Question: the quiet part of the mind, below the thoughts we throw at each other, isn't it the same quiet place where we deeply hear the music, after we've been listening to the melody, and it seems to have become us and the world falls away? We coming closer to the Music/ we coming closer here. Are they the same spaces? If so, what does that mean?
Zaike, what does this have to do, by God!, with MIT boxed cable....
:0)
6ch said: :0) 123, :0) 6254.5, :o) 0, :O) +0, :0) -0....... |
Thank you everyone above for responding. They were very sincere and they will make me look at closer how I choose to communicate in various contexts, something that I've been working on in all contexts this year.
Yes, Zaikesman, contexts...if you take a look at when I come into a thread in this way, it is (within the past three months) always when others have gone on for quite awhile and the arguments are becoming circuitious. For example, in this thread the dialogue had been played out. Most recently, in another thread, I came in after bwhite and audeng had had a similar dialogue after @ 100 posts and had sputtered out. I don't think its inapproriate to resusitate a discussion at that point that, perhaps, seeks to go deeper. Also, I only enter when I think the discussion has sputtered out for a reason; namely, the circuitousness can be explained by one party's arguments being flawed before it even got started. This invariably deals with the assumptions to people's positions. Assumptions have assumptions and when the first is misplaced, many times unconsciously, you sometimes have to pull them back with a bit more force of the mind to make them see it. It can be done better in person, much simpler then, so the remoteness of this medium does have its limitations in that regard. On Derrida and Jung, I use it as filler until others start again, and besides, while they are off thinking, why shouldn't detlof and I use that time to get closer?
On repetition: yes, a concern. But you will note it is shorter and shorter all the time. Did you know what I was saying in then beginning, do you know now? Graduated repetition works on the brain, its the way we are wired. Learning multiplication tables is not fun sometimes, but you know them. Granted, I'm not too keen on talking about them myself (see below). Also, please note that it would be unfair to respond to someone like krusty who I'm taliking to for the first time and essentially challenging in a fundamental way with such ideas in too rough a form simply because others have already heard them.
Digression: you have to tell me whether you think the ideas themselves are digressions (and in that case irrelevancy is the right word) or the way I put them (conciseness/lucidity). I think, from parts of your response, you mean both. On the later, see above. On the former, again, you chose not to be specific. Which brings me to what i think are the real issues, which if you don't mind I will try to frame for you:
1. Who the hell are you, Asa, to TEACH me? What arrogance rises that would concieve that I have anything to learn from you. Even if I do have something to learn, a broader, deeper perspective let's say, and assuming it is relevant, what "God" appointed you my teacher?
2. This is an audio site, and although "deeper" ideas are always welcome at the, er, right-timed times - and, yea, yea, yea, we know its a free country - but you know, there has to be a LIMIT, because, as you yourself Asa have conceded, there is an entertainment value here that people are entitled to. Its seems your diatribes (isn't that the word you wanted to say, zaik...) INFRINGE on my right to come here and just lighten up, talk to some audio buds and just chill! Yea, yea, I can turn the channel, but hey, my finger hurts from even doing that. Asa, you claim that you are interested in my edification or whatever, and our coming together, but isn't getting in the way of my enjoyment pushing me away?
Two questions:
1. Do you know more? Do you see music differently, in a much larger context in your mind? If not, be honest, were you ever listening (not just hearing)? Ideas are Music too (do you know where they come from?). Are you ready for even deeper ideas, or still resenting finding the first? Is pleasure primary to meaning (is your head hurting again!!)
But...........
2. We are here, talking. Not just as gentlemen. Are we closer than before the thread began? You are here and I am here. When we talk again tomorrow will we start from a place closer together, not just the ideas, you and me? How did that happen? Are you farther away? What pulled you here, now? Hmmm.
Smart people need to be pulled with the smart part of their mind. Because they are smarter than most all people they meet, they get used to using their mind to fend off anything that makes them move, and so they don't like it. The only way to make them forget that part of their mind is to spin it, reach below the thoughts to their assumtions and pull them. When they finally spin fast enough, they stop in a center that is quieter. You can talk to them then...
Hi, Zaikesman. Hi, Maxgain. Hi krusty (yes, especially krusty), Hi 6ch, wherever you are.
There is a painting in my mind, like a Dali dream, and we are all standing together, swirled into the dream to this place - which is not a dream.
Its not surreal at all, unless you think it is, then its true for you. Argue for your limitations and, sure enough, they are yours. The "what is" is very accomodating that way. :0)
Thank you again for listening - and coming here, now. |
I am honored, Clueless. A protective cup could come in mighty handy around here. |
Clueless, does the "cup" come with one of those smoking jackets? |
Drubin:
I like your idea but they say men think about sex/girls every 5.3 seconds so I'm afraid that might skew your results. Maybe he was listening to the MITs during a high point of the cycle.(hehehehehe) Anyway, I liked your post above better than his and I award you the first and last "Clueless Cup." We have a strict no return policy.
