Halcro, Raul: I am fully agreed that synergy is very important to get the optimum result. I wish I have the ZYX with the DaVinci.
I have spent many hours with the DaVinci using with different kind of cart, more than the Talea. I think I have grown to know its basic characteristic and it is so easy for me to decide which tonearm that I want to live with or without. |
The Talea uses a counterweight system similar to the Triplanar- three weights (the last of which is threaded and very small for exacting adjustment).
I point this out because it is possible to have either arm set up in a way that does not favor the cartridge installed. This weight system allows you to adjust the effective mass of the system which is not possible with a single counterbalance weight.
So if the tracking weight is right, but the effective mass is not, the cartridge will not show its best! This is how you can get really divergent results using the same arm and cartridge. My own experience suggests that if the effective mass is also optimized, one will hear far less differences with the cartridges. |
Dertonarm,
I understand your arm design will be on the market in about a year. Do you care to tell us here on Audiogon anything about it?
Raul,
What is happening with your tone arm design? Is it as you say a "universal" type design? When will it be on the market?
I demoed the Talea at a friend's house with the A90 on a Teres table. I much preferred it to his Kuzma airline arm during a four hour listening session. It seemed to recover more information from the record grooves or tracked the LP better, or damped the resonances better, I'm not really sure. I am certain, however, that I enjoyed the music much more and it sounded more real to me. It was also easily adjustable and seemed to be well made.
I gather from this forum that each of you is familiar with the Schroder arm, but has either of you ever heard the Talea? If you have, what are your impressions? |
Well...I would never state that the Talea is unequivocally better for every turntable and cartridge combination. I can only comment on those systems I've actually HEARD.
More to the point, the only combination that matters to ME are the cartridges I use (or am likely to use in the foreseeable future) in my system.
As to the comparison between the Triplanar and Talea, in MY experience, on systems I've actually HEARD... Well let me preface by saying that the Triplanar is a terrific tonearm and I remain a very happy Triplanar owner. That said, the Talea plays in a different league and that for ME the Talea is well worth the price differential.
I can not make a judgment for anyone else, but unreservedly recommend auditioning both (among others) if you are assembling a high quality analog system. |
Dear Sebastian: +++++ " using the same Dynavector XV1S. Talea is better in everyway period. " +++++
IMHO that does not means that the Talea is better but only that the XV-1s is a better match with that tonearm than with the DaVinci one.
Halcro and Lewm point out too of this important match tonearm/cartridge subject.
A diferent cartridge could perform better in the Grandezza than in the Talea and not for this fact we can say for sure that the Grandezza is " better in everyway " than the Talea.
Tonearm and cartridge are not two audio items but one audio item with a extremely intimate relationship to brings togeter a quality performance level.
This example tell us a lot why is so dificult to find out/design a universal tonearm where any cartridge can shows at its best and not in other tonearm.
The tonearm/cartridge relationship and how the resonances in between take " action " to tame the overall quality performance of any tonearm/cartridge combination is very complex, hard to understand due that there is no scientific tests on the subject and hard to predict in our today status.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Jazdoc, Your first sentence almost made me laugh. I thought you were going to comment on the respective tonearms. Instead you commented on the cartridges. (Surprise is the core of humor.) I think Halcro was talking about tonearm/cartridge matching, not about the relative merits of the two cartridges, but that is for him to say. Did you also come away with a "feeling" about Triplanar vs Talea? |
Sebastian's and Halcro's comments are interesting.
I've heard the older generation XV1-s and the ZYX on the Talea and Triplanar VIIu and it was no comparison: the XV1-s was much better.
I have also compared the older generation XV1-s and the A90 and although a much closer call, I prefer the A90.
Unfortunately, haven't had the chance to compare the current XV1-s and the A90...suspect that one might come down to personal taste. |
So here's an interesting question, raised by Halcro's comment: The XV1-s and the ZYX Universe are very similar, in that they are both low compliance, low-ish output MCs. What property would cause one of them to sound very much better in the Grandezza compared to the other? Without ever having owned either, I am guessing that the Dynavector body may weigh much more than that of the ZYX; is that the case? |
All right all, on three....
"HI BOB!!!" |
Sebastian, DaVinci 12" Grandezza is not a great match for the XV1s. The ZYX Universe is a far better proposition in that arm.
