twl, yes, we are talking about bottlnecks. I think your position, "source is more importaant" holds more water, so to speak, when couched in the top-to-bottom context, i.e. logically, how can anything be important downstream if there is not sufficient water going downstream? Yes, this is a valid argument, and it is the case in many mid-level systems (this assuming that sources in beginning systems are relegated out of necessity, along with all others in that chain, to the point that strict positions on this issue are reasonably untenable), and it may sound true logically, but it may not hold true, experiencially, in higher level systems - as an argument that is.
And this gets back to my point - that no one here seems willing to address - that as the curve of learning increases, what is most "important" changes as a general rule. Here, twl, I'll prove it to you:
At the similar risk of ruining my chances for a career in the diplomatic corp., :0), the reason you cited analog/digital dichotomies, is the same reason that supports this position; namely, an analog system, and yes gentlemen even at the highest reaches, is superior objectively in harmonic depth and spatial continuity and superior subjectively in terms of increasing the mind's receptivity to the message ("Musicality") when compared to a digital system. In analog systems at the highest present reaches, harmonic and spatial nuance become most "important" because they are the qualities left to strive for; the other components are now ready to tranalate those qualities that analog is capable. In a digital system, these final qualities are still screened at the source, and so an analog devotee - and let's face it, twl, that's where you are coming from, the context for your observations - will say that the source is most important. And, here's the important point, in your context, at your symmetry of observation, you are correct. But for the digital devotee, at his symmetry of observation he is correct; people who have all digital systems will hear a greater "importance" in speakers. And, in fact, in such level systems a speaker may very well be the most important component; because, since the digital source is not translating said qualities to analog's degree, the speaker is to be focused upon as the most "important" source of change (and you will note that this allegiance increases as system spatial/harmonic/musicality decreases, i.e. with all SS/digital systems, and on a decreasing scale towards beginner systems, which is why I said way back when that speakers are most important in beginner systems).
The problem you have, twl, and I surely respect your restraint and evident maturity and poise, is that you are not willing to say what you believe (!). We all are socialized, in our post-post modern world, towards an egalitarianism that, in its attempts at radically respect all others, engenders an assumption into everything it says; namely, an assumption through ommission. In this case, the failure to state expilicitly that hierarchies exist on this curve.
Simply put, twl, you think the source is most important because you are more advanced. And, no, I don't mean just with equipment, because their choices are simply a reflection of the mind that chose them (and for thos knee-jerk radical cultural relativists out there, this is mind related to musical receptivity, not awareness/compassion, although twl seems like a nice guy to me...). You are more advanced in your ability to be receptive to the musical message, and this reflects your choices of gear, its synergical makeup, and your position that the source is most important.
And the second problem for you is a second misplaced assumption; namely, that you can make your argument in the first place (assuming that you make it to persuade/teach - and don't tell me you are not a teacher, twl, I'll hit you ten times with a bamboo stick!). Why do/can I say this? Because knowledge is state-specific, meaning that the knowledge you have at your level can not be translated/transferred/tranmutated, :0), to lower levels; you understand lower levels, but they do not understand you, in logical/language terms. Its like a guy in a plane: at one altitude (one symmetry of observation) the coast appears crooked, but higher it becomes more strait. Both observations are correct at their given symmetries, but the higher has seen and knows both. It is not that one is wrong, one is right, but sliding symmetries of observation.
Twl, you can huff-and-puff all day about "source-more-important", and you are correct from where you are, but all lower levels of observation will hear argument through a prism that hears "lower level is wrong." And their defense from this orientation (and if you look back closely, you can see this is a defense, not an challenge to your position...) IS valid, from ITS symmetry of observation. That position is partial, and in their own exclusivity, they are mistaken, but I have a question for you: are you similarly mistaken in the exclusivity of your position?
How can you teach from exclusivity as an originating orientation?
You do not need to negate all levels below your own to perfect your own; that is the next level. That is how you can teach even more. |
6ch, what is the color of a dog? |
:0)
Do you think anyone out there wants to beat us yet? |
I think it time for, gasp, the net... |
Its a sliding scale, that's why you are seeing so many good and valid responses from different people. How can that be?
