......of all the numerous, overly-simplistic and tired posts I've read on cable pricing, this is one of them. Sheesh, again.
alan m. kafton |
Alan, when you make conclusions, you must state reasons for your conclusions and, specifically, which conclusions you are referring to. It is important that when you reject something - and claim that the arguments made are insufficient - that you say WHY they are insufficient. Otherwise, you are contributing nothing other than your own unsubstantiated charges - which then, of course, become part of the tired-ness that you supposedly decry. |
Yes folks, once again another of these stoopid/tired posting wars has degenerated from the ridiculous to the sublime - and why is it always CABLES?! Is there something intrinsic to wire that prompts the unqualified to hold forth and theorize ad nauseum about why things just CAN'T be so? Could it merely be that wire appears so simple on the face of things that those who would be rightly abashed about such postulating when it comes to say, amplification or digitalia, suddenly feel no inhibitions to flaunting their ignorance? (Check out the above post about voice-coil wire, the function of which [in conjuction with magnets, natch] is the transduction of an electrical signal into mechanical motion - where is the analogy to speaker cables in that?!) Look, (most of) you and I aren't EE's, seasoned audio designers, theoretical physicists, acousticians, philosophers, professional musicians, stereo store owners, magazine reviewers, etc. This means that we lack some measure of both technical expertise and observational experience (not to mention writing skills - geesh, didja ever see such a bunch of inelegant drivel? Makes wading through it all a real chore), so all of this hoo-ha is basically one big masturbatory geekfest, something for which we audiophiles are admittedly well-qualified. But none of the foregoing handicaps should prevent any of us from having an opinion, of course (just don't believe your own hype), so here's mine: Anyone who pays too much for cables, or any other component, relative to the resulting sound of their system AND their ability to pay to play, whether because of status climbing, sales pressure, advertising, neuroses, tin ears, penis envy, whatever, gets exactly what he or she deserves. This ain't the news of the world, people - ever hear the phrase "caveat emptor"? Or "there's one born every minute"? Please, save us from people who would save us from ourselves. Additionally, anyone who thinks that they will avoid these pitfalls AND build a great-sounding system on the cheap because of something they've read or "reasoned" without bothering to LISTEN and DEVELOP an EAR for MUSIC and its reproduction will also get what they deserve, namely bad sound. I personally will never spend "mega-bucks" on cables, or any other part of my system, for the damn good reason that I don't have that kind of scratch. But I'm not so arrogant, or insecure, as to want to think that mine will sound just as good as those that are "over-priced", either. (Rather, I take my consolation in the fact that many of the rich guys actually have no taste in music, and only have goofy "audiophile" software with which to listen to their mega-systems . . . he who laughs last . . .) |
I love these cable threads. If you don't, then don't read them. I also like playing with cheap stuff and have even found a $40 per pair (actually sold as singles) interconnect that I prefer to Nordost Blue Heaven and Kimber Silver Steak (and above that $200 retail price point I won't go). You've never heard of the interconnects I use, and won't hear of them from me either.
Now, I've tried that Radio Shack Gold A/V cable that John Dunlavy wrote about a long time ago. I always thought it was a good bet for an inexpensive system, but maybe not.
I recently bought a Radio Shack $25 phono preamp out of curiosity, and figured what better to use with it than the Radio Shack interconnect? The sound? Well, a lot of groove noise and grain, forget about dynamic range. So then I connected a pair of Audioquest Ruby 2's. Much better, a lot less grain, almost listenable. I've always thought the AQ Ruby was sort of dull, designed to roll off edgy transistory highs from low cost cdps and amps.
So here's the question: Is the Radio Shack cable better than the Ruby because it reveals the true nature of the Little Rat phono preamp or is the Ruby better at carrying a signal? I have a hard time believing that the Radio Shack cable is the source of the coarse and grainy sound from Little Rat. How would a cable add grain? |
ZAIKESMAN SPOKE MY MIND!
Folks, most of us KNOW cables make difference.
Most of us know that the effect is system dependent regardless of price.
Cable cos have every right to charge high prices for what they believe is their state of art cables.
Because there are people who have DEEP pockets( or there is one born every minute)
For thoes who bitch about high prices of these cables-its is case of sour grapes.
Most of these people will line up for these SOTA cables if they were to win a jack pot.
THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND WORKS FOR CABLES TOO.