A one cartridge comparison may not be decisive?
And Bill yes..........this is a nightmare. |
I can only tell between Talea first version and DaVinci Grandezza Reference 12", with the TW Raven AC using the same Dynavector XV1S. Talea is better in everyway period. |
This has got to be THE most impenetrable and peripatetic (no deliberate acknowledgment/value-quality assigned to Senor "A" via this referent) thread I've encountered on A'goN...Haha :-)
|
It's not often that I laugh out loud at something in an audio forum, but Audiofeil's comment made me do just that.
Until his suggestion that this thread might just be a bad dream, I had my own philosophical quandary. What's worse: having so much time on my hands that I write long psuedo-philosophical diatribes about tonearms or taking the time to read them. I don't know the answer. |
Dear friends: Very interesting thread with so many " angles " touched and till now IMHO no precise unanimous conclusions.
Even that and thinking on the universal tonearm I think Dertonarm put the " finger where it hurts " when posted:
+++++ " The market NEVER asks for a perfect solution. " ++++
as a fact IMHO almost no one cares about and does not cares because poor knowledge on the subject, no money to buy a " perfect " high price audio items or simply because he is not looking for any more but what already had/has.
The level of satisfaction in audio in many people is really poor, many people even with high price audio systems that performs " so so " are satisfied with because its music/sound knowledge is low and they can't ask for more.
I posted several times that we read magazines audio reviews that raven very high very poor designed audio items and the worst is that not only reviewers but the more important part in the audio market: customers that raven too very poor designed audio items with poor quality performance but where customers are " satisfied ".
If the audio customers applaud an audio item that shows mediocrity: which is the message to that audio item designer/builder for future designs? when he already knows that the customers are satisfied with his poor design and are ready to pay/paid high $$$$ for those products.
As a high end customers almost all of us IMHO are a " shame of customers ", we have what we ask for that we " win " to deserve it.
How can we wait that almost all audio items designers ( there are exceptions. that already did and do it ) can give us better near " perfect " audio items designs if we are not asking for or we are not prepare for because our low knowledge and poor satisfaction level?
I'm sure that if we customers improve on the whole subject and reject poor audio items designs then the audio high end not only improve but could grow up faster in benefit of all of us.
I know that some audio items designers could give us a lot better designs: tonearms, cartridges, electronics, TT, etc, etc., but why to take the effort to achieve that? whom really cares? whom is/are asking for?: ALMOST NO ONE!!!!
That's why the audio high end IMHO is in many ways motionless/standing with no real hope to " keep walking " again. There are exceptions and these " rare " exceptions only confirm the " rule ".
It is a shame but at the same time very sad that like in this thread instead to talk on the " evolution/revolution " characteristics of an audio item we are talking on a similar items of what already found in the audio market ( for years ) and talk on philosophy subjects instead that " revolutionary " audio item like could be a " universal tonearm " for example.
In this thread we are thinking only that in the 2011 RMAF could be ashootout between the MK2 or MK 3 versions of the today tonearms instead to think to find out in that time not only new tonearms but " universal " tonearms: this IMHO is what we customers could be thinking about. Come on!, wake up!!!!
Anyway, good fun thread.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Hey Ralph, did you see that nice example of your MP-1 that listed yesterday at $7500? Gone now, but I have to tell you if I wasn't hopelessly in love with my own pre I would have jumped at that. Matched witn that LAMM 1.1 hybrid monos that just listed and for @$15K combined you'd have one nice rig (I know, but OTLS have too many fire-bottles for me...this is no comment on tube reliability, just my trauma peering out from a Jadis Defy experience years ago). |
Derto: on the arm, you are right of course. But, my capitalist self just spent $500 on repair and $500 on NOS tubes and I'm fiscally groping like a fish out of water...so, of course, my addiction is looking for a nudge. On looking for opinion, I know, but I really do think that you guys have some great experience. Its always in context, but I think that I can see within that. On US/Eur: yes, well put. And, yes, I humbly apologize for the Confederate remnants of my American brethren. :0) Every empire that goes up must come down...
Nandric: on your "very interesting to know that sheeps are no objects." No that's funny!! I got a good laugh. Not at you, and I know you were being, uh, ironical (I'm here stealing material from the movie, "Good Will Hunting"), but it was funny nonetheless. But you gotts know, when someone can't tell that I'm not talking about Cartesianism when I'm talkng about trans-cognitive perception, I have to make sure on these things.
