Dear Mosin, we always like to think of audio components as pieces of art or the strive for excellence. In fact they are mechanical (tonearms) , electrical or mechanic-electrical devices.
No art, - but either applied physics consequently executed (rarely so..) or fair to good attempts to do so.
The sad fact that so many audiophiles like to look at audio designers as "genius", "guru" or plain "audio wizard" tells a lot about the audio community, but nothing about audio ( if it tells anything, then that a majority of us has no clue about audio design).
It certainly isn't that great news nor does it sound very sexy, but this is plain engineering and fairly low level science.
Our beloved and almost mystical audio components are just that - audio components made to extract, equalize and amplify low frequency (everything we hear is low frequency from the technical viewpoint).
They either do their job fair, good, mediocre or excellent.
Very simple indeed. |
Mosin, the most important (and true genius ) thing about "thinking outside the box" (in audio) is the ability to sell it (the mere thinking and its results...) to those inside the box.......
Its not the devil who is in the details but - according to Mies van der Rohe: "God lives in the detail".
True art is the result of craftsmanship combined with inspiration and (most important and mostly lacking) taste. And there are always only two options in taste - good and none. |
Dave, I think Atmasphere was not referring to "wear" when he noted the superior rigidity of the Triplanar vis a vis the Schroeder or Talea.
This is about the ability of a given tonearm to transfer energy ( mechanically .... but it has huge sonic impacts ).
The feature of being able to "adjust" a magnetic bearing and thus the produced "tone" may indeed sound attractive and tempting to some. |
Jtinn, from what I have heard so far about this much talked about (before and afterwards ) "shoot-out" it displayed indeed once again that real-world fair comparison with only one variable parameter ( ... which should not be the volume...) is hardly of interest to any manufacturer.
An old and well-known scenario displayed its charm once again - the old "dominant male" (deer) was defending his territory against the new-coming young rival. |
Dan_ed, I agree with you. An improvement ( an improvement in the mere sense of the word ... sonically spoken..) is indeed (or should be...) apparent and clearly noticeable within a mere few minutes.
With tonearms anyway (even if there are souls out there believing that tonearms need hundreds of hours of break-in).
I for one do still believe (sounds better then "I know"...) that tonearm and cartridge ( if its an LOMC then add the matching SUT to the list ) do form ONE integrative mechanical spring/mass-system and none can be "judged" ( if at all ) - not in absolute terms nor in subjective - without the other.
However - the original idea to perform this comparison with the A90 was a GOOD idea, as this cartridge does offer a really good match (mechanical-wise) to either of the two tonearms in question.
For any future task like this - folks, RMAF 2011 is only a few weeks away...;-) .... - it shouldn't be too hard to arrange arrival in time for all contenders and a fixed set up with a TT giving space for two tonearms ( adjusted for the same geometry ?) accompanied by a preamp with two phono-inputs ( a switch...).
That would further eliminate the "equal-volume-question".
I am sure that Ortofon would be willing to provide two closely matched ( electrical-mechanical ) A90 for the next shoot-out.
But that shoot-out RMAF 2011 will be between the Talea MK2.2 vs Schroeder SQ Reference 3.1.
And I will certainly not wanna miss that show down..... |
Lewm, sure - there are always the usual ( suspects...;-) ...) by-effects ( audio buddies, individual matrix, taste, mood, financial situation, latest internet-hype etc. ) but we can still try to eliminate as many variables as possible to enable an almost fair comparison.
There are enough micro-details which can hardly all be tuned in, but - willingly or by lack of attention - ignoring aspects which can easily fixed is another matter.
I respect any effort where - like in the Dobbins demo you mentioned - one tries to give fair and as objective as possible periphery conditions to a comparison.
This is something every demo should strive for. |
I too would like to add, that between the Schroeder and the Talea it is not a choice between two but three contenders.
Atmasphere is right - if one really knows how to get the best out of the Triplanar (I in fact always liked the name "The Wheaton" - as we called him in the late 1980ies and early 1990ies - better), it is the sonic equal of most any pivot tonearm available today.