Sincerely
I remain, |
Thanks Drubin, for reminding us! Cheers, |
One good thing out of this thread is the post (way up there) by jsbail, who wisely and succinctly captured the audiophile vs. music lover, heart vs. head struggles of this hobby. I'm initiating the "drubin award" for great posts and present the first one to jsbail. Here's what he said:
"I bought Harmonic-tech pro 9 plus to replace my MIT MH750. When I listened with the Harmonic-tech, I was hearing detail, paying attention to the bass line, noticing the image. When I listened with the MIT, I was thinking about the girl I met when I first heard that song playing. I ended up keeping the MIT. " |
This thread went about as I had expected.
I will say, as for my own participation in this "drive by" of a thread, that I did, TRY, to stay out of it after my initial post for some time. I admit to a case of "thread rage". Having been tailgated by unclekrusty in his huge Cadillac SUV, cut off, and then given the finger after the tried to run me off the road,I returned the favor by flipping him off and showing him my Glock. Guilty!
As usual, in a thread of this nature no real good comes of it. It just seems to be the nature of this and few other topics that come up around here. It was all too predictable though. |
Unsound, very nice and very true. You put it in a nutshell. It sure works like that for me. Cheers, |
Asa, thanks for the measured response - never let it be said you're anything less than a real gentleman. However, I did expect a somewhat more accurately targeted riposte on your part. I never took shots at the use of long words, or claimed irrelevency. To say that your excursions are frequently digressive and rambling is not necessarily a kiss-off (been known to do it myself, long words included, believe it or not), but it is pretty darn factual. And trust me, I'm not so much the babe in the woods that I'm actually in danger of taking them to be as profound that you need protest to the contrary (nor do I merely crave simplistic entertainment, or just-the-facts-mister, lowest-common-denominator blandness).
You are correct though, in guessing that I sometimes no longer read them completely, but that's not due to their length, something of which I've also been chastised for being excessively fond of from time to time. Rather, it's that you have reiterated your superimposed musings, with little apparent variation or call to do so, on so many threads by now, that I find I can't look foward to or profit from them anymore. I know what's coming, as I believe you yourself once referred to. Many threads seemingly present you with nothing more or less than the next opportunity for exercising yet another philosophical takeover attempt. It gets kinda old, my friend.
Yes, there is a small but dedicated coterie of fine worthies who seem not to groan, and indeed to take genuine pleasure, in joining the merriment you typically introduce. (And FWIW, these orgies do tend to take place more toward the bitter end of threads that have long since burned themselves out.) But when I listen to good music through my system, music I enjoy, and really experience it, such thoughts cannot possibly even enter my mind - go downstairs now and try it, and see if you don't agree. I'm absolutely as guilty as the next guy (and maybe the next two guys) of writing here, in part, because of a love for the sound of my own voice. However, I do try to listen as much or more than I speak, and I try not to drag everthing over in my preferred direction each time out of the gate.
So, while I will always defend your right to make me slump in my chair if you want and can (and I consider that to actually be something of a backhanded compliment, given that there are many posters on A'gon who could not engage me enough to get any reaction at all!), the next time I encounter you coining the phrase 'rearranged matter' for the eleventieth time, you will forgive me if I do my best to hold my piece/peace, and remember what it was you truly taught me about philosophy (especially as it fails to apply to audio in particular): What is the sound of one lip flapping? |
Asa, I think that your thoughts on the thinking by the thinkers here provides thought for thinking. |
Asa, all "I"(as he can and did speak for himself) think that Zaikesman is trying to say, may be that this is a place where audiophiles come to share ideas. (and yes sometimes we do fight)In general we are a plain spoken bunch.
It's not that most of us on Audiogon are as dumb as unclecrusty makes us out to be, it's just sometimes language can be a hurdle to comunication.
I mentioned Derrida, feeling quite sure you would know what I was getting at in a more indirect way than maybe Zaikesman put it. Sometimes less, IS, more. What I think he is saying is that when he, or I, for that matter, read some of your posts, it is like what you described in yourself reading Derrida. This is not a knock on you or what you have to say. It's just that it can seem as surreal and out of context as a flaiming girraff in a Salvador Dali painting.
I hope that this is taken in the spirit that it is intended. |
Asa: Your summary of the scientific / religious / emotional artifacts brought into this thread and others is quite interesting. Thanks for chiming in with your point of view. Sean
> |
Zaikesman, thank you for asking so politely, or seemingly so (ie conclusory claims of "digressive ramblings", unsubstantiated, is hardly an effort at diplomacy...)
Yes, I've said this before, and knew that the Derrida comment might elicit a few sighs of recognition, but I usually only ramp it up when the other person has begun to hide behind derision, or has tried to use intellectualism to retreat - and, trust me, it is still put rather simply by academic standards. And, as I said, I wasn't as good at it before. That said, the above is perfectly understandable and concise.