Audiofeil: oh yea, much worse than that! Newhart - perfect choice.
M- |
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? Canam, I recommend you try reading it before you assume that this is about philosophy. There seems to be an underlying assumption in a number of posts here that the ability to silence the mind's endless chatter ('inner dialogue' as it is often known- if it is a dialogue, to whom is the mind conversing?) is somehow the same as being unable to perceive. Indeed, Dertonarm says: 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.
Which might have been an attempt at humor; its only my opinion of course but most politicians to me seem merely thoughtless, not at all what I am talking about :) What I **am** talking about is the occasional moments when you might be driving, and come around a turn or the like, and are suddenly presented with a majestic vista of stunning beauty; or seeing for the first time a truly red tulip in spring; or hearing something of great beauty in a musical piece, wherein for an instant, the beauty of the experience is so stunning that the inner chatter of the mind shuts down, and you are allowed to be in the present, in the Now, without a worry of the future or the past. It might only be for an instant, a second or two, before the mind starts up again with something like 'wow- nice sunset!' or the like. But for a few seconds, the mind stopped its chatter (which is entirely different from the brain being somehow inactive BTW) and one is allowed to to experience the sublime. Although not the only one to do so by any means (I used his example because it is easy to find), Eckhart Tolle presents a simple technique to allow you to experience being in the Now a little more often. The science behind it is that if you can silence the inner dialogue (and after a while the mind seems to figure out that there is a benefit to this, so it gets easier to do), the brainwave frequency drops much like it does in meditation (hence your increased creative abilities, essential even with engineering), except that you can have your eyes open and be doing things, even be talking to a friend! This has nothing to do with philosophy or religion, BTW, nor is Mr. Tolle the only such proponent. The bottom line is though that it is simple to do and you might want to at least attempt it before dismissing it. |
This is all a bad dream right?
I'm waiting for a post by Bob Newhart |
Dear Dertonarm, If you assume that some qualitys are
essential (say the ratio by humans) and the other are accidental you can not say that being biped is not accidental. This was the point made by Quine. So probable you should admit that being biped is also essential.But this way we get many 'éssences' in the same object . This is how logic works: contradictory statements will not do.
So if you still want to be Aritotelian you need to find
some other way out.
Asa very interesting to know that sheeps are no objects.
Regards, |
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. |
"Once all demands are identified the design will determine itself...it is the approach of an engineer."
Dertonarm, I don't think so. If it does then you should name your tonearm Athena-- born directly from the forehead of Zeus. Since an LP is far removed from a virgin uncut master and tracking is diametric from cutting, there is really little more than force of analogy to suggest that the engineering process will be self-determined by a complete understanding of the physics embedded in an LP. I see the engineering process in this instance more as a series of differential equations that are fitted to a problem and tested at boundary conditions. The solution is revealed through an iterative process.
The diversity that we see among tonearm designs stems largely from each designer's particular assumption about which variables are key determinants. An illustration is captured in the recent thread on 12" tonearms, in which a Bob Graham citation suggests that there is a necessary trade-off between the tracing advantage of a long arm and the disadvantage of increased wand resonance and mass. IIRC Graham conceded that the 12" Phantom option was driven mostly by market considerations. If your "blue book" can build a pivot arm without any such compromises then I will be at RMAF 2011 to celebrate. |
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. |
Yes, programming...
But I don't see sheep as objects, they are not rock-things; love me, love my sheep, love the Earth...most of my final interests, before I quit reading, were in radical ecology and the co-evolution between human and non-human consciousness. BTW, I did my post-doc graduate work at LSE - a bastion of Marxism, or so it believes of itself, at least back then (before the City took over...) - so I'm not sure how far the Euro-centric assumptions go. One has to be careful about those things. Aristotle might have cautioned on this (if he could ever stop categorizing on his way towards looking for essenses; like a mouse running through the holes in the cheese looking for the cheese.).
Nandric, I'm curious. What area of physics do/did you work in? You mention particle/wave physics, so I thought maybe there. Cosmology too? BTW, have you guys found that graviton yet? :0)
And, hey, what about my Graham? Cough it up!