It is just very tricky and demands in deep knowledge as well as some skill to get the very best out of it .... |
We certainly will find enough phrases and epigraphs in the long heritage of literature to fortify todays audio design's fruits and let them enter the scene surrounded by golden shims of light.
Honestly, as mentioned by me and a few others before in other threads: designing a tonearm and searching for a cure for cancer has nothing - NOTHING - in common. And if a tonearm asks for 1000s of hours of R&D and enormous sums of money and labor, then its "father" is in the utterly wrong profession.
Mark Twain, as well as the tragic french pilot who has given us the "Little Prince", would at best raise one eyebrow in amusement about the fuzz we are making about our little toys.
I think many of us just take this nice, but utterly unimportant passion (and don't get me wrong: high-end audio has nothing to do with love for music !) far too important and thus want to see the enthusiastic audio amateurs, who eventually turn into audio designers (but only in High-End of course), right up there on Mount Olympus Artias next to the great scientists and artists of history.
This is neither high technology we are talking about nor the pinnacle of science or art. These are simple tools. Either they are made to meet their blue book design goals or not. That blue book was complete or not. The designer had recognized all issues or not. The finished product solves all those issues or not.
You - or me - like it or not.
As all simple things, it comes down to simple terms.
That these toys do ask and fetch the prizes they do, says nothing about their quality, but a lot about us - the all-praised and all-cherished customer. |
Thom, first of all - the "principle" of novacula occami (Occam's Razor.... or more precise: Occam's scalpel ) is NOT a principle of nature nor ever used in that way by the man to which it's origin is related, but a phrase from a 19th century mathematic ascribed to an early 14th century german religious scientist (who again borrowed it from Aristoteles...) and then during viktorian times adapted in the hey-day of economic theory.
Personally I think it is an erratic phrase in the way it is used and promoted in our poor educated modern times and I like the phrase "nature knows no compromise" a lot more - but that's purely personal and again against the mainstream.
But ..."The principle of Occam's razor is a valid design approach - whether you like it or not." ...... of course, but the undisputed fact that it is indeed a "valid design" approach today (at least in the last 3 decades and ever increasing the past 10 years..... (BTW - I have studied marketing and industry-design in the late 1980ies)) doesn't tell anything about its value or whether that's good (in the positive sense ) or not.
And sorry - no, I do not think that something simply has the value that people put on it.
I still have the naive thinking, that the real contend -i.e.: the inherent quality ( in the very sense of the word ) of a product/something ultimately qualifies its value.
Certainly I am somehow in opposition to "modern ( read: today's...) approach", but I can live quite comfortable with that fact.
For me the price of something never automatically went hand-in-hand with a quality sign.
We have in contrary the omnipresent problem, that today something ( especially in high-end audio...) is not taken seriously at all (regarding it's level of performance ) if it is not in a certain ( high...) "price-range". |
Dear Nandric, as much as I am taken with truly great sonic reproduction and the way it can open up certain aspects in complex music textures (Mahler Symphonies, Schoenberg - "Pelleas and Mellisande" for instance...) - I honestly meant that high-end audio is utterly obsolete for the enjoyment of music.
The most moving moments in music in my experience were via kitchen radio or car radio - it was a matter of the moment, the right music and a certain mood which created those unforgettable moments.
It was never because of the sound.
There are great moments in audio - no doubt and no argument.
I have them every day, but that has to do ( at least in my experience which of course is purely individual ) with sensual receipt of great acoustic sensations.
And you will find ( most likely have already ...) audio fanatics whose record collections in size and musical "content" clearly show, that love for music has nothing to do (for them...) with high-end audio.
To me High-end audio is about SOUND reproduction - not music.
Each has it's meaning to me - in the right frame of context and importance.
And I strive every bit as hard as everyone here on Audiogon for the best possible (individually spoken ...) sound in my set-up.
But Beethoven's Op.132 can bring tears to my eyes while riding by car in the night - via low quality broadcast.
Best,
D. |
Dear Nandric, ..."But my quess regarding Dertonarm system is that the Dollar value of it would allow him to spend the rest of his life in a concert hall." - that may be true, but you can apply that to many Audiogon'ers set-ups.