Well, at first, speakers are the most critical. When setting up a beginner system, start at the speakers. You get 'em a nice pair of speakers, a hybrid integrated and a good 'lil CD player with decent but not too expensive wire - so they'll get as much enjoyment as possible, least hassle and no recoil, as in , its great but it sure did cost alot.
Then, in a few months, they're getting the itch and they don't even know what it is yet, you give 'em a few NOS tubes that don't cost too much, a tweak for the same reason, so they can see what is posssible down the road, hear how everything is eventually important, all the while they save for...
Separate electronics. A tube pre - maybe a vintage VTL nice-and-simple, and maybe a tech friend you know does you a favor and swaps some parts to soup it up a bit. Then a SS amp so he/she doesn't get too peeved too fast if a tube output goes - maybe a Pass Aleph 3 at $900 from someone who just wants to sell it - about $1500 total... Yea, that's about right for the second purchase. They're starting to scour Stereophile now and telling you what so-and-so said, all as a pretext for wanting what that pretty picture (of words) says they have-to-have, even though its out of their range, so just hold 'em back abit.
Bring over a top flight PC or IC to hear the difference, see what's down the road, but steer them to the...
Source, upgrade the CD player. Not because its most important, but because they've been reading, scanning this site and see all you AA and Mephisto guys railing poetic and the addiction, becoming formed, says it wants in on the action. They think they know more than they do now, so you wonder whether you should let them make a mistake on what Sam Tellig says, but instead, you get them to upgrade the CD - they feel better - but, at the same time, get em' to throw a couple VD or CPCC PC's in the mix.
Then, amp -its big, muscular - guys like that - you know, everyone's gotta cool amp and the Aleph 3 is so, well, boring looking, and, the engines in cars are the most important, right? So....its a VTL to match the pre. Good resale, won't get hurt much and will learn about the relationship of liquidity and dynamics.
After that, if so inclined, a turntable, and this goes on and on IN SPIRALS OF DEVELOPMENT where the component is inserted to increase synergy towrds musicality as the listeners MIND - not ears - increases in receptivity to the meaning in music.
Towards the later part of the arc (you notice, I didn't say end...), the mind sits up and notices that the room is the "most" important, or the "pre" has become the fulcrum of the system and at that level the pre becomes critical in terms of system-wide synergy and must be the most "important", or that Jena Valkyrie IC is just kickin' that Valhalla in the most sublime way that you can't quite describe, or....
And you are still on the spiral, like a double-helix of progessive, musically exponential, ascendancy.
And at each of these places, because that is where you mind is looking when not listening, you think that your place is the most important, BECAUSE, from where you are at, IT IS.
At the top, the ride ends and you see that the mind that could, that would, go there was always the most important "source". Yet at the same time, each and every component that you've had has been the "most important" for where you were. None of it was "less" important than the last.
You look down, sit back, turn on the stereo and listen to the Music. The spiral ends and the "most importants" end only when you see your own spiral.
But if you are looking at your own spiral, then you are not that spiral, then who is looking?
The same mind that was listening all along.
Muralman, does that sound like alchemy? |
You're right, ohn, add that in. |
Yea, Muralman, I must be losing my touch. BUT, just look at the post I just put on twl's "This will be a good thread" in Amp/Pre section (poor twl...). I'm figuring to get roasted alive! Your meter will be off the dial!
Ahhh, just like getting in a warm bath... |
OK, I'm also lossing my mind - its twl's "How could hiend be improved?" thread in Misc. Audio.
I give you permission to go there and beat on me...:) |
Oh, Paulup, did I really say that? Hmmm. Yea, I do jam away on the car radio, and we know that's no good as a component, ie, presumably your "bad". But then again, are we really talking about being that "bad" in componentry? I start out with a hybrid amp with volume control above because I think less than that would be a waste for someone going down our road (my girlfriend is not going down our road, so something more "bad" would be OK; its context dependant, our context being our path).
I said that something may SOUND great on a great system, but if you don't have a will towards the musical meaning - and hence, presumably, a music collection that is reflective of that will and not just great components - then you are kinda wasting what you built.
