Asa, while I agree with some of what you say in your response, I need to clarify some things.
First, your first correction (1. in the above) of me.
Asa (04-30-02): "Where do you get off insinuating that I "personally" got someone to buy cable and now have some kind of vested "personal" interest that they keep them? You'd better read this stuff again because you are thinking too much."
Ok, I will read what you wrote on this forum on 04-25-02, more or less to Bwhite as addressee, after his latest assessment of OTA, and the return to NBS/AN Kondo.
Here are your own words:
"Bwhite: ahh, you've ended up where we started. I have been watching to see if you liked the OTA better than the hideously expensive NBS/KSL I pushed you towards - and had been feeling bad that you could have been just as happy with the OTA (which I haven't heard). Glad you still like the KSL/NBS combo."
It is the use of this phrase "pushed you towards" which I would like to remind you of. Since you are a writer, I will ask you a simple hermeneutic question: What do you mean by the verb "push" in the phrase "pushed you towards?
1. to exert pressure or force
2. to thrust, shove or drive
3. to follow up vigorously, promote (a campaign, a claim)
4. to bring into a critical state; esp. to make critically needful
5. to urge or promote the use, sale, success, etc.
All meanings are listed by Websters. How should I understand what you wrote?
And, as a second question, what is wrong with the word "influence" by comparison to "push"? It is actually the weakest power to produce effects on others in the scale that goes from Influence, Authority, Prestige, and Weight.
To go back to Websters.
"Influence" implies the power of persons or things (whether or not exerted consciously or overtly) to affect others.
"Authority" implies the power to command acceptance, belief, obedience, etc., based on strength of character, expertness of knowledge, etc.
"Prestige" implies the power to command esteem or admiration, based on brilliance of achievement or outstanding superiority
"Weight" implies influence that is more or less preponderant in its effect.
Influence, authority, prestige, weight are clearly attractive features. Judging by a few signs, some members of audiogon attribute these features to you. Personally, I attribute influence, authority, and prestige to you, based on numerous posts. It is up to Bwhite to say if he gives you influence, authority, prestige, or weight in his selection of cables. I would guess from previous e-mail correspondence with him that he gives you authority, even prestige based on your ability to put together systems with well-selected components. But I assumed "influence" based on the fact that you both use similar cable systems, and even have the same preamp (Syrah) on one of your systems, although that may have changed.
Here is what you wrote on 04-25-02:
"If you remember, I've also have the Audionote IC from CD to pre, and NBS Pro from pre to amp in this second system and found combo complementary."
I do not think it is a coincidence that Bwhite has a similar set-up. The fact that he does, does not necessarily imply your influence. And if you did influence Bwhite, I never meant to imply a "nefarious" motivation. You are absolutely wrong if you think that I was implying you had a wicked, villainous, iniquitous intent in "pushing" Bwhite "towards" NBS / AN. These are superior cables, and the fact that they work well together is a valuable discovery. The fact that Bwhite has started to describe the differences between OTA and AN Kondo is also valuable. I believe someone asked you to do the same, asa, a long time ago, annd I do not recall your differentiation of the two. And this is for a very good reason: you have not heard OTA, as you yourself say. This is completely honest. If we go backk to Redkiwi's request at the very beginning of this forum, he said: "If you have not heard this cable, please don't bother posting your opinions of how it MUST sound here." I am not sure if you have actually done what Redkiwi asked those who have not heard OTA not to do. But in some of your reflections on the cognitive structure of the listener, and the differentiation of different types of listening, as well as the appeal that certain cables (not OTA is mentioned, but I think it is implied) has to "that part of our minds that listens more analytically" I think, yes, you, asa, are starting to post opinions of "how OTA MUST sound."
Second, here is the second thing (2.) that you correct me on.
"Inauthentic chimers-in who start off a post with a bunch of statements about how nice everyone is - establishing how nice they are - and then proceed to deride (Sead insinuating that Bwhite is trying to posture himself as an audio "God") and mischaracterize (saying that I "disqualified automatically" OTA - a complete lie) to others detriment and then end it all with a "cheers" (Sead's MO) And now a further mischaracterization from you, Slawney, that Sead did not commit these, um, "errors", and that he's just so-so misunderstood."
I never claimed that Sead did not provoke you or Bwhite. What I dislike is the fact that there is not a real explication/argument (in German, we would say, "Auseinandersetzung") between you and sead. All of us here could learn alot from a genuine dialogue between you and sead.
As far as your third correction, I am not trying to defend sead. Clearly, his tactics are provocative. So are yours. You sign the previous post with his moniker, "er, cheers" with your "er" reminding us that your complimentary close is meant entirely cynically. It is actually a citation of sead's cynical complimentary close of 04-29-02.