Lets us end the GEEKFEST right now! |
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 |
Cable companies have a right to charge whatever they want, and consumers who can afford such extravagances are free to indulge. Some who can afford it but understand why it is that cables sound different will choose to spend their money in other ways. Those who can't afford it may choose to console themselves in the same way. Unfortunately, some people who want to spend big bucks on cable feel the need to rationalize this by denying the fact that most of these products are produced for pennies on the dollar. |
Bomarc you are correct and the main point is you dont need to spend big money to get big sound.
People spending big bucks on cables are free to.Just dont propogate the lie that they are worth the money and someone who does not cant possibly have a good system. |
What something is worth is set by market value and what people are willing to pay. In other words, even though someone might think that a mint condition 1967 Shelby Daytona Coupe with full documentation is worth $5,000, there are collectors that would easily pay 100 times that amount for such a vehicle. Obviously, the person selling it would not deny the buyer that was willing to pay such a fee, so the value would remain at $500,000. Is the vehicle worth that amount ? Obviously it was to the buyer and his insurance company. Sean
> |
To further Sean above: IMO we're soul-searching to justify the prices we pay for our equips. In doing so, many of us (myself included) invariably relate the market price of a product with the cost of producing said product. Under this premise, many cables can be termed outrageously expensive: the *apparent* production cost is only remotely related to the asking price. So, how can we justify it? Now if it were a beefy amp, heavy and packed with capacitors...
Nevertheless, some people do purchase expensive cables and, in doing so, do set a market price -- as with Sean's Daytona example.
For that matter, how does the price of an expensive amp compare to the price of an automobile -- construction cost-wise? As far as I, for one, can judge-- no comparison! My amp costs more than a small car and a car seems far more complicated (and expensive) to produce than my amp. Yet, the amp is sitting in my room and playing right now (stupid me, I know).
Happy, safe, and musical holidays to all, regardless of the brand of our wires! |
If I put a watch into the ground, in a thousand years it may be "priceless." I have a beer can at home that is "worth" $5K. Is it worth it to me? Yes. To my girlfriend? No, she thinks its insane.
Now, here's the interesting thing: in all technology what we are taling about is the rearrangement of matter into various forms, by bending, carving, heating, slicing, dicing, etc. And, our "machines" are only these pieces of rearranged matter rearranged together. This may seem "out there", but its actually the simplist way to cut through the abstraction that we pray to, namely, "Technology".
The second interesting thing: What these guys who decry price are really saying is that the given rearrangement that people are paying for is not justified because its not a complicated enough rearrangement. In other words, if it looked more like a complicated "machine", as opposed to a wire that doesn't move like a machine (or amp), then they would be more comfortable with the price.
Is Van Gogh's 'Night Sky' uncomplicated because it is not "technological", even though, it too, is only a rearrangement of matter?
But hold it. The objectivists who say that we should look at only a circuit tracing to determine if sound is "good" are the same guys saying that the rearrangement isn't complicated enough. In other words, if you believe that science is right and we should only look to the interactions of matter to see our truth, then why are these same guys saying that one given rearrangement of matter is "better" than another?
Rearrangement is rearrangement is rearrangement.
Scientific people who are attached to one type of rearrangement over another? Hmmm, now who is irrational?
Question: How can a mind attached to the concept that the manipulation of matter (and the observation of that interaction, er, "scientific method")will give us all truth also say that one type of rearrangement (and the manipulation that leads to it) is intrinsically better than another (in a value-laden way)?
Now, bite your lip, but here's the psychological current repressed beneath all of this: If you want to argue that we should not be using our relative wealth to buy expensive rearranged pieces of matter when people in sub-Saharan Africa do not possess enough edible matter to sustain the matter of their bodies, well, then that's another argument. An interestingly point -and symptomatically, I would say - that has not been delved into, especially by minds that like "Science" that produces "Technology" that makes wonderful matter-products, that we, in our post modern western capitalistic world, consume (consume like matter...)
Now, that should stir the pot!! (Now, did I use the word "Now" too much..? |
ASA, where did you get the panama red from? must be good :) All kidding aside you have an interesting point of view. |
|
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. |
Note: There is a difference between the validity of objective evidence - the continuum of "technology" from Homo habilis, reaching for a bone and rearranging its matter by carving, to the rearrangement of silicon, etc on a computer chip - and the ATTACHMENT to that cognitive ability, or an attachment to the products of that attachment, namely, the rearranged matter. These are two entirely different kettle of fish. Scientific-derived knowledge is valid for its purposes as a discipline; the exclusive attachment to it by the individual mind is irrational.
When I go deeply into the music and the force of my thinking fades as I let go of my habit of objectifying things I want to see and manipulate, in that state absent objectfying cognition, have I ceased perceiving? Is a perception absent objectifying valid?