On the other hand, isn't this a moot question as far as experience? In other words, do you actually know someone who has a great system - defined as one that involves you deeply in the meaning of the music - that doesn't also have a nice collection of music that can help get you there? What person possesess the will to build "great" in a system and then not build "great" in the medium? I don't know anybody like that, and I think where that problem arises, and why people site it, is from the circumstance where a system is built in an accurate way with accuracy of sound prominent as a will - objectifying sound, even if done well - rather than a system that balances accuracy, provides it sufficiently to enable the mind to go deeper, but doesn't become attached to that accuracy at the expense of the deepening receptive musical experience. In those types of systems, many times we see Stereophile-approved components strung together but no "great" music collection. Again, this is a symptom of the mind focused on things - stereo component things, sound as things - and not a will to let go of the mind that wants to control things and, thereby, deepen into the meaning. The mind like that goes for the more impressive things first and predominantly - the components rather than the music - because such minds orientation is towards the exterior; as in, producing covet-ing in the exterior other person. This is also why you can see a correlation between system character, and egocentricity and materialism in the mind that built the system/musci collection. Or, in the case you cite, an imbalance between system and collection.
Just something to think about... |
Paulup, really didn't think you disagreed either, just yapping and trolling. Sorry, should have not yapped so much and did more trolling. :)
I think your point is a very good one. How can we enjoy musical meaning on a car radio, and then can't sit down to listen to the same song on our stereos, because it doesn't "sound" good enough?
Context again? In other words, do my expectations of the component effect my ability to "let go" and get into the music? Or, another way, does my thinking mind's attachment to thinking about the gear sometimes get in the way of me enjoying myself? Isn't that a focus on form (component) and not meaning (music)?
Audiophilicus Neuroticus?
On the other hand, yea, some speakers make me scream from the room!! But then again, so do some car stereos. My car stereo, although not sophisticated/accurate in terms of "sound", is effective through ommission of too much distortion (causing my thinking mind to take notice to the incongruency), and gets harmonics pretty good. I agree, some speakers don't do these things even; in search of accuracy and only accuracy they may get distortions reduced but leave a sterile void space and carved images that only the analyzing, visually-orientated part of my mind would be drawn to. These types od speakers don't cause me to run for the door, but, in my disinterest, I do start walking there. |
Jeez guys, didn't anyone read my first post above. You are both right and are both wrong - that's why everything each one of you says is true sounds true enough. What is most important changes with context, namely, system sophistication in terms of accuracy and musical involvement and the sophistaication of listener.
Here's something interesting that may also be effecting your debate, namely, which type of rendition you favor. People who put together accurate-weighted systems can get away with a source that is less musical and tend to favor speakers as the dominating lens in the system. Moreover, although most beginners (assuming a beginner listening mind and pocket book) should look at speakers first - for the reasons I cited above - and people who are interested in accurate-weighted systems tend to stay with that perspective even as the accuracy of their system increases. On the other hand, someone who eventually ends up valuing a system that is "musical" as a factor that overrides considerations of surface accuracy will tend, as his mind becomes more able to experience the music deeply and discern the spatial/harmonic properties of sound that catalyze that progression, will begin moving away from a speaker-is-most-important viewpoint. This person, in a system that is optimized to produce this effect, will find that the source is critical in the final system. That said, he/she will also find that IC's, PC's, room, and, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, their integration is tantamount (synergy).
If your orientation towards synergy is weighted towards accuracy, then you will most likely stay with speakers as your main way to increase that quality - because speakers like Dunlavy's et al mated with SS electronics and a digital source gives you that - it is a quantitative progression and this grouping of components serves that purpose. If your synergy is towards transcending a bias towards accuracy in favor of musicality, while still maintaining accurate sound, then you tend to branch out towards other components BECAUSE your synaergy requires it. The former is a quantitative approach that focuses on pieces of a system as seperate pieces, staying with the piece that was most important in the beginning and that still is the piece that accentuates accuracy; the later is a qualitative approach that is integrative, focusing, by necessity, on other components and their integral relationship.