Meanwhile I am really tempted to post a virtual system ..... ;-) .....
As I said - I too like the sensation of great sound, but it has nothing to do with my love for music. I - for me myself - do draw a line of distinction here. Sound here - music there. They rarely do need each other. |
Nandric, - that was a real good one !!!
Best,
D. |
Thom_mackris, your last post certainly shows that your spare time can't be all that limited...;-) ...
Value is of course kind of a label and assigned by people. As thus it can never be universal nor objective in any way.
Value in the sense that most people understand it today is only individual.
However - a roman gladius, its blade made from the special alloy produced by a certain celtic tribe in the area of lake Chiemsee in southern Bavaria ( because the soil there was contaminated by millions of fragments from an exploded comet which exploded in the sky above their territory a few hundred years before ) had an inherent quality which by far exceeded (in all critical aspects of "performance" such as hardness, durability, weight etc.) all other swords of its time for 3 centuries and won the roman empire the pre-dominance in Europe.
That is an inherent product quality which has nothing to do with individual point of view, bias or price tag. There are similar examples today ( if few - and even fewer in high-end audio ).
We all have very different biases and what one may call a gifted or ingenious design means nothing or just being mediocre to the other.
Lets just assume that a person is every bit as deep into the design process of preamplifiers, poweramplifiers, turntables and loudspeakers as the persons/designers you think are the most gifted. But he has long progressed from a level which is still thought of as state of the art. But that person has no financial interest anymore and - that is important now! - does not tries to "market" a "product" and thus is no competitor on the market.
It certainly makes little to no sense to discuss here any aspects of philosophy - if I want to do this with an audiophile on Audiogon, I will send a PN to Nandric, as I know he is both willing and able to follow certain paths in philosophy and has enough knowledge, cultural education and background to do so.
So much for my arrogance and yes, you may indeed interpret my posts correctly, but that is a reflection of your own imagination and will tell you something - independent of the quality of my english which indeed in neither my first language nor my only one. But it serves me good enough to follow anything written here and I may have little problem to walk without your guidance - through english and through audio.
You are a dealer and need to support the products you sell and to defend your position - fine with me. |
Atmasphere, I still believe that true value in the sense of the word has nothing to do with declaration or point of view of people but with its inherent quality.
Yes - today "value" in the mind of most people is only applied by the thinking of the customer and it's acceptance ( or success ) in the market.
Which tells nothing about the true meaning of the term value, but a lot of our modern times.
Consequently the true value can only recognized by the objective expert ( impossible in audio...;-) ... ).
Finally this comes down to the old conflict of two apparently similar on first sight, but in truth totally different positions - the volontè génèrale versus the volontè de tous.
It is obvious that my own position is firmly with the first camp.
While today's market and it's participants have to deal with the omnipresent second.
We live in the world we created - no one to blame but ourselves.
Wouldn't you too like to design your OTL's without taking into accounts many "market calls" and "fashions of the day" ?
Only a rhetorical question .....;-) .... |
Atmasphere, whether roman dominance was a positive force in cultural development, the forming of nations and the concept of the modern state as we know it today is not the matter. I was only referring to the superior inherent ( read: superior material, superior craftsmanship, superior concept as a whole ) quality of the roman gladius made from that certain material and by that small tribe and their talented ironsmiths.
I just tried to explain what inherent quality and value might be - I see that I won't succeed, as we all are way too much already part of thinking in market terms and their automatisms. |
Mosin, these two concepts are in discussion since about 237 years now. They are distinctive different. You will find tons of essays and informations about it in literature. |
Kostas_1, good morning.
Oxygen to humans is not of an assigned "value" - it is (even in market terms...) an indispensable "need". As such, "value" can't be the right term in the context.
Whether we live in a democracy or just the pale shadow of one ( but our bias has long adjusted to reality ..) is yet another question...;-) .... |
Dear Nandric, indeed - that phantom "best tonearm" will haunt us all for the rest of our journey through high-end audio.
And yes, I think any given tonearm - no matter of concept or design - can't be universal, but has ( or should ...) be seen and judged only in direct conjunction with the cartridge mounted.
