2. analog
  3. 1287172116

Schroder sq and the new talea

I heard there was to be a fun time of learning and comparing of these two arms at the rmaf. Since the talea is relatively new, it still has to stand the test of time with comparisons on other tables, other systems and the selective and subjective tastes of discerning audiophiles! There is to be a comparison in one of the rooms at the rmaf this year, which i wasnt able to make. I would be curious to hear some judicial, diplomatic, friendly talk about how they compared to each other in the same system and room. I currently own the origin live silver mk3 with a jan allaerts mc1bmk2 and am enjoying this combo but have become curious about the more popular "superarms" Hats off to both frank and joel.

I hope this thread draws more light rather than heat. If someone preferred one arm over the other it would be OK. With all the variables it doesnt mean that much to me. What matters to me is what it sounds like to me and in my room. With that said...

What was your bias? was it for the schroder or the talea?

cheers!...
vertigo

Showing 2 responses by canam

canam
21 posts
 
Why has this thread reduced to gibberish -i.e modern philosphy? "Consciousness has nothing to do with thought; as soon as you achieve a state of consciousness without thought, it can be said that you are super-conscious" ???

Consciousness is a state of awareness - it presupposes something to be a aware of i.e. external reality. Thought is identification and integration of observable facts of reality - that's it!!! To say "when thought is silenced is actual knowledge" is simply nonsense.
canam
21 posts
 
Atmasphere: This is from Wikipedia's description of "The Power of Now" - "he prefers Being as "an open concept," something "it is impossible to form a mental image of" and which "does not reduce the infinite invisible to a finite entity."
It also states "the book avoids intellectual discussion and argument. He tries not merely to present the reader's mind with information, which the mind might find interesting, or might not, which it might agree with, or disagree with".

And it says the author hopes it will "play its part in … the transformation of human consciousness,"

Just from reading this description I can see that this book is a product of modern philosophy - it commits all the same errors. For one, the notion of something beyond reality (as perceived and understood by man's consciousness) with no evidence or argument supporting this notion, which implies that man's mind (reason) is impotent and we should blindly accept this "Being". And what does he mean when he states he wants to "transform consciousness"? Humans are entities of a specific nature - as with all entities the law of identity applies (Aristotle)to us - including our consciousness which operates by specific means (concepts) to understand reality. How is he going to "transform" that?

I consider philosophy to be the most important of subjects - it is the forest whereas the special sciences are the trees. But modern philosophy is in a terrible state. As an antidote, I suggest you read Ayn Rand.
More to discover