How much money do you want to waste?

I see that someone has turned the zoo loose again

This has got to be the FUNNIEST site I have ever stumbled across what a pisser,Iam a Elactrician and they don't even use upgraded cables on LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS,but yet they work terrific on AUDIOEQUIPMENT give me a break,the guys that buy this stuff[cables etc] are weak minded and should invest inmy good advice and invest in a GOOD PRE AMP

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.

It is titled Money and the High End on the Hot Topics section of vmpsaudio.com not harmonicdis...... site.

Where on this site? I looked throught the harmonicdiscord thingy.... no find.

Go to the VMPSAUDIO>COM website and get Brian Cheney's opinion of the high end.

Go to the VMPSAUDIO.COM website and get Brian Cheney's opinion of the high end.

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.

Dbdicker: I like your taste in books too.

Sincerely, I remain

Look, let's make this simple.

I do not doubt that people "hear" differences in cables. But let's look at facts and not subjective opinion.

Open up any piece of audio equipment and look inside. See all those copper traces on PC board running inside? THOSE are your interconnects and speaker wires.....those are what carry the audio signal around between passive and active modulators. The paths represented there are 30 times longer than your measly 1.0m interconnect or 10 times longer than your lousy 8ft. of speaker wire. AND....those traces are DOING NOTHING......but are under infinitely more stress from interference and signal alteration from EMI and stray capacitance INSIDE of a component than they would be OUTSIDE of it........but does anyone worry much about that??? Well, actually DIY builders do (hence a preference for point to point wiring), but commercial manufacturers certainly don't, and mostly rightly so......

But talk about cables and logic goes out the window......

Again, I don't doubt that people hear or think they hear differences in cables.........I have found that the lower the resolution of the system, the more *evident* a *change* in cabling will be......

Try and concentrate on upgrading the resolution of your audio circuits, and you won't have to worry about the cables that connect them......

OK, copper, silver, or titanium?
assuming that interconnects etc make a big difference, is there a formula for what material is "better" and how does one categorize and order according to quality? I have seen prices range from $80 to $10.000 for just a set on interconnects.
joeb

Well, well, now we see the recoil, don't we? Let's update our tabulation: "surreal", "irrational", "grotesque", etc. and now a demand for an apology on behalf (self-annointed)of all objectivists throughout all the world (and, assumably, throughout all time).

Why are you afraid of ideas?

If I say that a certain orientated mind hears deeper into the music, then, per se, I am being "insulting" to, well, an occupation? Is that what you are saying? How can you say that you believe that different minds hear to varying depths of "feeling", but then also say that one mind can't hear deeper than "an engineer"? This is a logical incongruency.

I ask you to tell me why you think that my ideas are "baseless", and you proceed to omit doing so, then demand that I "prove" my ideas through referring to what others say (demanding objective eveidence, symptomatically), and tie it all together with an emotional, politically correct demand for an apology on behalf of all "objectivists", including, assumably, all "engineers".

Are you a crusading for all "engineers" who have been harmed by ideas that say attachment to objective thinking is partial? Who has been harmed? The only minds "harmed" by ideas are those who believe that their ideas are who they are, and when confronting another idea, for their self to survive, must censure that opposing idea? Descartes, the father of empiric method, said, "I think therefore I am." This is incorrect. It is, "I am, therefore, I think, sometimes." You are not only your ideas. As such, an opposing idea does not threaten your survival.

OK, again, what, specifically, is "baseless" in the above theories? I'm still waiting.

I'm also confused by your statement that there is no difference in sound between one cable and another, but then you say that the "total experience" of music goes beyond sound. If the sound is the same from any given configuration of matter (an assumption that is entirely against the evidence of science), then how can one hear something different and, therefore, have a differing experience?

As far as objective proof for my ideas, alas, the "what is" wants YOU to conduct that experiment for yourself without looking to someone else to tell you what you are "hearing". The problem is that you do not want to let go of the scientific passifier that tells you that if you only believe what others say, then you will be safe in your mind of ideas. The "what is" wants you to go deeper though. But first you have to stop believing that you are a sum of your objectifying thoughts. And stop looking to the "we" you refer to to tell you the sum of potentiality that is waiting for you in the Music...

Argh! I don't know art, but I know what I like.

Hearhere: You continue the Jlambrick heresy! (See post above) Our position has been stated clearly to those with ears to hear. Are you misnamed? The Audiophilic Dialogue is not for beginners! To a rational person our discussion may appear as simply a group of undefined and incoherant buzzwords bantered about to no end. So vacuous as to defy any verifiable statement and, at the same time, contain any intended meaning. Not so! The fault Sir is your own! Your brain, moribund with structure and discipline, is unable to cogitate directly with the aural experience which is the hallmark of the Audiophilic Dialogue.