The dynamic-mechanic spring-mass system formed by these two partners is the key (assuming that all other parameters and the quality (inherent or not ...;-) ...) allows the two to show off what's possible.
But even then will will never universal join in praise.
Personal matters, opinions, taste and preferences will keep this game "open" forever. |
Dear Atmasphere, I still believe that true value in the sense of the word has nothing to do with declaration or point of view of people but with its inherent quality.
This seems inherently contradictory. There is no 'objective' viewpoint to be had; we are all humans and assign value and create stories about 'quality' in an arbitrary fashion. Rome did not prevail because of a sword; it prevailed, and that's all there is. Once you assign reasons, you are making up stories.
"Rome prevailed, and that's all there is. Once you assign reasons, you are making up stories." ? Oh yeah ? Sounds to me like the G.W. Bush way to simplify existence and the world as much as possible, so that ultimately nothing is left that can't be either bought, explained to a 3 year old child or bombed .... I took the example of an outstanding ( if historical ) technical device with superior performance - rooted in superior knowledge of its creator, unique materials used and recognized both in its time and by history. This sentence should be something every audio designer would like to see written about himself and his creations - right ? Now the point should be clear. It was to illustrate just that specific point - not to discuss Roman empire's history nor the reason for it's military and strategic success. Finally and just BTW: Rome did not prevail of a sword alone, but in military history the roman gladius I was talking about is long recognized as one of the very few truly outstanding ( read: graced with inherent value ...) weapons in history. In a line with the english longbow, or the japanese Katana. It "helped" to shape the world we are living in today. There is such thing as inherent quality - the fact that it is so rarely found today is sad, but no proof for it's absence in reality. I for one do look for inherent value in audio components. That these birds are so rare is not my fault. |
Dear Cdk84, allow me to - briefly- address a few points in your excellent post.
Furthermore I want to take the opportunity to clarify once and for all 2 misunderstandings.
First, I took - explicit and for good reason ! - the example of that specific gladius made from superior alloy, solely available to and from that celtic-bavarian tribe. I did so ONLY to illustrate the point ( apparently futile ...) of the concept of "inherent quality".
Only this specific version of the gladius and only to illustrate the point.
Roman history in particular and military history in general is my side passion since almost 40 years now. Of course, neither the gladius, nor the light pilum with its predetermined breaking point, nor the most versatile roman evolution of the static spartan/makedonian phalanx, nor the Marian reforms, nor the inability of Rome's rivals to form endurable alliances was the solemn reason for Rome's "imperial success". There were other much more important reasons which evolved out of roman inner society, pragmatic modern thinking with a secular sense to reality, certain traumata in their early history and a most astonishing ability of the roman upper class to adapt to changes and of their engineers to assimilate every single smart technical idea they found - wherever they went.
As long as roman society was able to adapt to the changes of time they prevailed - and they (certain circles in the roman patrician families) knew the importance of that ability to change very well.
BTW - the roman gladius is referred to in ancient times (and by the romans themselves ) as the "spanish sword", as it was found first among the celtic tribes in Iberia during the punic wars... and thus it had its military impact only in conjunction with the large rectangular scutum used by the roman legionary and the very special way of close combat and teamwork in battle.
We can discuss that in length and to my great amusement, but we are already boring our audiophile fellows.
Inherent quality.......
If - I know it is hard for everyone - we can leave aside the aspects (rather: terms..) "price", market, commercial product and "what you pay for it" for a brief moment, maybe then it becomes clear, that something like an inherent (product) quality of a tool (tonearm, longbow, shoe or gladius..) exists.
We all are so "encaged" in our everyday life and surrounded by marketing and price in everything (everyone of us in the 1st world is confronted with 5-6000 sales and marketing advertisements every day), that it becomes hard to leave that omnipresent sphere even for a moment.
20 years ago I graduated with a master degree in marketing. Cum laude. I know what I am talking about and have learned - and used - the mechanisms and tools of marketing well enough. Knowing the enemy inside out opens up the horizon and perspective.