An objectivist always believes that when you challenge the validity of an ATTACHMENT to scientific objectivism that you are attacking the validity of scientific knowledge itself and in its entirety. What I am challeging is peoples' minds' attachment to scientific knowlege as exclusive knowledge, its partiality, not its validity in whole. It gives great knowledege about matter, but the listening to stereo is not just about equipment, or producing a stereo soundfield populated with detailed sound sources that "look" like things, but about the mind's ability to seep deeper into the music by transcending the attachment to objectifying sound into a thing. This deepening - and I challenge any objectivist - is characterized by the "letting go" of the attachment to thinking, namely, objective thinking.
Viggens response reveals an interesting bias.
Whenever you say something about the limitations of objective knowledge, those ATTACHED to scientific materialist assumptions claim that you are saying that objective knowledge itself is invalid/irrational in whole. I'm not saying that: I'm saying that the mind's attachment to it is irrational because it denies all perception beyond itself.
Sympotomatically, Viggen, you say that "rearranged matter results from technology", as if "technology" was a thing separate from the matter. "Technology" is not a thing; it is an abstraction. I am saying that "Technology" IS ONLY rearranged matter and the objectivists making it into a thing, as their totem to pray to, is symptomatic of the irrationality described above.
To go deeper into the Music, you must let go of your attachemnt to control the music through your objectifying mind. No objectivist-attached mind who listens to music can deny the validity of this dynamic of the listening mind because he/she is performing the experiment UPON themselves!
And this is why I find the Hi fi microcosm so interesting: because the scientific-attached are finally performing an experiment on their own mind where they have to admit that their attachment to objective knowledge is partial. There does exist perceptive knowledge beyond thinking and the listening experience proves this, empirically, even to the thinking-attached.
So, here's the big question: if even the objectivists must admit that value exists in the non-thinking spaces of their listening mind as they deeply listen to music, then why, when they stop listening and start thinking and talking, are they suddenly once more arguing that nothing exists beyond that thinking? Answer: its the ATTACHMENT. |
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. |
First of all, one must agree that no cables in the world can make your system sound better. You pick the cable that can least degrade the sound coming out of your system.
On that basis, different cable design should sound differently in your system. How well you like each difference is entirely judge by your taste of sound, like cooking, some like it sweeter, some like it more salty. Since all cables are subject to electrical reactions, the same cable can sound different in your systems than in another system. Try connecting the same interconnects in different positions in your system, you will appreciate what I have just said. If you hear no difference at all, then, you are one of the luckiers ones who don't need to spend or shouldn't be spending anything on cables ! |
My point - without saying it - was that you, Viggen, mistated my argument. Thank you for your reasoned response. Yes, there is a relationship between the open-ness advocated in eastern philosophies and the receptivity, "letting go" to objective attachment, that I discussed regarding music listening (or any apprehension of "beauty"). They are the same things. I agree with you that our technology of stereo equipment will never approximate "Reality" (ignoring the fact that no-thing escapes from reality) in the sense that we will never, in an objective sense, copy music playing with a stereo rendition. However - and this is also an objectivist's bias - this contains another implicit assumption, namely, that it is impossible to replicate the EXPERIENCE subjectively. In other words, we should not only be trying to reproduce sound in an objective sense (sound), but also reproduce the dynamic of cognitive fading (receptivity)that occurs both in stereo listening and "real" (music) listening. When one accepts blindly the assumption that objective cues are most important then one, by default, assumes that the dynamic subjective experience can not be approximated to a greater and greater degree that exceeds the objective level's ability to approximate. I am saying that, yes, objective qualities are important - Science is important, objective thinking is important - but an attachment to believing that that is more important than the cognitive fading dynamic is irrational because it denies the nature of the experience in one's own mind as one listens to music. When the thinking-attached deny other potential experiences of reality because they are not objectively derived, they effectively deny the evidence of the listening experience that they themselves are engaged in. This is a denial of their own potential to listen deeper into the music, and into "Reality." |
Oh yea, for those of you who just HATE this kind of talk, I will, on your behalf, rename this thread, "How much time do you want to waste?" :) |
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. |
Yes, Viggen, people screen their world thorough a lens of subjective interpretation. Kant told us this many moons ago and Kuhn showed us how it even applies to the subjective lens of a scientist conducting scientific method (favoring confirmation of existing scientific truths as opposed to refutation). What I am saying, though, is that as one "seeps" into the music and the mind releases the attachment to objectify sound, the lens of subjectivity necessarily fades. In other words, "subjectivity" is composed of several prisms of interpretation. The surface lens composes the sense of subjective self and is structured of thinking about the "self". It is this level of cogniticizing that I am saying fades in its influence over the preceptive mind as a whole and this DYNAMIC precipitates greater receptivity to the musical message (their are other perceptive lens that do not fade, such as Kant's a priori space/time lens, which is why, in the deepest listening experiences we are more sensitive to spatial discontinuities in the stereo rendition at that time and less sentitive to "detail" that bounds perception of sound as an object, i.e. why with SE amp's detail seems less important an issue when you finally seep into the music and the more natural spatial presentation, in terms of its existential correctness, becomes intoxicating.) Subjective interpretive matrices CHANGE as that same mind, in whole, releases its instinct to objectify that which it experiences, including music.