Proof! you say, I can hear it now.(You EE types are all the same.) PROOF IT IS. In dark nights after some hours of deep listening I actually hear the aural cogitation. I HEAR IT SIR! Are you prepared to call me a lier!? Not only do I hear it Sir, but after considerable meditation and cogitation interspaced with deep listening I have narrowed down the frequency of said cogitation to somewhere over 60kHz!! Refute That! As further proof I say my dog has left the building...left the building Sir... and has not been seen for months! That Sir, is BEYOND REFUTATION!

I do not mean to be dismissive of your naivete but you should consider keeping to yourself until you have learned something of aural cogitation through deep listening. I myself (I am an open mind sir) tried your mathmatics once and it gave me a headache lasting some weeks, during which my aural experience was directly and adversely affected! Quite frankly I see no future in it... not in the Audiophilic Dialogue anyway.

Sincerely, I remain

Asa, please. You have grotesquely misstated my position, and quite willfully. NOWHERE did I say "it is "baseless" to believe that people listen at varying degrees of "feeling".", nor anything ever remotely close. Nor would I have said that, for I firmly believe otherwise. Of course all abilities, including artistic, vary widely among individuals.

What I take very strong exception to is your oft-repeated implication that the so-called "objectivists" by definition are unable to listen to music, to experience it, to the same depth as you. It's just another refrain of "engineers don't get the music" in more erudite phrasing but it is just as insulting, and yes, baseless. If you have any evidence suggesting a correlation between technical understanding and the inability to experience music (or any form of art) at all levels, please produce it or apologize and retract your assertion.

In the specific instance of cables, I firmly believe that different cables can in fact enhance the listening experience for some. Not from changing the sound, though, for the overwhelming number of cables at any price. Sorry, but we have a very, very thorough understanding of signal propogation at audio frequencies and the parametric differences between most cables will simply not provide an audible change. The total experience goes beyond just the sound, however, and if certain cables allow one to truly experience all depths of the music, that's a good thing.

But perhaps, just perhaps, "objectivists" have no need of such crutches to feel the music.

Since I've been so upstage, and pbb fessed up, my cables for you to puruse/pick apart:

NBS Pro IC's
AudioNote Kondo KSL spkr wire
Hovland phono cable

Yes, very expensive, too expensive for me, actually, but they sound great in their context. In other systems they may sound bad, whether that context is an improper system synergy or another listener that can't hear what they are doing because...well, enough of that.

Interestingly, an Electraglide Fat Boy Series I sounded horrid on the Supratek pre and a $100 Discovery PC that I found sitting in a 5yr old box sounds great. So you never know.

Here's how it goes between the objective and subjective in the pursuit of the Music:

Look at the objective factors (material used, construction, configuration); compare those against technology that already seems to show a correlary between configuration and performance; if no correlary, then still keep an open mind because it may be a new and better invention or approach, but also keep in mind the objective incongruency; conduct empiric experiments by inserting the cable into the system and listening for details in an objective way by thinking, then by deepening into the music through by allowing your thinking to dissipate, always remembering that the later observation necessarily requires you to live with the cable longer before reaching a conclusion; compare these results with previous cables that you've listened to in same context as a control; decide, based upon the evidence that you hear, absent any desire to conform to others' expectations or prior pronouncements, which cable allows you to "connect" with the musical message in the way that you are most able.

When you forget about "music", the subjective and the objective evaporate in an "event" of music that is absent both.

The search for the truth, even through objective means, is not attained by a limitation of possibilties, but an openness to them.

Good luck.

It does go on, doesn't it? I have not read all the posts in this thread but a fair number. I have a nagging question though: why is it so very few manufacturers of electronic components offer cables with remarkable qualities, but that the field is left to what are essentially repackagers with a bigger budget on promo than research? Could it be that it's not that safe yet to make claims about cables because everyone is waiting for the Matti Otala of cabledom to show up? Has anyone actually read the longish spiel on cable theory from Audioquest? I think there is a need in this hobby for tinkering and finding irrefutable made in heaven synergies that offer mistery in a world so cut and dried, and cables have come in an opportune time to fill this need. I am certain all the proponents of cables as a component that can fine tune a system feel that their experience gives them the credibility required to dismiss the power of suggestion or some combination on the known parameters of electrical conductors as the only explanations for the "HUGE" improvements expensive cables procure. And to think we haven't even broached the subject of power cables in this thread. Everyone should know by now that that last meter of what is a cable run of hundreds, if not thousands, of kilometres, is what will make or break your listening pleasure. Geez that thread on smooth "jazz" was interesting. You don't like expensive equipment 'cause you can't afford it. That's the bottom line 'cause I ain't no sucker, my $1,300. cables told me so!

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...

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?

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!

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.

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!

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!!!

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...

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.

Beautiful response ASA and Clueless, Kant used Koenigsberg hemp. Nice to smoke in your pipe too!

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.

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!

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?

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

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...

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.

And so it goes...

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"?

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.

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.

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?

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 !

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!

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.

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.

What kind of cables did Kant use?

OK Smiley.

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.

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).

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..

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.

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.

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?" :)

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."