Its like two flyers in two airplanes at different altitudes. The one flying lower sees a coastline that is jagged. Higher, the other flyer sees a staighter line of the coast. Both lines are different but they are the same coast. The problem arises when each tries to say that their view is the only truth. The one lower we can understand why he would think so because he has not been higher. But the one higher knows the lower too and, so, should understand why the lower flyer would think the way he does, and should know that that knowledge is altitude specific and that he can keep taliking tuntil he's blue in the face and it won't matter.
You're blowing in the wind twl. You should know better...
People stand on islands in the river arguing about what branch is the truest river. |
"The mystery is your Eye" - Elizabeth Bowen |
Oh Marco, Marco, you've found what you were looking for...
Threads, like all iterations, change, and particularly when they go along this long. I don't detect that much divergence from the original inquiry, at least not one that would require your police-ing, and particularly given that there was a recent and significant time gap since, er, last YEAR. What's the matter, Marco, got up this morning and just thought you'd found a nice egg to crack, and so took the chance, just to juice that lizard (you know, the one in the R-complex part of your brain), just to make you feel more like a "me" today, because its anonymous here and you feel like you can be more of a "me" absent your peers' physical proximity? Did it make you "feel" better?
Marco, a seed for your search...
twl, what chemical-electrical "signal" derives from a synapse firing in the mind of the singer, into the electrical "signal" of the mike, through the electrical "signals" via stereo components, to the chemical-electrical "signal" in you?
Energy transference, or tranduction, or transmutaion, or iteration, et al, by any other name...
Fear of Change; desire to make others conform to your ideas; the ego juice when you vent on that egg. Does that sound a little closer to the originating causal "signal" for your, er, help, Marco...?
Mark |
Marco, damn, no bites. I bow to you; man out from behind the curtain.
And thank you - very funny, I laughed out loud.
On what you say, its content, it is a staw man not deserving of the cognitive agility applied to it - but I do get your point and will respond there.
[First, please see my 1-13 response as context.]
Yes, it is true many people choose things, and here stereo things, to impress other people (actually to induce covet-ing), but we can't let their decisions decide ours, speaker-first or not. That disposes of scenario #1. Second, we can't let bad judgement, or the inability to learn, be a reference point for our decisions either (Calix horns wouldn't be my choice to illustrate your point #2, but anyone who pairs them with Radioshack has a pers se learning disability...) - which takes care of #2.
The answer: the middle path; neither and both. At each level of learning the most "important" component changes. What your response reflects is that you exist where you believe all components are important. But that is the response of someone who knows what Calix's are (BUT, have you tried the cryo's versions?!!). What produces "important" in your mind is not what produces "important" in someone coming off the Radioshack curve.
Each person is different, of course, but, generally speaking, different components become more important at different places on the learning curve. Personally, I think that every component is important - while also recognizing your point that many poeple use this argument to compare the twice cryo'd Whale versus the thrice - but, finally, as for purposes of discussion, I can't let that person's orientation act as a delimiter my own, as I'm sure you don't either, in practice.
Oh, by the way, you went off topic there. :0) That's called a performative error in an argument; meaning that your response undermined the premise of the point you were originally trying to make. But, you know, it doesn't bother me. As I said, iterations can be fun... |
I think that "OK this will be a good thread" anticipates active (read: divergent) viewpoints; overdelineation to "ONE COMPONENT" may be a bit of a projection on your behalf, Marco. But hey, if you want to be literal here, not there, just to have fun, then, please, have a good time on your off-manic phases, chemically induced or not...(I hereby insert smiley-face so you know, so you know, that I'm, well...)
As for my preference, I think, from a design point of view, that starting with the pre (an active, hard-wired tubed one) gives the best results (musical results) in the long term. I can not say that it is then the most important piece when the system is fully constructed, but using it as a fulcrum for moving up and down the chain makes it, IMHO, most "important," in that context.