Yes, in order to catalyze this experience, at least in stereo, the (objective) stereo piece must be used, but that does not mean that the objective is separate from the mind that created it or arranges it in a system. In fact, the subjective is causually prior to the objective; the mind that chooses a component is prior to the arrangement of that technology-component in his technology-system (just as the inventor's subjective mind is prior to the objective creation). Objective is casually dependant on subjective; they are not separate, except in the mind that wishes to make them separate (as in, the mind that desires to separate reality into objects).
Regarding neurosis in audio, yes, many people's ego structure (reflection of their self to their self) requires that they compete with others. These are the same people who are atached to the objectifiacation of reality, then carried into their stereo experience. All listening minds are not the same, however - regardless of our knee-jerk egalitarianism to the contrary. Pointing to this type of mind as what I am talking about misses the point. They may be the mean, but I am talking about a different subjectivity that is not tied for its identification on its powers of objectifiaction (hence, able to release that level of subjectivity easier and seep into the music).
Yes, I agree, the notion that the subjective sound - the "absolute sound" - of live music is transferrable into all subjective experiences, stereo included, is a nice marketing idea, but it is not realizable through objective means, IMHO (somthing I once told HP when I wrote for him in another lifetime). But, it can be replicated in subjective ways: the beauty I experience, beyond thought, when enraptured by the sight of the sunset, or her face, or the beauty in the music, is the SAME beauty. At deeper levels of perceiving - as the sense of subjective fades as its delf-defining objectifying fades - the experience of beauty converges into one. This is why, regardless of our self structures, we are all drawn to music, or the sunset, or her face. There is no-thing more "Zen" than that.
As I said, though, you must be willing to engage the experiment - to let go of you self - to confirm what i am saying. Until then, you will only interpret the experiences that exist beyond your-self as non-existent. That's the way the "absolute beauty" in all of the above has set it up.
Thanks for your response, sincerely.
|
time for my two cents worth. i am a brick mason. nothing more nothing less. i change the innerconnects, and i can tell the difference. this is a blue collar point of view, and hearing of course. good thread craig. i love it when we all come together.. can't wait to go camping with everyone.. just joking. have a great 2002, and keep the questions coming.. i keep learnin everyday.. |
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). |
The intermediary step between objectivism and subjectivism is rationalism, why things sound the way they do (or at least more rational answers as to why they sound the way they do, not just because I changed a cable, but what about this cable and its particular design is changing the sound, and express this in even more precise manner, mathematize it, scientifically audible terms). From there we could lay the truth as our source and say some things are more accurate than others (now whether or not they sound better is another story since the source itself may be bad), more faithful to the source, and then we'd have objectivism. What's amusing is their very methods, and/or the things they espouse, could never have even come to exist under their philosophy in the first place, nothing would have ever progressed to this state under subjectivism: lets bash current mirrors on the input stage of an amplifier and praise some simpler asymetrical resistive loading? That said the subjectivist ideology and its place in the current audio world certainly lacks, consistency, if nothing else. |
|
What kind of cables did Kant use? |
Viggen, I think we would, at this point, have to talk in person to carry out this conversation; the connection is breaking down because it would take too long in this medium to define what you mean by "metaphysical" vs "physical" vs. "super-real", "surrealist", "sight-seeing", etc.
I stand by my view of Kant, however; outlining a space/time interpretive matrix in the mind is the essense of a discourse on the subject-mind, or subject-ivity, regardless of its ultimate failure in displacing Hume and the progeny of British empiricism in Western culture.