The question then becomes, is it relevant? I think a lot of people conclude that what I'm saying isn't relevant because they don't want to take the time to read it - which is, of course, their choice. But recoil from ideas on the part of the reader is not the same as obfuscation on behalf of the writer. Granted, I do make certain assumptions concerning cognitive agility, but I think most all people here can understand what "cognitive agility" is. Now, ask yourself, be honest, did you RESENT me using those words - the moment they hit your mind - even though you understood them? Is it the ideas you don't want, or the words?
Hmmm...
What I said about Derrida is that he said some things about what words were not, removing their foundation of meaning, but never pointed to a solution beyond his deconstruction. If you have read my posts closely you will see that they are always integrative in approach, the opposite of Derrida (he was a French philosopher). Anyone who has studied Derrida, or Popper, or Kuhn, or Wilber, or Maslow, or Jung, would cringe at the level of simplicity I use here. When discussing deeper concepts, it is sometimes necessary to use bigger words. That does not make them "bad".
But here's the real reason.
Some people look at this forum as entertainment, and, yes, I would agee that it is and should be that. Others want it ONLY to be entertainment. Others vascillate between the poles, their resistance to whatever "seriousness" they find varying with their inclination at the time, chiding others for the same things that they themselves do at times, many times that "mood" determined by whether they agree with the poster, or, when they don't think they can "win" that argument (the I'm-pissed-because-I'm-not-smarter syndrome).
What I've seen is some very smart people who like to use their intelligence in dialogue as a club, usually a scientific club, and don't like it when someone takes it away from them. Many times to get it from their grip, one must use a level of dialogue that gets their attention and which they have difficulty hiding from. Intellectual precision, as it were. Their resentment invariably takes the form of claims of obfuscation, or regression, or "digression", or "irrelevancy", without offering any reasons for their conclusion.
Digressive, irrelevant? By Joe, Zaikesman, what could you possibly mean?
You know, Detlof got it, krusty saw it, Jetter came around, Gregm gets it. What's up?
Hmmm... |
Asa: Without meaning to be (perhaps overly) insulting - I want to like it when you come onto a thread, but find I often dread the prospect, to be perfectly honest. I don't think I would have ever actually ventured to say this to you otherwise, though, but for the fact that your first paragraph above in your last response to Maxgain puts the reasons why I feel this way in terms much more trenchant then I could ever hope to do myself.
So, that must mean that I really do consider you to be an excellent thinker - but also consider your succinct and penetrating critique of poor M. Derrida (not that I have a clue about the guy) to apply just about perfectly to many of your own digressive philosophical ramblings about this forum.
Now, I would never dream of presuming to be so arrogant as to even suggest that you or anybody shouldn't write exactly what they please around here, and I freely admit that I'm a damned horse's backside for complaining at all (and also that I can't hang with you on the higher learning front). But I would like to know one thing: If you reread what you wrote above and then ask yourself if it describes your contributions at times, would you agree with me that indeed it does, even if just a little bit? :-)
P.S. - Permission granted (as if you or anybody else who cares to respond needed it) to fire away at will; with all the BS I've no doubt thrown on the proverbial wall in these precints - if not for this post alone - I've surely gotta deserve it. Sorry, but there it was, and here it is. |
Detlof, I couldn't agree more. Indeed the only time Uncle "simulated" talk was in suggesting that a CAT + a Defy make a good combo. But even then, it was only to tell Maxgain he should NOT like his present system :)
Oh well |
Maxgain, haven't read 'ol Jacques in many moons. Even gave me a headache back then to be honest. Literary deconstruction says some things, but uses too many words to say that words have no foundation, then doesn't offer ideas on the way ahead. Just more post modern existential disassociation. That horse has been beaten dead by now (the poor thing). I am not talking just about deconstruction of form - literary, semiotics, etc. - but its reintegration; reducing into parts to learn from that, putting it back together to learn from that, stepping beyond the need to do either to see what is. I don't think Derrida and his brethren were much concerned with the last two.
Don't read philosophy anymore. Working on watching; working on "how" to stop working on watching...
Talking and thinking is fun though. And, like I said, makes great widgets, and helps me find my way to the forum. |
Thank you, Jetter.
Yes, you are right - he did not understand. But not because he isn't intelligent - actually I find listening to his mind quite fun and stimilating (!). Rather, its because he sees reality through a prism. A good prism - I love science and am very thankful that we have evolved to live so securely through the power over matter - but the value of that prism should never be used recklessly (the environment and non-human life) or aggressively through the mind's absorption with its power over things(science yelling down the next possible paradigm of perception, even though their own evolutionary evidence says that it is bound to happen).
Yes, I am trying to learn how to talk better and need to learn more. I think I am getting better, but please remind me when I get self-indulgent and talk into my own mirror rather than to another person. I try to bring many different threads together to see an issue from multiple views at once, and this can make the "normal" way of thinking stop sometimes. But sometimes it is not the mind's comprehensive intelligence or vocabulary that is an obstacle, but the sight itself. Knowledge should always seek to point beyond itself. Sometimes we have to squint at first until the thinking mind becomes accustomed to what is seen.