M- |
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 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. |
Concepts and relations, I think that we mostly think as we
are teached to do. In some sence we think as we speak. We
are programmed with our native lanquage and progrmamed with
our education. Is a student capable to question his teachers? Think about 'my' (aka Marx) sheep. We are talking
about 'his qualitys ' as: 'has quality a,b,...c. Even ín
terms of 'tasty'. Aristoteles was I think aware about the
fact that a object 'has' more quality then,say, just one.
But if one quality is assumed to be 'essential' what about
the other qualitys. Well he provided a way out for him self
and us. The other (possible) qualitys are then accidental.
Have you ever heard in your education about those?
We in Europe thought about Aristoteles as about the sheep.
What 'quality' has Aristotele. Well he was 'the truth'. Ie
the greatest mind of all times in Europe. What was our conseption of 'the truth'? well: veritas est auctoritas.
The truth is the authority. So Aristotels dominated our education for more then 2000 years and in some diciplines
still does. I am not familiar with American educational system but if 'it' is different then I don't believe that
American can comprehend his influence.
In my education those 'essences' were everywhere. Say: what
is the essence of collective ownership of the production means(in Yugoslavia) versus the essence of state ownership
in the USSR. Well of course the our kind was much better ,
more social and essentialy more true to the workers.
Why is it the case that we never heard something about those 'accidental qualitys'. Well those were obviously not
important. Ie not essential.
There are some moments in life that the Germans call Aha Erlebnis .say, Heureka ( no idea what the English phrase is).My first was this 'Marxian sheep'. I got the picture
so to speak. Sheep and man are both objects so there is
RELATION between them. Well I am originaly from the Balkans so I know something about this relation. It is
the man who decides what qualitys a sheep 'has'. Ie the
man attrubutes qualitys a,b,c..n to the sheep but his
description of those is : has the qualitys such and such.
But what about the sheep? In what sence are those qualitys
'inherent','essential' or 'atherent' in the sheep on its own as a separate object? Well we are obviously not used to
think in RELATIONAL terms so we are adding up on concepts.
But concepts and relations are different logical tools.
Thanks to Galileo physics was liberated from Aristoteles
in ,say, 16 century. What about Humanoria?
My second Heureka was by reading Quine and his 'fight' against Essentialist. Btw I think or wish that Quine is a
Dutch descendant (see his full name) so we can put him next to Brouwer to tease the Germans.He described man as
a 'featherless biped' and asked the question: in what sence is biped accidental?' And I will add: do we need
some new biology?
Freges new logic (is the 'father of') is the liberation of
Aristotels logic. But it seems to me that this fact is not
generaly known.
Regards, |
Nandric: yes, I know that you are a scientific materialist...that's OK too.
When I got up this morning I thought about saying to you that you should just ignore my last post, because I did not want to push you. I wish that I'd had that time - at the last minute I had to go to work - because I regret that you have chosen to respond to me by saying that I lack the needed knowledge to discuss these things with you, and chose to pick up your math-language sword. I actually wish that I could meet you, and Derto, and...I suspect that our words would vanish, into community. At least, that is my hope.
Lew, I can tell that your statements to me on the brain are genuinely tied to your personal experience. No, I have not expierienced that particular, deep pain (I did have lung cancer when I was 28 and lost a piston, but watching the pain in a loved one is certainly more difficult). So, I understand the empathic force within your statement...
I will try to tread lightly in my response. If one assumes that thought and its conscious ground emanate from the brain (the material is the primary causal ground), then it is common that that same mind, when confronted with a possibility that matter is not primary, tends to then cascade into a conclusion that that possibility necessarily implies that the matter does not exist (i.e. your instruction to me that observing the material detereoration of the brain-thing proves that the brain-matter exists, which I agree that it does).
But I did not say that the possibility of trans-cognitive perception, or the state of no-thought mind, implied that the brain matter did not exist. It is not an either/or situation.
There are a few possibilities, I suppose.
There is the possibility that consciousness exists as the causal ground of brain-matter, integrally tied, with that matter as a nexus. Or - causality turned around - that there is the possibility that the brain is the material, causal animator of thought/consciousness, still integrally tied in operation.
I had a theory on it once, that was both and neither of the above, but it is not something I can prove to anyone and it just seems to whip up the pitch forks these days (from the feudal hamlet at the base of the mountain...). And, to be honest, that just wears me out. Basically, once you know what the answer is, you sorta lose the desire to think about it too much more. Or, it could be that I just got too old!! (ask me when I'm dead...:0).