Again, I don't know what you mean by "synthetic" structures in the mind. We, Homo sapiens, possess a space/time matice in our mind because life emerged into a reality of space/time dimension (or, more accurately, Newtonian reality is suseptible to a space/time embeddedness by a mind and our forebears adapted to that potentiality in reality, if you can follow that). This existential-orientating matrice is inherent in all minds, human and non-human. As such, I don't know how one could characterize it as "synthetic" in any way (unless you are saying that it is self-created delusion...but this is unclear. I haven't heard of anyone displacing Kantian space/time theory this century, but you never know...).
As for space/time reality projected by a stereo being "semantic[ally]", I don't know how that stereo recreation, in terms of the mind's subjective experience, is related to the construction of language.
On the breadmaker analogy, this is exactly what I've been talking about, namely, the assumption by objectivists that a subjectivist mind that creates a stereo from perspective of catalyzing the fading of objective thinking is delusional per se (assumably, you mean one who adopts this perspective exhibits dream-like irrationality by using the term "surrealist" [which, actually, is a school of aesthetics, i.e. Tanguy, Dali, etc. so, again, we are having trouble defining our terms to each other]). A mind that compares one experience to the next IS conducting an empiric experiment, the only difference being that the listening experiment can only be confirmed to himself. This does not imply delusion (or, fraud, as your King's clothes analogy implies). As for believing that a stereo piece comes before the mind's desire for the beauty of music - a position that claims that the intent to create a "technological" instrument is subsequent to the creation of technolgy - well, without the mind no piece of technology would exist. That I would think even a mind attached to the technology would have difficulty denying.
Anyway, we have tried people's patience enough (I can hear the rumble of the townpeople rising over the hill, pitchforks in hand. The what-cable-for-Kant comment has a point, and I LIKED IT!). Thank you for the FUN. At this point, we will have to agree to disagree. If you want to carry this farther, please feel free to contact me. Mark. |
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! |
No cable can improve the sound of your system. They all can degrade the signals coming from your source. Go find the one cable/s with construction and configurations to work best with your system. Once they work in good synergy, these new cables have become part of your good sounding system ! |
Hey Viggen, it looks like you've found a friend! :) On definitions, yes, I know, but the context of where words are placed changes their meaning, ie words are not things separate from their contextual ground...like objects are not separate from space, or sound is not separate from silence, or thoughts are not separate from the causal ground of silence in the mind from which they arise... somthing I think I've been talking about. Hmmm...
For example, if you place the word surreal-ism, indicating a school of thought, and place it in juxtaposition to a claim of dream-like irrationality, then one assumes that you are talking about something different than Kant's terms, which are mentioned, vaguley, obtusely, in the previous paragraph.
I sent you an e-mail if you care to continue. Cheers.
Incidentally, my question still remains outstanding. This is no "philosophy" here but a very simple inquiry that we all can have an opinion on because we all listen to music:
When I listen and begin to seep deeper into the music and my thoughts fade in their influence, and I stop listening with my thinking and instead listen with a mind without thoughts, am I still perceiving? Is the experience of listening that I am having a valid one, or irrational because it doesn't include thinking about music? |
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. |
Yes, Viggen, I agree, until Stage 4 Enlightenment occurs (actually, beyond the initial Satori experience), the force of perception continues (this is beyond this forum, but, basically, thoughts arise and the meditative mind receptively traces this force back to its ground). Yes, any audio "ground of listening" that is attained still contains significant vestiges of this force arising. When you first sit down, it manifests predominantly through thought construction in an objective way, producing an instinct to make sound into objects. This level corresponds to our present stereo language using visually-orientated terms (in us, evolution has produced a predator with visual-orientated physical perception tied to objective cognition, so at the objective cognitive level of listening it is natural that we choose visual terms when decribing that perception, ie transparaency, detail, image, etc.). As you let go of the instinct to objectify perception (closing the eyes sometimes aids listeners because it detaches the visual from our cognitive objectifying tendancy)the "force" of thinking lessens. This lessening of force leads to a state of perception that also has a corresponding language. In this state of lessened force towards objectifying (no longer objectified in structure), emotive imagery becomes more predominant due to the relative absense of constructed thought. This level produces languages that are emotively-based. As one goes deeper, the abilty to capture the experience in language becomes more difficult (language is based on thought and as thought fades, the ability to structure the experience in thought becomes more difficult), but this does not negate the occurrence of the dynamic, nor its importance to understanding how listening occurs. Why is this important? Because until we admit that the experience of listening includes trans-cognitive levels, we will be unable to construct a further language to discuss our experiences. Certainly, as the experience deepens this person-to-person communication becomes more difficult, but that does not mean that we should claim that only objectifying cognition and its corresponding language exist (by categorizing all other voices as irrational).