Also, I try to add something that will catalyze a dialogue along, or make someone play fair, usually through Socratic devices that probe but do not threaten. Again, I have not always been this way; if you look at some of my older threads I could get in there and yell with the best of them! I've learned since then, and many people here have helped me with this (have been my teachers...).
Basically, smart people like you and detlof and krusty and gregm and all the others are exciting to me - in the end, regardless of the ideas, it is about meeting. Things can be discovered ("whenever two or more gather in its name..."). |
Onhwy61,I would like to say that I am sorry if I offended you with my comments about Jack Kevorkian. I,in no way, ment anythig derogatory toward Dr.Kevorkian, who in my opinion is a very misunderstood humanitarian.
Asa, perhaps you are reading too much Jacques Derrida,just and observation. |
Wow, what a thread. This is a candidate for Audiogon's hall of shame. |
Thanks Greg, If I read you right, we feel the same about the whole matter. Pity Krusty did not really want to talk. |
By the way, I ask myself why this person never posted before and came on like this. Possibly he has been here before with a different name (I assume this can be done). I also think he succeeded in doing just what he set out to do, tick everyone off. I bet he's probably heard these cables and probably doesn't give a sh*t about them one way or the other. |
I think something WAS proven here. Anger and a thinly disguised patronising, professoral, attitude is not conducive to communication.
Asa, I think that krusty's annoyance came from his disbelief that any "ignoramus" posting would dare question his erudition and experience -- erudition purportedly evidenced by scientific argumentation at that. He was incredulous that people persisted in questioning...
As you note, his argumentation is inconsistent -- I'd say it's emotional outburst(s) rather than a rational discussion. You took the "rational" view that krusty put forth.
I join Detlof in finding little constructive info -- what there is, is lost to this incredulity and expressed superiority. More's the pity. |
Yes ASA, again an analysis which everyone should read, it it is so to the point, I think. I'm so used to reactions like that of our dear uncle, that it did not particularly bother me. But then his reasoning within his system was already flawed and if he ever did percieve a small voice of doubt, it was -as usual in these cases - overridden by his gall, vented at those that contradicted him. I am for freedom of speach, but I get irritated when I smell fanaticism. I'd rather do without it, thankyou. |
Asa, time for me to come clean. You appear to really know your business. There is, however, a possibility that the reason Uncle K did not answer your question is because he did not understand it. What I am trying to say is that I work with mathmaticians, writers, sales people, investment gurus, etc. in a larger company. In general, I don't have a hard time understanding the written word since like many my existance kinda depends on it.
I get glimpses of what you are trying to say, but between the beginning of your longer essays and the end I often fail to get your message and there are times I would like to.
|
Clueless, right, but half truths as gospel and then again and again and not really picking up threads offered to start a conversation. Come now, you and I, at least I think so, state clearly when we feel a tad ..clueless. So lets not be trite and bullshit were it belongs, here...please (-:
And Pops yes, so true, its completely irrational, but then perhaps Krusty did have a point after all: It somehow does not seem right that 15k plus cables, which at that price point should supposedly just pass signal, without adding or subtracting, have arcane boxes, which, the legend goes, must necessarily colour the signal, twist it, "filter it". That these boxes possibly help to make the cable just what it should, pass the signal and as little else as possible, seems to cross nobody's mind. Besides MIT is closely linked with Spectral and you will get exactly the same heated reaction about that brand. It has to do with their marketing, I think. They have a very snobbish-nose turned up attitude, don't particularly spoil dealers and snub most of that crowd. It is understandable that they try to hit back and that gets desiminated all over the place. I've listened to people bashing Spectral and MIT, who never even heard them and I suppose that was basically part of my irritation about our good Uncle above, who was beating a dead horse ad nauseam as far as I was concerend...and that dear Clueless is no longer BS, that is simply a pain in the...neck. |
I have been somewhat entertained by the proponents on both "sides" of this issue. The only thing that was actually "proven", though, was the notion that fur would fly.
Despite of Uncle Fester's tone at times, there was some decent advice. There is plenty of fodder in the thread to support the claim that many just don't like it when people disagree with their opinion and that otherwise mild-mannered folks will cast off the cloak of reason when someone does so.
I decided to check out the aunt's husband's recommendation regarding Nirvana cables, and came up with this "testimonial" from their website (which I quote below) - speaking of gobbledygook!!
"Steve,
This is the best cable I have ever heard-by a big margin over most all, and a surprisingly significant amount over my previous favorite, the Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx. I still can't believe how much better it is. My system has never sounded better. More people should hear these, why would anyone pay $4,000 for a pair of Xxxxxxxxxx with some gobbledygook RC network in an expensive box, when this is available with no bullshit? It's also great that you don't make any secrets about the construction technique, and provide measurements. Wait 'till my friends at Listen Up and Soundings hear this.