If we can not accept inherent quality ( at least as a perspective..) just because it doesnt necessary shows so on the price tag, we are fooling ourselves. |
Dear Nandric, maybe it is more than problematic to draw any line between "value" (which has become a foremost economic term) and "quality" (which today is corrupted by reality too) in the bright light of the day.
Does "value" indeed need a receptor and his/her individual matrix of preferences, likes and dislikes?
If it does, then of course it is and will always be a subjective perspective and thus a futile concept.
But if "value" ( here in a tool or product) can ( and will ...) be recognized beyond preference and sympathy (both always personal and subjective), then it is inherent - i.e. an essence.
REgards,
D. |
Dear Nandric, are there "extraherent values" in objects ? I think there are. For instance the eagle of a roman legion, the "Oriflammé" of the french kings (the war-flag of St. Denis), the stars and stripes of the USA - any banner of a nation. These are objects which draw their "value" not because of their inherent (..;-) ...) quality or composition, but because of the impact they have ( to selected people in certain periods of time) and a kind of immaterial socializing power to a community. As such, an "extraherent" (interesting term by itself) quality or value is always depending on human perspective.
Which would be my answer to your question what kind of contribution the expression "inherent" adds to the term of "quality". It separates from the antipod "extra-..." and so defines the value and quality "emerging from its own self" (or material/design-related "essence" ) in opposite to the quality applied by people and/or their perspective.
I guess the sheep is in a lucky position - due to lack of perspective and it's (assumed...) self-contend, it won't muse about the worth or value of an elephant (as long as the elephant doesn't step on all it's grass ...).
Regards,
D. |
Asa, Nandric, Rudolf Steiner found for himself - and thus for us... - the fixed point in philosophy and supplied thus the fix point so desperately longed for by Immanuel Kant.
In his "Philosophie der Freiheit" (philosophy of freedom) he identified the process of thinking as the fix point per se.
An interesting approach which stroke me directly when I first encountered it decades back at the age of 17.
Certainly worth to muse about in the context of the last 15 posts in particular and in general anyway....;-) ...
To meditate about this "concept" might give to many answers to many questions.
BTW - Nandric, the 2 billion dollars you quote at cost for the particle accelerator in the soil underneath Cern are misleading for americans. It is 2000 billion dollars in fact ( a "billion" in american english is the same as 1 Milliarde in german/dutch - strange side way in mathematic ).
Is there such thing as "non-cognitive" knowledge........ intuition?
Personally I like to see pure and straight intuition as being exactly that - non-personalized and objective knowledge NOT blinded/fooled by an individual matrix.
Or maybe the commonsense "sphere" surrounding mother earth and named "aether". A kind of extra-spiritual universal master-brain of human experience past and present. In the sense that it compound ALL human souls/spirits and their gained knowledge which is non-focussed on life and individual existence. Postulated by Rudolf Steiner ( again...) and believed by anthroposophy to be available to every human soul.
Wished it was.
I want to note, that I am very positive surprised by the posts which up the past 2 days. Seems after all, that there is true life on earth and that there are actually many audiophiles who see way past the platter of a turntable ...;-) ......
Finally - that specific ars germanicum "gladius" was just an example for "inherent quality" - nothing more and nothing less.......... |
Dgarretson, the wide variation we see in pivot AND linear tonearm designs has - IMHO ... - one simple reason. There was so far never a tonearm designed with an all complete blue book.
I have so far not seen a tonearm which really addresses all issues going with the dynamic process of guiding a cartridge through the groove of a record. We have a good number of good designs which all do come close - some more, some less, - but none is complete.
The roman gladius evolved during centuries and changed - depending on changes in battle tactics, associated equipment, wealth, availability and new alloys.
As did all weapon in human history. That specific ars germanicum gladius was just an example for "inherent quality/value" in a superior tool ( in its time frame ).
BTW - have you ever fought or used any sword of times past? Try fight - or simulate to do so ... - with norman shield and sword of the 11th/12th century. Most of us won't be able to handle it at all - because of the sheer weight and poor balance - for a minute.
The gladius I was referring to, was the result of a complete - if never written - blue book. That "in-mind blue book" was the result of experience, clear view on the topic and most undisturbed by personal preference or image.