Which brings me to this: its been fun, really. I saw some brilliant people here and wanted to meet them, thats about all. And I truly feel positive towards everyone - yes, Nandric, you too! But I think that everyone has had their fair say, so let's put it down, bow to each other, and promise to meet later.
So, now, will you help me?
I asked Derto, and he was kind in his candid opinions, which have helped me, but I would also like the opinions of Nandric, Raul, Syntax (you are out there, right?) and the others, who know a lot more about tonearms than me.
I have a Graham 2.0 on a TNT4 with a Cardas Heart cartridge. I know, not up to many of your rigs and a bit dated in that context, but I do have the opportunity to upgrade to a Phantom II at a very nice price and would be intersted in all of your opinions. Some have said that there is not much difference, others love the new MkII arm. My arm is rewired with Discovery copper wire (done by the first owner) and I've always thought that, notwithstanding the copper, I was still working against a certain tendancy towards harmonic thinness in the 2.0, so wonder what you all think.
I realize that I have done my fair share of thread hi-jacking here, and this Graham thing is not the Talea topic, but a quick comment would be great.
M- |
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. |
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 ....... |
Atmasphere, I had in mind a short tangential headshell that instead of pivoting vertically to navigate warps, would rise and fall in parallel with the record surface via some sort of servo mechanism, possibly guided by a laser to measure the fluctuating distance between headshell and LP. I wouldn't rule out an air bearing. If the moving mass is kept light and of a design such as Ladegaard/Trans-Fi, the bearing actually works better at lightest feasible pressure. I'm not really trying to push one approach or another. It's more interesting to rank the key variables as a basis for trade-offs in design. |
Though I appreciate the philosophy lesson and agree with Dertonarm that this is a very interesting discussion, I would like to ask a question about these two tonearms.
Forgive my naivete, but how can a unipivot arm with one bearing point maintain azimuth? I've seen magnets used to "stabilize" this rocking motion, but when I move a unipivot over from the armrest to the lead-in groove, the arm wobbles all over the place. Compared to my gimbaled-bearing arm, these seem very unstable. I've heard the Talea sound very good in a friend's system, but I don't understand how azimuth can't be changing constantly. What am I missing? |
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, it might be helpful to look at how a record is cut. A worm drive advances the cutter across the record- so to play back, it seems as if a linear tracking device will be needed, although there are some interesting approaches that use radial arm systems, like the Thales arm.
You have the issue of warps and bass- this means, to prevent variation in tracking pressure, that the arm bearings be in the same plane as the vinyl. When the bearings are above the LP surface, the tracking pressure will decrease with bass or warps.
The azimuth must not change during playback either. A gimbaled bearing will work for this and may not be the only means.
A short pivot will not work, as it forces the bearings to be above the LP surface, and makes for audible speed variation as warps are negotiated.
Air bearings don't seem to work either, as it will be seen that the more air pressure is used, the better they work. There are mechanical bearings that have no 'slop' or play in the bearings; play at this point is critical as any (even microscopic) movement is interpreted as a signal by the transducer. You want the motion of the needle to be paramount, without editorial by other parts of the system.
Now it will be seen by some that my comments might appear inflammatory to some. But I am simply outlining what appears to be needed. The digression of opinion is likely based on philosophy rather than anything tangible. That is how wide open the tone arm arena still is. |
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. |
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. 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. 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. To say "when thought is silenced is actual knowledge" is simply nonsense. Canam, you and Dertonarm are on the same page here, but I would simply say that in order to know the truth of this, perhaps try it first. Eckhart Tolle has presented a simple method in his book 'The Power of Now'. It is true that there has been a lot of philosophy presented here. You will find though that behind any great design is usually a guiding principle, which might be a vision or a philosophy. 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. |
Dertonarm,
"I teach you the overman." Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Perhaps the translation is weak or I took this too literally. In any event, if I am short on criteria for the ideal tonearm, it would be enlightening as a thought experiment to have some of your tonearm "blue book." To the degree possible it would be most helpful to define the arm's qualities in terms of practical design rather than physics. For example, I suggest an arm of zero length to eliminate wand resonance. I suggest an arm without a vertical pivot in order to eliminate vertical tracking error. These notions are not specious, as I can at least conceive how to implement such designs. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
Asa, Thanks to Lew I need not to state my 'materialistic'
conviction. I am 'physicalist' all the way .Ie all events
are physical and we are hoping to be able to reduce all
sciences to physical terms. So in this sence even 'semanticalisam' is a provisional state because of lack of better. What I like to address is your talk about
'linquistic decomposition'. You are obviously not familiar
with 'compositionality principle' as introduced by Frege.