Thanks again.
Christopher"
http://www.nirvanaaudio.com/reviews.htm |
I get the impression that Krusty does have experience that is valuable to our discussion, and for that reason I will miss him, assuming that his promise is sincere. The problem is that I don't think he's leaving because of the reasons he states. Knowing that Krusty could not addresss these issues given his departure point in argument is why I entered the post the way I did, and why, you will note, he chose not to respond to me directly.
The symptomatic aspect of krusty's posts, if you look at them carefully, is that he was never able to respond to my inquiries, soon claiming that opinions contrary to his own are per se regressions, and, importantly, religious regressions with Judeo-Christian overtones ("infidels", "Bible", "walk on water").
I have said this before, but I would ask, politely, if you could all listen just this once. Many people who make scientific arguments whose assumptive premises are questioned make very similar responses - ones that don't answer the question and whose patterns can be predicted. How? Because, interestingly, krusty's progression of argument mirrors the discipline of science's own response to such questions over the past two hundred years. When questioned, science has responded, in an historical cascade, that 1) any knowledge not scientific knowlwedge does not exist, then 2) even if knowledge exists outside science, that knowledge is inherently unknowable, then 3) even if knowable, if you claim you know, then you are irrational because...Well, there is no "because", because at this point science merely says that they are going to quit discussing it, go back to their rulers and, as they go out the door, mutter that you are merely regressing to some mytho-magical delusion. Why always the medieval religious references? Because science arose out of the previous ruling paradigm of Judeo-Christian doctrine, and sees that doctrine as its enemy, and so it, and its acolytes, naturally posit any claims of irrationality in Judeo-Christian terms.
And this, symptomatically, is exactly what Krusty did. First he posited a "technical" (read: scientific) theory where subjective criteria were reduced, the operation of that reduction being the ascendancy of his scientific arguments, even though, by the rules of empiric methodology, the subjective is primary to the technique, ie. "technicalities" are the primary knowledge (#1 above). He then stated that some people may have subjective knowledge outside his technicalities, but that they are relegated as a matter of course to his own, without offerring why (# 2 above). Then, when his assumptions were questioned using the same scientific methodology he applied to others (an argument mirroring the deconstruction of scientific exclusivity over the past fifty years), his response was that he was quitting and stormed out uttering his mytho-magical accusations.
This is denial, and the emotion behind it ("senioritas" as a way of saying that other posters are lacking in verility) is not symptomatic of a frustration that ideas were not listened to, but that the primary exclusivity of scientific assumptions was questioned. A worldview was questioned, one that tells you that if you just reduce things into "technicalities" enough, then you will find the truth and be safe. This is a safe matrix of ideas to exist within - just like medieval Judeo-Christian doctrine was a comfortable delusion to stay within - and when it is questioned, the exclusivity of the worldview is questioned. Just like the medieval church, the bearers of the present exclusivity to Truth react combatively when questioned. This is not a coincidence, and the accusations of regression in religious terms then only becomes paradoxical, if not ironic.
Science and its "technicalities" are tools of the mind. Does this mean that MIT cable networks are immune from technical questioning? No, the tool should be used, but not to beat other people over the head with because you choose to believe that science is your primary God. That is ideology fueled by the ego, not science. The medieval church had little to do with Jesus; scientism has little to do with science. The recoil of either had/has little to do with the truth of ideas and more to do with the ego's need to adopt an ideology that can make one feel safe and then taken out into the world to be used against others. |
What I don't get and never have is why MIT draws such angst and emotion. It's just a hifi component for goodness sake. A big reason I think our hobby is small in numbers is because of such subjective opinions that get shoved down people's throat and can be intimidating. I'm sure many people have turned away from this hobby because of that - especially when they go into a highend shop and get that audiogeeksuperiority attitude from employees and customers alike - I've seen it. Most everyone digs music and most dig good stereo systems - you don't have to be an engineer, you don't have spend alot of money, you don't have to buy and sell equipment on a daily basis etc, etc etc to consider yourself an audiophile and you shouldn't have to assume your place in the pecking order expert line - so lighten up and ROCK ON! |
Sorry to chime in so late, but I am bewildered -- not only at WHAT uncle said, but at how (s)he expressed it. The latter, IMO, raised the controversy.
But the originality of what uncle said, with all due respect, floored me.
Unless I'm mistaken, the main jist in uncle's MIT/wire related epistles was:
*a good wire is one that carries signals as unsullied as possible, esp. when the components being connected are very good sonic performers;
*wires with "boxes" introduce alter (introducing filtering?) the signal they are transmitting and that is no good -- unless the point pursued is to kmowingly USE wire to tune a given system;
*A well-matched system usually performs better than one that is not;
Excuse me, but what else is new or, rather, no kidding!