Presently, this is what science does; attaches to the assumption that there is no reality beyond ratio-empiric, hypothetico-deductive, formal operational cognition. Although it is irrational to conclude that evolution stops at science's level of apprehension (notwithstanding millions of years of evidence to the contrary showing our cognition evolving, and notwithstanding the reduction of the exclusiveness of such thinking and its accordant method by Popper, Kuhn, Freyerabend, etc.), the scientifically attached continue to adhere to their assumptions - whose only purpose is to perpetuate itself and its attachment to the manipulation of matter.
This is reflected in the stereo microcosm by people claiming that only objectified knowledge of sound exists and is valid. Again, the question: Do you concede that a dynamic of perception exists characterized by a fading of cognitive force towards objectifying? If so, do you concede that these deeper levels are valid towards perception of truth/knowledge?
Simply because deeper levels still retain the "force" towards perception (a force that manifests as it arises in/as all levels of external-orientated perception - as opposed to meditative practice which is interior receptively focused upon the stream of thought-force), does not mean that those levels contain constructed thoughts in objectified form.
Again, Viggen, this is much beyond this here. I have published articles on the mind's perception of music and would be interested in your comments. I e-mailed you asking if you would like to read them and offer any comments. Sincerely, I would be interested. If you still would, send me a FAX or address and I will send them to you. Regards, Mark. |
Admittedly, I have little experience comparing different cables but as an electrical engineer, I would have to think that if the cable offers a small enough amount of resistance to provide a good damping factor, capacitance and inductance should be fairly neglegible in a practical system. Unless the cables are hideously poor in design, the differences should be vanishingly subtle. Besides, have you ever looked inside even high quality speakers? There's nothing magic in the way the signal gets transfered from the binding posts to the drivers. Why should external cables provide the missing "magic"? |
|
Jlambrick: you mean after 80 odd posts of ad hominem attacks and assorted sophistry you have the gall to bring up resistance, capacitance, inductance and evening damping? You should know that you are a lost objectivist. Haven't you read any of this stuff? Repent before it is to late! Next thing you know you'll be spouting mathmatics and speaking in other strange tongues. As an electrical engineer (you've actually made a profession of your objectivism) you are unqualified to opine on the audio mysteries. Put down the pitchfork and pick up some Valhallas. |
Now that's FUNNY!! More of that, at least part of it...
Inductance, etc. is "good", just not ONLY inductance. jlambric makes a good inquiry, simply a partial one. His statement, however, that he has little subjective experience, yet,nonetheless,remains fully capable of saying that there should be no differences based on objective criteria (read: scientific)is illustrative of just what I've been talking about; namely, the position that believes objective criteria are exclusionary and dispositive regardless of other types of "perceptive evidence". Moreover, Clueless, your reaction, cloaked (well) in humor, argues my position: if anyone ever says that a scientific/objective inquiry of music is partial, or of anything else, then the objectivists MUST characterize that position as saying that no science is allowed - which, of course, is a mis-characterization. The mystery is why you would say that a discussion on the partiality of scientific inquiry necessarily implies a rejection of scientific inquiry. Why is a discussion of the limitations of science an "attack" upon science? But, like I said, its not much of a mystery. An objectivist can not examine his own premises and asumptions because that would mean he might have to experience something beyond them (see discussion above).
If you are going to characterize something as sophistry, though, it might be best to come out from behind humor when you do it. It's another one of those thorny authenticity/mis-characterization issues. But, it WAS funny, so I guess that makes it OK...
|
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 |
Good gosh amighty!! It just refuses to die!! Alright, alright, I give up - I solemnly swear I will never call for a geekfest to end ever again! And to prove it, I submit the following thought:
Sticking with the example of cables, I have never understood why the "objectivist" position is self-represented as being inconsistent with the notion that there could be audible differences between even competently designed and manufactured wires. Why couldn't, and indeed why wouldn't, there be? After all, different cables are physically just that - different. On the level of a thought experiment, where the "objectivists" seem to enjoy operating, there should be no argument that any change, however small, in the physical configuration and composition of any part of the entire circuit (including wires, of course) and its environment will effect some corresponding change, again however small, upon the electrical properties of that circuit. Objectively this will even be true of, for instance, multiple examples of the very same piece of gear, for no two individual things will ever be totally identical to each other, or occupy identical positions within the universe. Therefore, objectively speaking, any change to any part of any stereo system and the environment it operates within will produce some change on the signal it passes, period. Whether that change can be perceived by a person, whether by measurement or by hearing, is a separate question, and one that immediately begins to bring subjective criteria into the equation. But when it comes to something like cables, it seems to me that the "objectivist's" theoretical position can only be, "Differently configured and composed wires will always pass a given signal differently than one another, and it is possible that where a difference exists, it might be heard." So where's the problem? |
Praise Allah! Zaikesman is back in the pound around and is even getting philosophical ~! In honor of his return I have decided to dig deep and award the 200th poster 50ft of 14 gauge Zip Wire (Just enough to hang yourself and if your #200 won't you need it?) and my autographed picture of John Dunlavy.