Tonearm design will evolve further. In very small steps. But I am still confident, that we will see a tonearm design one day in the not so far future which does address all issues. Yes, the debate continues about short vs long, pivot vs linear etc. - a complete blue book would end that discussion. Lucky us, we don't have that blue book ...;-) .... for the true audiophile it would be the worst case scenario.
It is much more fun to debate about almost-perfect-designs then to fall victim to a complete solution which would - shudder... - end all discussion.
But since we talk products, that will never happen.
Even a "perfect" tonearm would not be widely recognized as such.
Because many people would refuse to accept it.
Even a "perfect" tonearm would only have its share of the market and would have still a few competitors.
As the product's success is always a matter of market request/call.
The market NEVER asks for a perfect solution.
And - there was no "simple kill-shot of Gladius" ....... that wasn't its only nor prime purpose. |
Dear Dgarretson, apparently my words were a bit misleading. I meant that it is not just the structure of the groove, but the tracking process ( which is a synergy of several mechanic-dynamic processes taking place simultaneously ) which determines the demand profile of a tonearm.
I think that the diversity in tonarm designs is to equal parts a result of each designers individual ideas, preferences in aesthetics and materials as well as different "blue books".
I don't say that one doesn't have to make any trade-offs in a tonearm design, but that is not the problem. The problem - IMHO ...;-) .. - is, that some relevant issues of the above mentioned tracking process aren't realized nor addressed. Because there is no strictly following the topic and objective ( and thus of universal validity ) blue book for the tonearm.
And - I would neither name the tonearm Athena nor Bruenhild ( both smart daughters of pretty simple minded fathers... ) - but it isn't mine to name it anyway, as I sold the design. |
Dgarretson, Zarathustra was no "Uebermensch" ( as wasn't Nietzsche ...;-) ....) and in the fact of the german sense of the word he neither postulated him.
What you listed as the needed features of the "uebermensch tonearm" is exactly the common problem I was talking about - it is a far from complete listing ( and thus an incomplete "blue-book") . There a few very important issues not mentioned in that short list. They are missing in that list and they are missing as a complete package in the tonearm designs we have encountered the past 5+ decades. They aren't addressed as a whole because they aren't all recognized. |
Lewm, I am very sorry to correct you on this, yes of course in british English billion has traditionally meant a million million.
As it does in German and most anywhere in the known (limited...) universe.
However, - not in the US of A.
The american meaning of billion (i.e. "a thousand million" ... ) has long become standard in technical and financial use ( and often produces misunderstandings in international use...) in the USA and it is now more or less used it in all circumstances.
Another fine example how simplification of language can turn against its purpose.
To put it in simpler words and to avoid any further misunderstanding: the particle accelerator (or "atomic smasher"...;-) ... ) built in central europe near Cern consumed in its genesis the total sum of approx. 2 million millions dollars. Which is about double the current ( if I remember right) fiscal deficit of the United States. A lot of money spent just for the hope to get an idea what really happened during an infinite short moment approx. 10 thousand million years ago ..... |
Dear Asa, dear Nandric, regarding the brain vs thinking per se "conflict", I would again like to briefly point to R. Steiner and his idea/concept of seeing the process of thinking as a fixed point in both human existence and philosophy.