*MIT cable has boxes (some models do, anyway) so it is introducing filtering where it shouldn't -- unles you want to "tune" the system, as above;
*Some people will be taken by gobbledegook (marketing, I suppose)and spend money -- boxes on wires constitute a case of such gobbledegook;
Well, that may be matter of necessity (see Detlof above with Spectral -- I have been in a similar boat), or one of taste: "ear & gear". Again, anything new?
Not doubting uncle's experience -- but we hardly enjoyed it here this time! Respectful cheers |
Drubin: There is no room for that milk-toast, tree-hugging, NPR attitude around here! What are you thinking? Read the title to this thread. It's about LOVE and HATE. None of that Luke warm BS.
And good friend Detlof, if we are going to kick folks out for peddling half-truths as gospel around here we all better get packing! (hehehe)
I fear if that is the new standard I have to find a new forum to BS on. Does anybody know what forum Jack Kavorkian and Theadore Kozinsky use?
Sincerely
I remain, |
I agree with Drubin. The audiophile universe is quite small to begin with and to excommunicate someone for a differing opinion will virtually insure that our small group remains that way. It's possible that some A'goners like it that way -- maybe they like being a big fish in an every shrinking pond. Maxgain, I find your comments regarding Kervorkian particularly offensive.
Regarding, MIT cables, I've owned two interconnects and both failed within 2 years of use. Based upon my particular experience, I question their quality control. To their credit, MIT promptly replaced both interconnects. Soundwise they were very good. |
Drubin, true. I've also lost people I considered interesting and sometimes as friends this way, but the gentleman in question had a manner, apart from peddling often halftruths and mere assumtions as were they cast in stone, which often was plainly an insult to the intelligence and savvyness of his peers here. The assumtions were hardly challenging, we've been through all that many times before, that, together with his bearing, and a kind of assuredness, where true knowledge in this field would have at least allowed a bit of doubt, were indeeed hard to bear. Some tried to get into serious conversation with him, even I liked some of what he had to say and posted accordingly, but basically he just repeated his mantra, enriched with quite a bit of sarcasm, which must been insulting to quite a few here. Frankly, it was the first time here on A. that I also thought "good riddance", because his criticisms were not particularly constructive, I found. |
I think it's sad and unfortunate to see people gang up on contrarian voices in these forums. Some of the best participants have been driven from these ranks over the years. Too little tolerance for diversity and for challenging assumptions, it seems to me. |
Nothing annoys me more than when I'm buying a product (of any kind) and a salesman won't at least acknowledge that there are other products or brands he or she doesn't carry that are also good. I wouldn't buy a BMW from a dealer who says Lexus is junk.
Salesman should point out strengths and weaknesses of each product and allow the consumer to weigh them in their own mind.
Some of the finest Audio stores I know of handle MIT and hightly recommend them. I found that when I went to other stores that don't carry MIT they all told me to get rid of MIT. I guess I see now that there are very strong opinions as to this company and their products.
For now I will continue to use my various MIT and other cables as I have been pleased with their performance. I agree with Bob_bundus, listen with your ears, not your eyes. |
Yes, I agree with krusty that he has been around far too long! Too bad Jack Kavorkian or Theadore Kozinsky are unavailable, as they might be able to help us all out. |
and a good riddance too; not a thing that unclenaysayer has said can hold water, or bat$#!^ for that matter. Not a single useful contribution to the forum, nor was Bundy's question ever actually answered; just opinionated conjecture spewed forth ad nauseum.
No experience - notta!
Not that the uncle-originated posts were read anyway, following the initial (hurl)
I stand by my word - derived from years of true experience with different networked products - and I stand by my true name for that matter. No hiding behind false monikers & phony email addresses here - uncle BOZO. |
Sorry Maxgain - I mean gobbledegook that Bob Bundus repeated on this thread. If you don't mind guano in your cables, then its obvious why you don't mind guano being launched from your speakers.
The faithful shake their bibles, do they ever, as if faith were ever an argument that held water. Even G*d didn't think enough of water to do anything more than walk over it...
I don't care what makes Maxxie move around his listening room, but I have been around far too long and experienced far too much in this business to know that most people, most audiophiles, have assembled systems that aren't nearly as properly matched as they can be. This stems largely from the fact that they rarely take the advice of a local sales professional and mostly play mix-n-match with bargain internet sales and blowouts, B-stock, etc.
That's where good'ol "networked" boxes and cables come in to play ... the guy with a poorly matched system would rather spend $ on some cables that might "fix" his component-matching problem than lose $ re-selling the stuff that has caused the problem in the first place.
In my opinion, based on both electrical theory and empirical observation of cables within the genre, I believe that all macigbox cables cause a change in the signal passing through them - a change that would not occur if the signal only passed through the wire itself. I think that's a bad idea and my experience seemed to back that up.
If you like magicbox cables in your system - go in peace. If you hate them and think that they're just a buncha BS - go in peace. I've said my piece and gave my reasons and backed them up.