There are many good speakers and it is a very personal choice (which is why some people respond that it is the most important, because it is the most personal), but there are not very many good pre's out there, again, IMHO. As for people who say turntable, when you've got everything else and are looking for that last 'lil bit of harmonic/spatial nuance, you can experience the greatest jump in performance in advanced systems at the front end, and particularly on analog-based systems. Which again, may explain that focus (and, hence, answer). |
Yea, I know, Marakanetz, soooo predictable. I'm like a long playing record (sorry, I've been looking for a way to work that in...). I say, bread on the water, but I'm the nibbling fish! You know, all in all, I'm glad the Venomous Ones are gone, but, like Marcos, I like the mixing up too! |
twl: I agree with your parameters of discussion, here, this thread's context. Simply making a point, concisely as I knew how.
I disagree with you, however, and respectfully, that because electronics are a "pass" through, they somehow are fundamentally different in the context of the value, "important", and even given our parameters here. Your position relies on two assumptions: (1) that electronics only "pass" information, which itself rests upon the assumption that other components do not, and (2) that such "pass-ing" consitutes a perfect transmission from source, or rather, that it should.
First, the only thing "fallacious" is the assumption that any constituancy of matter, any component, can perfectly pass through "signal." While this may be an absolute to aspire to, it does not presently exist in the applications of physics, nor in the practice of construction of stereo gear, the later application dependant upon the limitations of the former. When superconductivity is invented, then we can have that conversation. But, until then, all matter that we rearrange into technology and that we then use as a conduit for energy, in its various forms, is effected by the transference of that medium's transference abilities. In other words, limited transference capability as a matter of course, or a matter of our present limitations of implementation, does not equal "tranmute."
All of our stereo components are insufficient energy transducers, or transmuters, or transferors, or whatever latest action verb we want to come up with to describe the same basic action. We pass signal through these created matrices of matter and that action defines its output. In this sense, all componenets are "euphonic" of actual sound moving through space, in the sense that their imperfect material deviation results in a similar deviation from the voices "accuracy", "musical-ity", etc.
The skill is then in constructing a mix of such deviations into a synergistic whole. And the the question then becomes, if a component is not presently by its nature subtractive towards perfect transfer, then do such "euphonic" deviations that do exist produce an experience that reflects, while not perfectly reproducing the sound absolute, the mind's experience of that absolute; can the whole exceed IN EXPERIENCE NOT MATERIAL THEORY the material limitation of its parts?
My answer is, yes. And I might add, apart from ideas - as in how you put your stereo together towards your eventual experience - my strong intuition is that you do too.
As for source being most important because it does not transfer, the same deviation arguments above apply to it also. As I said, from where you are at, yes, the source change produces the most change, but that does not hold true at all symmetries of system construction. |
Ah, 6ch, I must be trolling good today! Hello.
Marco: I know what you are saying. What I am talking about, levels, is not as strict as the structure of this limited dialogue allows. Yes, some are more open from the beginning, and a person like twl, a sales person/teacher, can catalyze growth/opening in that person. But it is the will of the person that is catalyzed, and that will must be orientated to begin with before twl can catalyze it. To assuage, know that all possess the same potential towards receptivity, but many more than not, in the beginning stages, buy Bose; its not just a matter of exposure. As for this venue, SS or not, I consider most here capable of a high degree of receptivity. Which, of course, is why we all have ended up here...and why the high end is so small, relatively speaking.
twl, I think you misunderstood my airplane metaphor, in that you logically extended it past my application in metaphor (you extend a metaphor on thought into matter, an extension that is materialist). Literally, of course, man can not see people on the ground from orbit, but what I was trying to illustrate, via metaphor, was the state-specific nature of knowledge. Applied to you and stereo, we would say that you can hear a SS system running digital and its partiality, but a SS-focused mind will not hear the "musicality" of your system, or of analog, etc. This accounts, of course, for the many encounters between strict digital adherents who claim musical-ity equivelance and those analog adherents who claim something more exists; the former claims "more" as mistaken euphonics, or regressive romanticism, denying other "levels" exist, and the later claims an experience not translatable by words. Hence, your prior posts finding yourself in such positions; your knowledge is state-specific.
On exclusivity, in general: as a teaching device, I'm not sure that was your intent. You are correct that each can grow from the other, but I'm not sure your original orientation was to use exclusivity to engender communion. Again, the orientation of the will determines whether any given position is teach-ing. For instance, Buddhism is a "negative" teaching in that it seeks to show you what is by showing you what the "is" is not.