A sentence is a composed whole such that every expression
in a sentence contributes to the meaning of the whole sentence. The analysis of a sentence may involve 'decomposition' but this is only for the sake of
analysis: trying to stipulate wich 'part' play which function in the whole sentence.
Now : 'cogito ergo sum' is not my conviction but I attributed this to you as your possible premisse. One can easely 'deduce' from there the conclusion 'I am not' when
not thinking. The problem is 'I am not' is not a sentence
or not completed sentence. Ie badly composed because this sentence lack 'some parts' and consequently has no complete
meaning. Say like 'x + 4'. As long as we have not put some
number in the 'marker' x this expression has no sence nor
reference. So producing some bewildering 'meánings' from
the word 'not' and constructing 'nothingnees' as adding
up to the presuppoosed meaning has nothing to do with semantics or linquistic theory but illustrates the lack of
needed knowledge. Stating the same in a question statement:
how can one discuss quantification theory with a person
who has never heard about quantification?
Regards, |
Now your questin:'what are you when you are not thinking?'
You deed not stated as your premisse: Cogito ergo sum.
To make you question managable for my way of,uh, seeing
I must rephrase your question. Say: in what state is your
brain when you are not thinking?
Well I assume that this is the case when I and my brain are
sleeping.There may be some dreaming activity but I dare not
to mention Freud and his Traumdeutung. The assumption is incorrect. 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: Present, in the now, in a state of Being. The idea of thought being the Being is incorrect- it comes out of the mind trying to convince you that it is you. It is not- it is a tool for you. This is the difference between philosophy and knowledge. 'Cognito ergo sum' is philosophy, a statement to explain behavior, misleading.. certainly not real. Knowing that your consciousness exists in a state of true Being when thought is silenced is actual knowledge. |
Asa, Have you ever observed the course of a progressive dementia in a person you knew well at his or her intellectual baseline? If you had done so, or if you ever have to do so, you will see that yes, the physical brain, "your brain - the material matter - is you", even though there is no physiological map for the conscious mind. We all would like to think otherwise.
Dertonearm, Now that I think more about it, I seem to recall that I did once encounter the "long scale" of big numbers, but since it was useless information in relation to my need to make scientific calculations, I must have shoved it off into some inaccessible corner of my memory. |
Here is what Wikipedia has to say about "billion". But I must say you caught me out on this one; I had never heard of the "long scale", perhaps because I was educated entirely in the US. In any case, Wikipedia (an American invention, I admit) claims that the long scale is passe'.
"The long and short scales are two of several different large number naming systems used throughout the world for integer powers of ten (10).[1] Many countries, including most in continental Europe, use the long scale whereas most English-speaking countries use the short scale. In all such countries, the number names are translated into the local language, but retain a name similarity due to shared etymology. Some languages, particularly in East Asia, have large number naming systems that are different from the long and short scales.
Long scale is the English translation of the French term échelle longue. It refers to a system of large number names in which every new term greater than million is 1,000,000 times the previous term: billion means a million millions (1012), trillion means a million billions (1018), and so on.
Short scale is the English translation of the French term échelle courte. It refers to a system of large number names in which every new term greater than million is 1,000 times the previous term: billion means a thousand millions (109), trillion means a thousand billions (1012), and so on.
Up to, but excluding, a thousand million (< 109), the two scales are identical. At and above a thousand million (≥ 109), the two scales diverge by using the same words for different number values. These false friends[2] can be a source of misunderstanding.
For most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the United Kingdom uniformly used the long scale,[3] while the United States of America used the short scale,[3] so that usage of the two systems was often referred to as British and American respectively. In 1974, the government of the UK switched to the short scale, a change that is reflected in its mass media and official usage.[4][5][6][7] Although some residual usage of the long scale continues in the UK,[8] the phrases British usage and American usage are no longer accurate nor helpful characterisations.