It always seems to be the weakest of the faithful that shake their bibles at the infidel ... afraid, maybe, that he's speaking the truth and the emperor really is butt ass naked. The true faithful never try to make converts and cast out demons - they just walk in bliss.
So I came to stir the pot - and, boy howdy, did it ever get stirred. It's been fun, senoritas, but I think there's nothing more to say that ain't been said already. Over and over again.
g'bye
k |
LOL, will do ASA, thanks for your thoughts on P. Can't say much, know too little, but seems to make sense what you say. The musicality thread has yet to be born, too busy still writing up reports on all sorts of people to make some money to buy expensive cables and to eat. |
Oh, detlof, when are we going to get that thread you promised on musicality? We must be sure to invite Krusty and Jetter. Remind me then. |
No, detlof, Popper did not, from what my admittedly limited knowledge of his ideas can tell (oh my God, Jetter, here's where we could, just could, veer into Jung!!!! Stooooone the witch!!!).
I'm not sure about his personal life, but, basically, in the end, in his philosophy he still defaulted to an assumption that the systematic analysis of science redeemed it as a method, even though his own critique on that method - that science is always finding new truth, so how can they ever say they have The Truth - undermined that hope, in a logical sense. I would say he had an intuition that this had to be the case and so adopted it. I feel the same BTW, to an extent, that extent tempered by my knowledge of what science IS, its limitations, and the true ground of science.
From what I know of the LSE philosophy dept, where Popper ensconsed himself, the quantification of reality (the progeny of British empiricism, Hume, Berkely, et al) was perhaps, in its lingering influence, not quite as far away as he might have thought. I think Popper was simply part of the general deconstruction of science - seeing its limitation through an application of its own reductionist rules to itself - that has been going on for quite a while now (you see, WilBishop, I do know how old some of this is....). He saw a facet of that limitation, but like all deconstructionism, never looked beyond that reduction to see a solution. Maybe that accounts for his ultimate default to science's systematic rigor for a grounding, and thus avoiding the conclusion of nihilism (the consequence of groundless-ness). Given that his own observations seemed to contradict that conclusion, perhaps that was, in the end, a personal choice of belief, perhaps one adopted in fear of what he believed to be its logical contra (without some ground in logic, reality becomes ground-less)
[except that reality is not grounded by logic...]
There are certainly some people out there who know more than that and can, perhaps, add or correct what I've said (OH MY GOD!! There it is, Jetter, the possibility, rearing its head like a regression to religion, like a hydra, of this thread going out of control, out of control of the thinking scientific mind towards some so-called creativity or dialogue that keeps us from controlling the truth, making it serve our purpose! Oh God, save us!!)
Detlof, if you know about Popper, perhaps - while we wait for Krusty to come back and for Jetter to think - I would be interested to know what you know. Anyone else too.
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CABLE?!
There, all served up, just like a baseball on a tee, just like when you were five. |
Asa, admirable analysis. A joy to read and not to fault as far as I can see. Old Krusty is good for something afterall. A question: Don't know Kuhn, but did Popper REALLY live up to what he preached there? Cheers, |
This thread was initiated by Bundy asking about MIT. Not about "networked" cables in general. How many times do I need to repeat myself? S-L-O-W-L-Y, this time for krusty. My sole point is that you are making a sweeping generalization that is as hard to substantiate as saying that all tube amps that use the same output tube sound the same. I just find that listening to a product "might" be a better way to judge, if, in fact, it sounds good or not!
If you paid attention to what I wrote krusty you would realize that I never said anything about "correction" or "compensation" or even anything about the sound of these cables!
I am open minded about products that can improve my listening experience. I just like to hear them in my system before I decide what they sound like. I have been listening to every cable that I have been able to get my hands on for a while, which is not that many, I will say. When I find one that sounds better I will buy some. I don't care if it has a "box" on it filled with bat guano, or if the conductor is made from old coat hangers, if it sounds good I will use it. I may try to understand why bat guano might sound better than bird guano. In the end it's the sound that counts. You can't judge the sound with out listening to a product. O.K.?
So krusty if you want to pony up some cash for me to rid myself of my old "crap" gear I would be happy to spend your money on a new ARC Ref2 MkII, a pair of VTM200's and some Kimber Select throughout.While you're at it I might as well let you buy me some Vandy 5's(birdseye will do nicely). I don't accept personal checks.
Now Jetter, tell me more about that sister of yours!
|
Jetter:
Krusty is in the circle, whether he knows it or not. You're the only one who is not, and by your own choice.
Now, can someone hand me the fly swatter... |
Very funny!!! Thanks guys for the chuckle.