On physics, lots of fun, but not enough, er, space here to do it justice. I would say, however, that while you speak of quantum level phenomenon, your approach in doing so is still Newtonian. Both "wave" and "particle" are inappropriate words for a quantum state where they are neither; our formal operational cognitition is object-based, and hence our language, so we need to use words that conote an object to describe a phenomenon - especially a scientific one, since science is objected-attached - but that doesn't mean that that contrivance is true in experience. Is a quantum string really a string-thing? What is observed at the quantum level is the arising of Light-energy from the Infinite/Nothing/Emptiness, into quantum energy into energy into matter. The various symmetries cause what are called category errors, which means that systems or consepts used to describe one level may be insuffcient to describe the other; as with quantum mechanics versus Newtonian based systems of explanation.
On probability/Heisenberg/Schrodinger et al, this is another materialist assumption at work; namely, that because I don't observe it, or can't, it doesn't exist, or its only a probability event. As I said in my quote of Elizabeth Bowen - "the mystery is your eye" - the device of observation is the mystery (the mind's orientation changes what is seen), but because when we look it appears like a wave, or then a particle, doesn't mean it was that, or either. As Forest Gump said, "...maybe its both. Maybe both is happenin' at the same time." And even before you looked...The paradox arises at the boundary of Light arising into quantum wave/particle because this is the limit of material observation (or observation through mathematical approximation, which is what mechanics are).
On Infinite All:, "All" is not defined by a vector, since it includes all vectors. And, teaching not only happens by knowledge bits, but can also happen (be catalyzed) by simply being-to-being proximity. This movement of "learning" is not limited to one vector, or one step in one direction, because the movement moves out like the ripples from a pebble in a pond; awareness expanding inwards/outwards as one movement towards apprehension/immersion in Infinity. To do this, however, one must let go of the attachment of vectors/finite/materialist. Vector paths that use knowledge accumulation or structuring to derive truth from the "what is" give us many truths and their commensurate material powers, but their are other powers/potentials of the mind/being that are found beyond those. Beyond those, wave is not wave, particle is not particle, and yet, still is/are.
In stereo, if a turntable catalyzes receptivity ("learning" without thought), then good; if SS, then good; if speaker, then good. Good at all "levels", but to go deeper in receptivity, the curve of learning, one must let go of the thought, "Which vector?"
In this regard, everyone's potential is Infinite. What could be more radically egalitarian? |
Good Zap, Zapper!
That was very nice 6chac; I liked the bridge one. Is the flag waving or our minds? Maybe both, or neither, all at the same time, but since no "time" only NOW, but since no not-NOW, not NOW either..."The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflections, the water has no mind to receive their images."
You know, the hell with all this Zen crap!!! (in the best Judeo-Christian sense of the word...), I'm going with the AMP too! Big Macs, Big fins on cars, more food, more stuff, fill me up, up, up! fill up the space bewteen the singer with her BIG sound, fill it up, up, up, fill up the No-thing-ness that is only Nothingness to me, fill up the bridge/not-bridge paradox, fill it! fill it!...then, finally, I'll be safe and happy with my BIG sound. :0)
And then, well, I'll be a man... |
Oh uncle and Marco, don't be spoiled sports. What are you afraid of? Big words, big idea? What makes it look big to you?
Yes, switching to that Rapala floater was a good move...
6ch: yes, of course. Before man = deeper face. Also, though, "level face" = face: Form not different from form-less; form-less not separate from form. I know, as soon as I open my mouth and spat out "level" you/it/Tao hits me with a bamboo! :0) (and another :0) for now frowning Marco who doesn't like symbol ":0)")
But, "level" "flag" "grain" are the floaters...
On stereo, yes, pragmatist, you are right. It is how you make a sauce that determines how it tastes.
Putting together a streeo is an art, which is why I like talking to all of you stereo-artists - some even stereo artist-teachers like twl, and in a different way 6ch. And even those of you who are in the closet about your "art" because it doesn't sound "scientific" enough (to the mirror), or has big words (like big macs and big fins...)