As far as "conclusions," I meant this word in the sense that each experiment has a "conclusion." In case you have not noticed, I have been modelling alot of my posts on this forum following the format of the scientific report. To perform an experiment with OTA, and not state a conclusion to me is, well, inconclusive, and not very productive. Bwhite, I feel, has concluded FOR NBS/AN AGAINST OTA. That is his right. If he explains the reason why he concludes in this way, then I will learn from him. He has, in fact, raised a few questions in my mind about a possible "subtractive aspect" of OTA, which I will be listening for when I revert back to the NBSs.
In your fourth correction, you write:
"dialogue works fine when everyone offers theirs' authentically, as an adult, and is willing to state why and how they arrived at that opinion."
I completely agree with this statement. However, I do not agree with what you insinuate in your next sentence:
"I'm soooo tired of hearing on these threads people who evidentally have a strong sense of opinion on the gear they like - which, Slawney, I know you do - to then at some juncture say that all opinions are equal, as if, by offering this observation, they are settling down a class of schoolchildren (and they the lone adult seeing from on high the foibles of others)."
I am opposed to a radical subjectivism or relativism of the "all opinions are equal" type. What I actually mean was better formulated on 04-27-02:
"As soon as one enters the field of personalized judgement on this score, argument becomes insane, demented, weird, extravagant, and pointless given the different requirements of all of our systems."
Let me put it this way. To the extent that the participants cannot visit one another (some of us are very far away from each other geographically) to listen to each of our different systems, we really do not share the same objective conditions on which a reliable discussion of the performance of OTA can be based. For instance, I cannot really evaluate why albert said that OTA "lacked weight" in comparison to his standard ICs (which I think are PAD) since I did not hear his system with OTA and with PAD. Nevertheless, I can (based on his "weight," and it would be wrong not to recognize that albert does have alot of "weight" here) assume that there is the possibility that OTA can "lack weight" in certain systems with a SONY 9000 player.
Last but not least, your request for me to not defend sead:
"Slawney, in the future, let Sead defend his own "errors"; you get caught up in them when you try."
implies 1.) that I tried to defend him (maybe you are right here), and that 2.) I should not in the future do this (I will try not to) and that 3.) anyone who defends him gets caught up in his "errors" by implication.
It is 3.) that I reject. Let me make this perfectly clear asa:
I have not said the same things to you as sead has, and I have and take no responsibility for what he said to you.
I am glad that you invite me to e-mail you personally, which I will do so even if I do NOT suspect that you influenced someone.
First, your first correction (1. in the above) of me.
Asa (04-30-02): "Where do you get off insinuating that I "personally" got someone to buy cable and now have some kind of vested "personal" interest that they keep them? You'd better read this stuff again because you are thinking too much."
Ok, I will read what you wrote on this forum on 04-25-02, more or less to Bwhite as addressee, after his latest assessment of OTA, and the return to NBS/AN Kondo.
Here are your own words:
"Bwhite: ahh, you've ended up where we started. I have been watching to see if you liked the OTA better than the hideously expensive NBS/KSL I pushed you towards - and had been feeling bad that you could have been just as happy with the OTA (which I haven't heard). Glad you still like the KSL/NBS combo."
It is the use of this phrase "pushed you towards" which I would like to remind you of. Since you are a writer, I will ask you a simple hermeneutic question: What do you mean by the verb "push" in the phrase "pushed you towards?
1. to exert pressure or force
2. to thrust, shove or drive
3. to follow up vigorously, promote (a campaign, a claim)
4. to bring into a critical state; esp. to make critically needful
5. to urge or promote the use, sale, success, etc.
All meanings are listed by Websters. How should I understand what you wrote?
And, as a second question, what is wrong with the word "influence" by comparison to "push"? It is actually the weakest power to produce effects on others in the scale that goes from Influence, Authority, Prestige, and Weight.
To go back to Websters.
"Influence" implies the power of persons or things (whether or not exerted consciously or overtly) to affect others.
"Authority" implies the power to command acceptance, belief, obedience, etc., based on strength of character, expertness of knowledge, etc.
"Prestige" implies the power to command esteem or admiration, based on brilliance of achievement or outstanding superiority
"Weight" implies influence that is more or less preponderant in its effect.
Influence, authority, prestige, weight are clearly attractive features. Judging by a few signs, some members of audiogon attribute these features to you. Personally, I attribute influence, authority, and prestige to you, based on numerous posts. It is up to Bwhite to say if he gives you influence, authority, prestige, or weight in his selection of cables. I would guess from previous e-mail correspondence with him that he gives you authority, even prestige based on your ability to put together systems with well-selected components. But I assumed "influence" based on the fact that you both use similar cable systems, and even have the same preamp (Syrah) on one of your systems, although that may have changed.
Here is what you wrote on 04-25-02:
"If you remember, I've also have the Audionote IC from CD to pre, and NBS Pro from pre to amp in this second system and found combo complementary."