Might there be a solution ? |
Atmasphere, when René Descartes postulated the often quoted and often misinterpreted "cogito ergo sum" he assumed only the very content of the sentence - "I am actually thinking, consequently I exist". It was no statement to explain behavior - rather connecting the process of thinking with physic and psychic existence of the person stating. As such it calls at least for a certain degree of "realizing" to be able to reflect on ones own process of thinking and to be able to draw any consequence from this discovery. But indeed - the thinking or the thought per se is not simultaneously "being". But "being" is most likely a (if not "the"...) conditio sine qua non for "thinking" ( assuming that even the most complex "learning" computer is actually only counting 1 and 0 and is not thinking in the way we define it ). I think ( a risky word in this context...;-) ...) that Descartes phenomenal statement - which marked the awakening of the spirit of humanism - is not philosophy. It is much more. It is the self-recognition of the human spirit. Beyond knowledge. Beyond religion. There are a lot of us out there today who have gained a lot of "knowledge", but many of them are not actually aware of their own existence and the inherent consequences. I am a bit familiar with Jiddu Krishnamurti's thoughts ( at least the one printed...) and I can not agree that Knowing that your consciousness exists in a state of true Being when thought is silenced is actual knowledge. Knowledge in the sense of enlightenment or "satori" (as in Buddhism ) is an ( if fascinating, kind of conciliatory and tempting in a religious sense ) egomaniacal human error. |
Dear Nandric, Heidegger's Das Nichts nichtet.. is even in German a kind of strange phrase (like Wagner's "Liebestod" ...). "nichtet" as such is not a real word in German ( can't believe it is actually part of the Duden ), but it is absolutely clear what it means. It should be translated ( to get to the core of the sentence and its content) as: "The Nothing nullifies". Hope this helps. BTW - the best discussion so far in my 18+ months on Audiogon ! Best regards, D. |
Dear Nandric, when you said In the çontext of áudio system you are able to relate tonearm,
cart,TT, amps.and speakers. This is obviously RELATIONAL
issue. Correlation of those, say, different parts is the
same. you were right. I do so because these are all parts of a system. Only together they do form a system. As important as one or the other part of the system may be ( and there are of course certain parts which do contribute more to the "sound" of the audio set-up then others ) - only the whole system does reproduce a recording into music (hopefully ...) again. So here we do indeed have individual tools, which do relate to each other in a certain context and can not fulfill their purpose without the others. And yes, so far I too have not found any object which does indeed satisfy both conditions - Fx and Gx. Regards, D. |
Atmasphere, your position in these two matters is perfectly fine with me. But I do not have to agree - my position is different and - at least as far as I am concerned for good reason.
Back in the last days in german high school I encountered thoughts similar to the ones you posted above among some of my fellow schoolmates.
In the interim more than 3 decades have passed and my perspective as well as my awareness of things have changed and much to the better.
The great minds of the past were far less selfish then we are today. Most of the great human minds lived in times when authority and religion had an all-present impact on everyones life which none of us today can estimate (well - maybe some of the Taliban get an idea about it ....).
They created the thoughts we are musing about now from a distant and kind of irrational perspective.
I must admit that I feel much more comfortable with the "thoughts" of Canam, Nandric, Asa, Dgarretson to name a few here.
My driving force was and always will be the spirit of humanism ( NOT in the philanthropic sense ... ;-) ... ) which freed the human soul, lead to secularism and ultimately enabled man to live. |
Atmasphere, just briefly (...;-) ...) - your remark Not withstanding the pun, you have it exactly backwards. Thought is the product of the mind. But you are not your mind. Your mind is simply a tool, albeit one that tries to convince that you that it is you. When you experience this, perhaps it will be easier to understand. does miss the one specific point in the short latin phrase.... The fact that the ego realize that he/she is actually able to reflect/think leads to the realization of his/her own existence. We have no chicken vs egg situation here were it is to dispute which produces what. Thinking is a process of our self while we are "living" in this sphere. Its not about which is the product of what. One just leads to the self-acknowledgement of the other. IOW, it is possible to silence the mind with a simple technique, and simply Be.
So when you get that thought can be silenced and that consciousness remains, it is *then* that you experience the human spirit- yourself. This is not possible as long as the mind is not stilled. Well, we have seen a good many politicians - each side of the Atlantic - the past years who proved themselves "true experts" in the described process to silence any thought ( in themselves...). However - if it lead to any positive results for them or us, then I missed it...... I sometimes stood frozen in absolute amazement, but that wasn't really going hand-in-hand with any positive feeling. And - I am simply pointing out that if you can still the mind, the creative powers awaken and are 10 times more powerful. If you are to make a better arm, it seems like this might be useful. well, if I were to exercise Sumi-e painting, I would agree. But designing a tonearm for me is an act of engineering. It is a technical tool - and as such it needs the full attention and control in the process of a fully awaken mind. But maybe that "creative power" is the reason why we have such a wide variation in tonearm designs. Maybe a bit more focus and a bit less "creative" would be helpful - is it possible ? Finally - to anticipate a phrase which will be directed towards me before long in a discussion about tonearm design - , I know that "many roads lead to Rome". But only one road leads direct to the center and to the Forum Romanum.... |
Dgarretson, Atmasphere started with a brief exploration of how the groove is actually made. Why now following this path all the way - it would directly lead to an extensive and maybe complete blue book.