BTW, who is L. Frank Baum? What did he say?
Twitch, twitch. Twitch, twitch goes the line... |
Marco, truly sorry for your loss. Yes, they have souls...
When they pass, that is when we confront the unknown, or what we percieve as Darkness. I understand. But ask, when the "I" defines inside and outside as Darkness, as a postmodern "no exit", what "me" is created?
From there, can we love?
Be still. |
Pbb, your premise is that "challenge to manufacturer" - as in, design sophistication at the construction level - determines "importance" of component in sound. Again, this is your scientific materialist bias once more on display (and feigning higher maturity with Stevem because of it, i.e. translating your ideology into ego inflation, which is what, not coincidentally, scientific materialism IS because it is motivated by a attachment to power over matter).
In such an attachment, the mind believes that the manipulation of the thing of matter, in this case the construction of a stereo component, is the most "important" determinant of the "quality" of sound produced by that technology. In other words, complexity of construction of technology determines "quality" of output. Again, this is an attachment to the "complexity" - so percieved (see below) - of technology, because the scientific materialist mind is attached to his technologic tools (which are the means of his/her greater power over matter).
This position, yours, in its logical extension - and, you are only using logic, and its all that you believe exists for deriving truth - dictates the worn-out premise, now widely discarded, that a person can look at a circuit and tell what sound comes out. Or - and here's the important part - how that output will effect the mind of the listener in terms of receptivity to the musical message.
Now, back to your "sophistication" premise itself. This, again, is a bias towards complexity of construction in the technologic tool, then transposing that bias into the meaning, "sophisticated" (because, I mean, pbb, you MUST be correct if you are more sophisticated in your arrangement of matter, right?). But let's take a closer look at your premise, which is: more parts, preferably moving parts so we can really see how "complex" the techno-thing is, means something is more sophisticated. In other words, and regardless of the result of an experiment - namely, listening to the importance of a component on the sound and its effects on your mind - your premise dictates that a cable is less "important" because it is less complex by virtue of its assumed lower design sophistication. In other words, you attach determintive importance to technology (matter)at the expense of the result of the experiment. Your attachment dictates that the complexity of the technology determines effect, but regardless of the actual effect, you will ignore that effect if not in keeping with your bias!
Scientists who ignore the results of experiments in default to an attachment to their technology are not being, uh, very scientif-ic.
If a cable-thing, as material condiut, engenders in the mind of the listener an increased receptivity to musical meaning then, per se, it is more important. If a cable-thing engenders a new result, then regardless of how many moving parts you would like to juice your egoic lizard, it is more "sophisticated". The changed result, scientifically speaking, determines the next adaption in empiric method to achieve the next result, not the material technology-thing that was the conduit for the observation of that result. To believe otherwise, is per se an attachment to the material at the expense of the very premises of scientific method it prays allegiance to - and, at the expense of the Music.
Yes, pbb, I know what you like to hear and why you claim digital is superior (assumably without conducting a proper experiment on yorself, relying, unscientifically, on the material "sophistication" rather than a result that would challenge your bias...). You are a scientific materialist, as much a zeolot for that ideology as any other fundamentalist: you see the world as material, through that prism, and, hence you compare objects for your results from matter. You look out at sound as a thing to be objectified; you seek "accuracy" and "detail" so as to further carve boundaries around the sound projection, to make it easier to percieve as if an object. Space as an integral vessel for the sound projection is relegated to a void, because you are focused on the sound-thing and not the space. You create a soundscape that is populated by a near visual experience of sound-objects of heightened detail boundaries, even more in relief from your void background of space, because the visual senses are object-oriented. You choose digital because, as a newer technological thing, you believe it is more "sophisticated", but below that, you choose it because it makes it easier for you to see the sound object. Any transition boundary not delineated is called "euphonic", etc., etc.
pbb, argue for your limitaions and, sure enough, they are yours. You are the man on the ground saying the Earth is flat, needing to say it to stay with all of your things, and the power over things.