I do not think it is a coincidence that Bwhite has a similar set-up. The fact that he does, does not necessarily imply your influence. And if you did influence Bwhite, I never meant to imply a "nefarious" motivation. You are absolutely wrong if you think that I was implying you had a wicked, villainous, iniquitous intent in "pushing" Bwhite "towards" NBS / AN. These are superior cables, and the fact that they work well together is a valuable discovery. The fact that Bwhite has started to describe the differences between OTA and AN Kondo is also valuable. I believe someone asked you to do the same, asa, a long time ago, annd I do not recall your differentiation of the two. And this is for a very good reason: you have not heard OTA, as you yourself say. This is completely honest. If we go backk to Redkiwi's request at the very beginning of this forum, he said: "If you have not heard this cable, please don't bother posting your opinions of how it MUST sound here." I am not sure if you have actually done what Redkiwi asked those who have not heard OTA not to do. But in some of your reflections on the cognitive structure of the listener, and the differentiation of different types of listening, as well as the appeal that certain cables (not OTA is mentioned, but I think it is implied) has to "that part of our minds that listens more analytically" I think, yes, you, asa, are starting to post opinions of "how OTA MUST sound."
Second, here is the second thing (2.) that you correct me on.
"Inauthentic chimers-in who start off a post with a bunch of statements about how nice everyone is - establishing how nice they are - and then proceed to deride (Sead insinuating that Bwhite is trying to posture himself as an audio "God") and mischaracterize (saying that I "disqualified automatically" OTA - a complete lie) to others detriment and then end it all with a "cheers" (Sead's MO) And now a further mischaracterization from you, Slawney, that Sead did not commit these, um, "errors", and that he's just so-so misunderstood."
I never claimed that Sead did not provoke you or Bwhite. What I dislike is the fact that there is not a real explication/argument (in German, we would say, "Auseinandersetzung") between you and sead. All of us here could learn alot from a genuine dialogue between you and sead.
As far as your third correction, I am not trying to defend sead. Clearly, his tactics are provocative. So are yours. You sign the previous post with his moniker, "er, cheers" with your "er" reminding us that your complimentary close is meant entirely cynically. It is actually a citation of sead's cynical complimentary close of 04-29-02.
As far as "conclusions," I meant this word in the sense that each experiment has a "conclusion." In case you have not noticed, I have been modelling alot of my posts on this forum following the format of the scientific report. To perform an experiment with OTA, and not state a conclusion to me is, well, inconclusive, and not very productive. Bwhite, I feel, has concluded FOR NBS/AN AGAINST OTA. That is his right. If he explains the reason why he concludes in this way, then I will learn from him. He has, in fact, raised a few questions in my mind about a possible "subtractive aspect" of OTA, which I will be listening for when I revert back to the NBSs.
In your fourth correction, you write:
"dialogue works fine when everyone offers theirs' authentically, as an adult, and is willing to state why and how they arrived at that opinion."
I completely agree with this statement. However, I do not agree with what you insinuate in your next sentence:
"I'm soooo tired of hearing on these threads people who evidentally have a strong sense of opinion on the gear they like - which, Slawney, I know you do - to then at some juncture say that all opinions are equal, as if, by offering this observation, they are settling down a class of schoolchildren (and they the lone adult seeing from on high the foibles of others)."
I am opposed to a radical subjectivism or relativism of the "all opinions are equal" type. What I actually mean was better formulated on 04-27-02:
"As soon as one enters the field of personalized judgement on this score, argument becomes insane, demented, weird, extravagant, and pointless given the different requirements of all of our systems."
Let me put it this way. To the extent that the participants cannot visit one another (some of us are very far away from each other geographically) to listen to each of our different systems, we really do not share the same objective conditions on which a reliable discussion of the performance of OTA can be based. For instance, I cannot really evaluate why albert said that OTA "lacked weight" in comparison to his standard ICs (which I think are PAD) since I did not hear his system with OTA and with PAD. Nevertheless, I can (based on his "weight," and it would be wrong not to recognize that albert does have alot of "weight" here) assume that there is the possibility that OTA can "lack weight" in certain systems with a SONY 9000 player.
Last but not least, your request for me to not defend sead:
"Slawney, in the future, let Sead defend his own "errors"; you get caught up in them when you try."
implies 1.) that I tried to defend him (maybe you are right here), and that 2.) I should not in the future do this (I will try not to) and that 3.) anyone who defends him gets caught up in his "errors" by implication.
It is 3.) that I reject. Let me make this perfectly clear asa:
I have not said the same things to you as sead has, and I have and take no responsibility for what he said to you.
I am glad that you invite me to e-mail you personally, which I will do so even if I do NOT suspect that you influenced someone.