, based on our stimulus response to the stimulus. |
Where on this site? I looked throught the harmonicdiscord thingy.... no find. |