My only question for you: Do you believe that dogs have souls? And why? |
Be quiet, twl, you are scaring away the fish!
pbb is a Tarpon, how can I resist! |
|
Damn, pbb, you've become a dry hole...and, thereby, have made me one (!) (fade in: rousing shouts from the gallery!!).
So, if you are not a Tarpon, and dogs have souls, and the orientation of the mind creates the mind that then listens to the next note, hearing the Silence a bit more between the notes, then what "are" you then?
Hmmm.
Hello Muralman! Goodbye 6ch and twl, til meet you fishing next time!
BTW, we have notes and what's between notes, or sound and silence. But, what comes first? Is it an irrelvant question in the context of how we build our stereos, and to what is the most "important" component?
I don't think so, and here is why in the context of what component is most "important" at any given point on the curve of learning to listen better. It isn't sound-then-silence, like flipping from one to the next, because, even using the causality laws of physics, one must precede the other; and, thereby, be the causal ground of the other. It is: notes ARISE out of silence.
So, if silence is prior to sound, don't you think its "important" - as in, determitively important in the first instance, the first causal instance - that silence, or dimension, be a priority of a component?
And, lo and behold, isn't it the feeling of dimension/space/continuity that is the Grail of the best stereos? Maybe one could then counter by saying that the sound is equally important as silence, and that's true, but in the best systems, isn't it the act of INFUSING the harmonic, as its ground, deeper and deeper, which makes it "better"?
twl, when you get a "better" TT and harmonics become "better" within the core projection of voice, isn't it 1) the continuity of the projection through space getting better, and 2) the harmonic progressively infused with a ground of air/space/dimension that has improved to the most appreciable degree, even within the projection itself, and therefore, becomes most "important"?
Just some ideas thrown out. :0) |
6ch: in mine here, being = soul and mind = think. I like the action stuff, though.
Dog's mind is even more thing orientated than we are; it doesn't "like" the postman-thing in its place-thing (territory). It is a child...
Who here hates the postman (message delivery man)?
Twitch, twitch goes the popper. |
Marco, the net is the circle. You know how to spell Krishnamurti; congrats, by that act, you are in the circle!
BTW, I'm sure there is someone out there that, even though they know how to spell "Krishnamurti", will say you are purposely using big words to, well, you never really say... (volitional obfuscation, is that want you want to say, but, for some reason, don't?). But, hold on a second, you understand the words here, but are saying the same thing as what some undoubtedly feel on your Krishnamurti-Ghibran name drop!
Hmmm, I wonder what that incongruency means?
People, when they know what a word means, do not recoil from it per se, but rather from its meaning. A common ploy is to attack the "big-ness" of a word when you are really not willing to engage on a conceptual level. This ploy assumes, in fact counts on, that there are other people out there, in the hinterlands, just waiting to crest the hill with pitchforks, that feel similarly but who have not said so. The rallying of people against "big" words - even though, incongruently, you understand them - is an inauthentic action to suppress the idea or meaning that the word or words denote (Stone the witch!).
Marco, I don't think anything has been "obfuscated" from you, either intentionally or not, but rather you are just having a little temper tantrum (don't blame the dog-feeling this week...) that you are not able to "win", and which I assume you are used to most of the time.
Close enough to the bone? |
My sincere apologies, Marco. I completely screwed up. All I can say is that I will try not to make that mistake again.
6ch, beat me with a broom! |
Thank you, Marco. You are being kinder to me than I deserve, particularly given above.
I will take my lashes from 6ch, well due.
I have to go now, my boss found me, and going away for weekend to the woods.
Talk later. Have a nice wkend.
Mark |
Thanks guys. Came back from wkend and got a big laugh form above! Call me thoroughly "grok'd"!!
Question: what is the sound of one green Chia dog clapping; when I look at a green Chia dog walking (Sean Penn to be cast in the new Miramax film), is the dog moving or my mind?
When you are listening to your stereo and deep into the Music and your thoughts are settled, quiet in the mind, receptive to "what is", and you open your eyes and there is a green dog standing in front of you. In the moment before you say "green" what is the dog? What are "you"?
Answer: 6ch's No-thing.
But as I say this, 6ch hits me with a stick! Why?
The Galena woods are green. |