Ain't Life Great! |
You're right, Zaikesman, there is no problem. Matter is configured in infinite variabilty and, sometimes, objective means - or rearranged pieces of matter, or, "technology" - that we create is capable of detecting a difference, which, if we are bright enough, we can correctly pattern and anticipate change, which leads to our varied action in creating our next piece of rearranged matter, er, a stereo piece. Scientific inquiry is valid within its purview - the examination of matter - but the stereo listening experience, and the "evidence" that this mind collects is presently beyond our objective contraptions to discern in toto. When a machine can replicate the human mind's emotive response, and our being's existential response (and, some would argue, our essense's experience of ineffability), and then take that experience and create another piece of rearranged matter that catalyzes that experience, then I suppose we won't have to talk about the subjective mind any longer. However, until the Age of Valhalla for objectivists arrives, the mind remains primary to the objectivist experience that, itself, originates from that same mind.
Your use of radical objectivism to expose an objectivist's own bias is interesting, though. I try to stay away from using either radical objectivist (all matter is relative) and radical subjectivism (all opinion is equal) because it undermines any claims of meaning. Interestingly ploy, though. |
Beautiful response ASA and Clueless, Kant used Koenigsberg hemp. Nice to smoke in your pipe too! |
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. |
Star Trekkies abound. anyways most of what i have read comes from another planet... I let my lawyer do all the talking when it comes to metaphysics etc. it makes just as much sense... good to see everyone having fun... |
I'm sorry, I just have to do a quick tabulation. For having the temerity to think, and to, heavens forbid (although I don't think heaven is forbidding it...), discuss the partiality of the ratio-empiric, hypothetico-deductive, formal operational lens of the human mind, I have been labeled:
1. irrational
2. surreal
3. "attacking" etc., etc.,
and now,
4. a "Trekkie" (read: dysfunctional loser)
and,
5. an alien.
When I said that even talking about this subject would bring the priests of science out from the woodwork in inquisition, I didn't think that it would be SO EASY.
And so it goes...
Anyway, Detlof, a three foot Grafix (sp?) is (was, actually) more my speed.
Quick! Stone the Witch!!! |
Asa: rumour has it that a king of Hungary once remarked "we cannot burn (or stone) witches for the simple reason that witches do not exist!"
You're safe! |
Asa -
As always, your comments are very interesting. However, why do you continue this "priests of science", etc. attack? Your remarks about the mode of thinking of your so-called "objectivists" (whoever they are), and oft-repeated implications that they don't listen at the same great depth of feeling that you do remains absolutely baseless and does you no service. |
Well, I didn't think of it at the time, but "Priests" may not have been the right choice; not that it isn't accurate, but that, in using such noun description, I would undoubtedly raise the ire of those attached to Judeo-Christian doctrine and their earthly acolytes.
On the other hand, Hearhere, I'm not sure that's "you", because you seem to be saying: if, Asa, you say that empathy is the goal (being-to-being permeability), then why do you stimulate recoil in others by punching their buttons with such loaded terms? Is that an accurate synopsis?
Well, apart from assuming a sense of humor- perhaps, in retrospect, a misplaced assumption - the term is, again, accurate. Actually, it is borrowed - verbatim - from a description by Henryk Skolimnowski, former Professor Emeritus of philosophy at the Univ. of Michigan at Ann Arbor and founder of Eco-philosophy, of the advocates/acolytes of scientific materialist assumptions in his book, "The Participatory Mind". If you study the similarities between the denial of the Cartesian (scientific) differentiation of Judeo-Christian doctrine of the medieval Catholic Church with the differentiation of science by the deconstructionists (and my integrative ideas above), you will see very similar reactions of marginalization and resistance - which accounts for the appropriateness of the analogy.