Again, I think opinions on wire have less to do with technology and science than people's 1) emotional reaction to the exhorbitantly high prices of "exotic" wire, and 2) because of that emotional orientation - deserved or not - a heightened desire to apply scientific criteria to ameliorate that response (which must be directed, of course, to people who buy it). The problem with this is what some philosophers of science, namely, Kuhn and Popper, have noted as a bias that effects one's observation of results, or lack thereof. In this sense, objective criteria , due to the emotive response, become prioritized without reflection to subjectively percieved results, which even the rules of science says are determitive ("objective" criteria are also subjectively percieved, and hence, the term "objective" can be misleading, leading us to believe it has some independant validity, like a science-god out there somewhere, but that's another story...)
There are also other "scientific" assumptions that underly many scientific-based arguments that reveal still other biases, and that come out in wire vs. amp arguments because the matter configuration is different, not in a fundamental sense, but merely in appearance. Science, in its alliance with capitalism and the production of technology (science is not predominantly in the business of producing technology, but using it, as a tool, to find out truths about physical reality), has adopted amongst its acolytes an assumption that if the tool has more moving parts it must be more complex in function, i.e. complexity in matter arrangement equals complexity in function. In wire discussions, fueled by the emotive response, this comes out as technical arguments made based upon this assumption, but not disclosed because even the speaker is unaware of the underlying assumption within the presentation of his/her data (it derives from science's method of reduction of wholes into parts; allied with capitalism, better technolgy equals tools with more parts, more parts equals more complexity, more complexity dictates better subjectively percieved performance. You see the irrational cascade?).
Did Krusty do this? Maybe, I can't tell, that's what I was trying to find out (you see, Jetter, even science is a philosophy. That you don't think so may be a point of departure for self-reflection on another scientific assumption that is untrue...).
Science is a valuable tool of the mind directed towards matter and, because of that, makes great widgets (and, at its best, catalyzes awe). But it is not ultimately determitive of subjective results.
Are Krusty's technical arguments sufficient to negate the use of networks in toto? No.
Does he make a point that the technology in boxes does not justify people paying that much for them, even though he may not state this? Perhaps. But calling people stupid - the underlying emotive demeanor - and using scientific technicalities to bolster that argument is not the same issue as negating one technology from another based on scientific evidence.
Does Krusty's subjective evidence further bolster his technical argument? Yes, but as pointed out above - and of all people Krusty should understand this - his methodology appears flawed. Namely, as detlof cited, his sample is too small and not representative. This leaves only Krusty's undisclosed emotive demeanor as bias towards favoring strictly technical arguments based on complexity assumptions - or that likelihood given his silence on the inquiry of his assumptions of his method, his emotional demeanor and the insufficient sample to that methodology.
Does Krusty have a point about boxe wire? Perhaps. But it needs to be presented in a different way if it is to be successful.
Krusty, on the chuckle, you show commendable constraint. Perhaps a jumping off point to answer the last question... |
Uncle Krusty
Came around the campfire from out of the night and the stranger spoke his piece straight from the hip.
He didn't first stop to analyze his audiences social/economic standing.
He didn't ask if he could be let into the circle.
He just said he didn't need no stinkin filter.
The a'goner possee
Well, they think they like that litt'l ol box, ain't ever hurt no one.
They decided that since Uncle K wouldn't discuss the box in terms of both the scientific "micro" and philosophic "macro" we oughta get him.
Their gettin ready to send Jung in after him.
Score stands
Uncle K - 9
A'goners - 4 1/2 |
Zaike, you've got it, begosh. Are you with the CIA? It's him, all of him, including his muleheadedness and his rash temper. Ha!! Always thought, he couldn't be quite real, although I liked what he said about the CAT and the Defy 7, but then, as you so wisely point out, I belong to the same family of uncles. Why? The Brits used to have a saying that went: "Bob's your uncle", which was a polite way of suggesting that you're talking bullshit. We're one big familiy, obviously, only some know it and some not.(-;
To qualify the point that Krusty the Clown is possibly uncle squared, so to speak, comes from the fact, that Bruce Brisson (MIT) and Karen Sumner, who marketed the MIT stuff for him, split up in the eighties, if I recall right. It was then, that she started Transparent. Since then Bruce hasn't been asleep, nor have the folks at Transparent. Yes they have boxes, both, but they certainly are not alike and they don't sound alike. So I am quietly pondering for myself, as I am sawing one of the $12000 MIT boxes open, to see if there's gold inside, if one of Clown Krusty's uncles might not be named BOB.
Cheers, |
Unclekrusty, you wouldn't be AKA 'Krusty The Clown' from TV's beloved The Simpsons, now would you? I'm tuning out most everything here beyond a certain point, save for the grin from Audiogon's beloved uncle Detlof... :-) |
Maxgain - MIT and Transparent are the same. The Sumner's stole fire from the the MIT demigods.
As for litz wire - it's good stuff, inexpensive on the used market, and it doesn't pretend to fix imaginary gremlins with "power factor correction" and "transmission line compensation" or whatever gobbledegook you repeated on this thread. |
"Hear,hear", as the Brits say, quoth he , grinning softly. |