Usage of the two systems can be a subject of controversy. Differences in opinion as to which system should be used can evoke resentment between adherents, while national differences of any kind can acquire jingoistic overtones.[9] |
Dear Dertonarm, As I stated before I am realy astonished
with the extension of your eloquence. As you stated elswhere you consider your self to be 'a child of enlightment'. Ie the dream regarding homo universalis. I have never 'met'a better example. But I noticed this. 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. But when you are talking about ,uh, philosophy you
are using only concepts. There are limitations on what you
can do with concepts. So no wonder we get 'adding up' on
qualitys. Add éssence befor the word object then inherent
or éxtraherent qualitys and even the values. Those are morphems wich you can add as you please with the illusion ofsome 'extra meaning'. Read any philosopher you like about
essence and you will get 10 of them while 'the essence' is
supposed to be one. Now I mentioned Freges invention to deal with cocepts as function with one argument and relations as function with two or more arguments.There is a
theory of relations so we can talk about relations in relational terms. But the 'subject predicate' sentence form
is not suitable for relations. The most peaople 'see' (sic)
some 'name' in the subject place and provide or add up
predicates to the (pre)suposed name. So 'the Germans are
defeated by Stalingrad by the Russians' seems to be about
Germans but 'the Russian defeated the Germans by Stalingrad' express, as Frege would say, the same thought.
The most strange construction is when people put some quantifier in the subject place. Thy then think that those
are also names with refering function. But then why complain with: 'someone has stollen my car?' If this quantifier is a name with refering function you should be able to find this person.
Asa thinks obviously that 'not','nothing',etc is some kind of philosophical concept. One with some very important meaning that is probable only available to him,
Heidegger, and some. But this is ,uh, a ordinary quantifier
that should be treated as (universal) quantifier 'all'.
Ie: there is no object that satisfied conditions Fx and Gx.
Regards, |
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 ? |
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 ..... |
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. |
Nandric, you seem focused on your brain, al la the material (as you see, I too can speak in other languages, yet seemingly, only prepositionally so...).
I am not asking what is the state of your brain - its electro-chemical state - when you are not thinking. I asked what is the state of your consciousness, its nature, when you are not thinking?
Do you think that your brain - the material matter - is you, or definitively defines your consciousness?
Descartes: I think, therefore, I am. Well, at least I know this much Latin! If this is what you believe then tell me so, clearly.
I would note that many people who are attached to linguistic deconstruction also want that discipline to be a science - it makes them feel, I suppose, part of the post-modern materialist milieu. I would also note that these same types of minds define all consciousness as necessarliy emanating and bounded by the material, or the brain, because they are focused on looking for the truth only in the material, like the brain.
Saying that I persist, you mis-speak: I did not push you. I have only asked you one question. Again:
As you watch your own mind when it is not thinking, who are you, i.e. who is the watcher, that witness?
We know that you are not in a coma in this non-thinking waking state, so I assume your reference to dream states and coma was merely a jest.
What/who are you when you are not thinking? If you can not see a thought-thing, does this then feel like a No-thing-ness.
Psychology stuff? Yes, I know about that...
Answer, but not with BRAIN:
The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflections,
The water has no mind to receive their images.
M- |
Asa, If you persist I will try to answer your question.
But look first to this question:'what kind of man is your
sister?'
Now your questin:'what are you when you are not thinking?'
You deed not stated as your premisse: Cogito ergo sum.
To make you question managable for my way of,uh, seeing
I must rephrase your question. Say: in what state is your
brain when you are not thinking?
Well I assume that this is the case when I and my brain are
sleeping.There may be some dreaming activity but I dare not
to mention Freud and his Traumdeutung. Besides he also
stated that there are three of us in each of us: ego,superego and it. I hope you deed not meant this 'it' in your 'what it see'? I personaly would be only interested in what the super ego has to say. This state of
affares would of course be a nightmare for the logicians because of the identity relation. No entity without identity and then no supstitutio salva veritate without identity. But worst of all no quantification theory. As Quine put it: quantification and substitution go hand in hand'.
The second possibility is dramatic one. But for the sake of argument I may be in coma. In such state of my brain I
would be not able to answer any question whatever. My doc
should speek for me. He also should comfort my family
stating the hope regarding awakening. If ever.
Regards, |