As for the question I've been waiting for, phrased as an assumption, here it is:
Hearhere states that it is "baseless" to believe that people listen at varying degrees of "feeling". The contra assumption of this statement, inherently implied, is that all people listen at the same level of "feeling". Simple question: in everyone's experience, do people feel to the same depth in terms of empathic identification? If so, then we have a whole area of knowledge assuming such differences - called, PSYCHOLOGY - that must be "baseless." I know that Judeo-Christian doctrine says that all people are equal in their degree of "sin" (which, I understand, actually means "to miss the mark" in aramaic, somewhat an illustrative coincidence here...), but are minds actually equal in their willingness to open to the other person, or the Music? For the record, I am not talking about "feeling" per se, but depths of awareness (differing emotive response being a manifestation of differing awareness levels). And, yes, I am saying that people possess differing abilities to address and access these symmetries of awareness. However - and unlike Judeo-Christian doctrine that says all mind are sinful while on earth inherently - I am saying that all minds are equal in their ability to open to the Music, stereo or not. While that mind may deny that such depths exist, and, therefore, give up the gift given to him/her of seeing beyond his idea of himself (cognitive structures), the mind never gives up the potential to do so. All are equal in our ability to orientate our will (not our thoughts) towards transcending an attachment to thought.
It is an egalitarian delusion in the States that all people are equal, a denial that stems from our desire to see ourselves as "democratic" (read: the assumption that everyone is equal in their freedom, even though, I might add, this is mutually enforced freedom: under the Lockian assumptions that underly our system, I only respect your freedom because you respect mine - it is not empathically based). However, no one is equal in the cognitive ways that we measure our stature in western culture (IQ tests, aptitude tests, etc. which differentiate individuals based on cognitive agility into socio-economic stratas). Nor does western culture say that we are equal in our abilities to "feel" (i.e. psycho-pathologies). Do you think Hitler was equal in his ability to "feel" the others' suffering?
To claim differently in the name of political correctness, while summoning the loaded-ness of the word "Priest" to support one's assumptions, is disingenuous. And, again, folks, this is what I've been talking about: whenever such scientific materialist assumptions are questioned, the "Priests" of those assumptions attack in disigenuous ways with political correct rhetoric, while - and this is important to see here with Hearhere - making strong accusations without ANY substantiation.
Hearhere, when you say "baseless", on what arguments, properly laid out so that a fair response can be made, do you mean? HOW are they "baseless"?
People who are attached to assumptions do not want to engage in reasoned response, but rather, resort to an attempt to rouse others to shout the heretic down. The exposing of such motives is not an "attack", because, remaining in denial of your potential does no one any "service".
I repeat: Burn the Witch!!! Or even better (and, no, I do not equate myself even remotely with this level of evolvement), let's all get together and take that guy who makes "baseless" statements on the current assumptions of being-to-being empathy - a guy somehow saying that we can all get to the Music without Caesar's help - and take him to the edge of town and nail him to a cross! Yea, now that's a proper way of dealing with such "baseless", "surreal", "irrational", assumption "attacking" persons!
|
Original poster: you are a wise and courageous person, though not politically correct in this forum. The costlier the cable, the better the sound. Your eyes have ears. Electrons are very fussy about what they are forced to go through, be it long copper crystals, high quality dielectric material and especially the colour and texture of the outer jacket. I have just read that in France, where wines are taken very seriously indeed, researchers have proof that eminent wine tasters attribute great qualities to mediocre wine put in Grand Cru Classé bottles and, conversely, find that some of the greatest crus, intentionally put in bottles labelled for lesser wines are vilified. Does anyone here see the parallel with audio equipment? |
Questioning scientific exclusivity does not mean, implictedly, that a costlier cable is necessarily better (see my response today under thread "Snake Oil"). And, yes, based on conformity (the desire to conform one's assumptions to the assumptions of the collective culture at any given time), some people do find the need to buy things/objects that other people who collect things/objects covet. Interestingly, those people who conform their views to others regardless of subjective experience, are, SURPRISE!, the same people in western culture who conform to the assumptions of science - which, not coincidentally, is also attached to objects. It is not a coincidence that people who are very good at accumulating things in our society, generally rising in socio-economic strata and gaining increased buying power (or people who are desperate to, but lack the ability or luck), are also many times the same people who buy cable that is over-priced because its the next-best-thing to get. Hmmm...
On wine, if, after tasting them, you can't tell the relative quality differences between a '97 and '98 Beaucastel Chauteneuff du Pape - even that close of a comparison - then yes, you should stick to sparkling grape juice...
Hey, look at that, I slammed superficial rich people and supported wine - a notorious "rich guy" activity - at the same time! I've become a moving target! Oh hell, just stone him anyway, one of the rocks is bound to hit... |