To design the tonearm which really addresses all issues it is helpful to identify all issues first before musing about what bearing principle, armwand, effective length etc is necessary. The demands of the tracking process do lead to the solution. Once all demands are identified the design will determine itself.
This might not be the "creative approach" of an audiophile designer, but it is the approach of an engineer.
BTW - I have made that "tonearm blue book" for myself and have already sold the complete design. So we will see in physical form my idea of a pivot tonearm ( which addresses all issues of the process known to me ) by autumn next year. Hey - maybe that's just in time for RMAF 2011 ....... |
Dear Nandric, man's status as "featherless biped" is not accidental. It is a result of biological reaction to environmental conditions in the time line. The pressure to survive by change. As thus it is a - preliminary ... but status quo - result of evolution.
It freed two of our legs from carrying our body to become finally hands which enabled us to shape the world and move to the top of the food chain.
The apparently missing "feathers" are no loss ( yes, we can't fly just by the abilities of our body, but maybe the birds aren't all that happy about their ability either - who knows ...) - flying is pretty boring and the hands can do so much more.
Aristoteles' inherent quality ( there I go again...) or essence of objects still rules my view of the world.
As concerning the sheep .... well it is the matter of the sheep. In other words - it is the sheep's responsibility and solely right to judge, quantify or qualify itself. Quid pro quo - as we claim that right for us, it is only fair to assign it to the sheep too. |
Asa, given the price you are going to pay for the Phantom 2, you simply can't loose. So I just would give it a try and take your chance for a direct first hand experience and comparison of the 2.0 and Phantom 2 on your table, with your cartridge and your set-up.
If it doesn't work out for you in your set-up, - just resell the Phantom 2 and put a few hundred $ in your pocket next to the gained experience and knowledge.
Whatever other people tell you about their experience is always a result of their preferences, their set-up, their individual reception, their taste in music AND sound. These are not transferable in any way and unless you do not know the other person really well and are familiar with their taste and set-up, their recommendations are for you just empty balloons.
Regards,
D. |
Dear Asa, my post regarding your Graham issue should went through moderator approval too, but let me briefly address "Euro-centric" assumptions.
I still believe that the US of A and western Europe do share the same heir. We are both walking comfortable on the bones and thoughts which started off in hellenistic Greece and carried on through the ages into humanism and enlightenment. There is not so much difference. The difference is in the way it is judged and handled today - which reflects the respective society.
BTW - to my knowledge the Particle Accelerator is serviced right now and will be back in action this winter. |
An universal tonearm is indeed possible. Technics R&B devision and Micro Seiki with the MAX-237/282 have shown the path. The question remains, whether there is not a too serious trade-off in other vital areas. I.e. whether the "price" you pay for "universality" isn't too high. I am sure, that Raul and his comrade Guillermo will come up with a very nice tonearm. However, if we look at today's top-tier cartridges, do we really need an "universal" tonearm? Most top cartridges today do feature a body mass which is NOT ideally suited to the now common comparatively high compliance in LOMCs ( and the few LOMIs, LOMMs are less than 5% of the market for top-cartridges) . Raul, - this is for you now: IMHO ...(...;-) ...) I think that the "key" to real improvement (i.e.: ABOVE the top level we are used to...) in tonearm/cartridge-performance (I do see these two NOT as independent components, but as 2 parts of ONE system) is the perfect mechanic-dynamic synergy of these two. The real problem today is, that cartridge and tonearm - as well as LOMCs and SUTs ... - are viewed by most as being individual components. They are not.
Some of us do remember times, when there were cartridges and tonearms available, which were made to match each other ( see some of Raul's MMs and the respective tonearms by Technics and others ).
I really do look forward to Raul's and Guillermo's tonearm. If they succeed in their task to an universal tonearm it will get my respect. |
