6chac, don't be a pest. If you have an opinion that is contrary to someone else's, state it with reasons. When you just say someone is wrong, over and over, it just makes me think you don't know why but want to make us think that you do, as if discussing it with us is somehow beneath you. It just makes me feel, in your safe room of anonymity, that you really don't have any reasons.
Mural. We will have to agree to disagree on Pass SS at this point. If you are happy, then I am happy for you. On air, all sound is projected, whether "real" or "manufactured" - which is still "real" ie no phenomena is outside "reality". If you mean studio vs. live, then yes, many studio productions create voids in their presentation between players. I tend heavily towards live recordings myself. Second, when I say "projected" that doesn't mean, implicitly, that any projection must be bound to the speaker plane, thus collapsing and bounding the soundfield while, concurrently, drawing our mind to the speaker face. You can have the simulcrum of a projected soundwave without that aural "image" being stuck on the speaker plane - just like live music, and which, again, is what tubes excel at.
"Noise floor" can impart the sensation of dimension and air (since, assumably, you would want that because sound in our atmosphere always moves within dimension containing "air", which is what atmosphere means, and why I used the term) or you can have a void (the sterile "blackness" that many refer to). "Black", a metaphoric visual term, is used to describe the absesne of sound from a reductionist perspective, ie it is the absense of light. Space is not to be characterized as if the source is "light" and the space is "black". Psychologically speaking, that choice in metaphor is symptomatic of a subtle relegation of sound projection vs. considerations of space - which, um, was what I've been talking about...
On "I can verify this [cleaness of Pass] from various sources, not reviewers", I would humbly suggest that you are the best source for yourself; looking to others is still subtle conformism, just like looking to reviewers for your senses of security. Verifica-tion begins and ends with yourself, that is the widest experience. But again, if you are happy with what you hear and others tell you they hear from Pass, then I am happy for you.
Yesterday, I was playing tennis at high school courts when the marching band started by to the football field for their practice. A blare came out of a trumpet, the boy kidding around. It wasn't musically consonant, but it was existentially so, because, well, it was "real". Tubes mimic this real-ness to a greater degree than SS, but I've never heard a stereo - tube or SS - that even came close to its real-ness.
Time to go listen to some music.... |
Mural, just re-read my post and sounds a bit snotty to you. That's not how I meant it, just tired with a bad cold today and too tired to re-do it. |
Convenience, cost, etc. are valid reasons for choosing anything over something else - I do it all the time myself -but have no validity when discusing absolute quality, or rather, the closest to absolute than we can presently percieve and/or replicate.
I am not biased to one arrangement of matter versus another - and that is the bottom-line difference between one technology and another. If SS sound is more "real" - more like sound-sounds-like as I sit and think about it - or causes me to become more involved in the music at a greater, deeper, more progressive rate than tubes, then I would certainly go that way.
However, I see no need to sauve people's ideas by backing away from the obvious: there exists and has existed a discernable progression that occurs as one becomes adept at listening and more knowledgeable about what is available in technology, and that is: people in their progression move from SS at one end to tube at the other.
Every five years, we say that SS is closer to tube, the implicit assumption to that continuing discussion being that SS is not as good as tube. This is still the same case and it continues to be that case because it is true. No one who has gone over a long progression of evolution in stereo ever says that SS is better than tube because its not true. Isn't that an empiric pattern worthy of contemplation?
Now, what are the problems?
Here we go...SS does not produce space that is pressurized, that is congruent to the space that you exist in in a deep existential way; does not replicate the phenomena of sound as it moves through space that the deep, intuitive structures of the perceptive mind discern; does not offer a continuous simulcrum of the intra-relationship of how source and space are both separate and integral at the same time; does not replicate the "event horizon" of sound projection and surrounding space as a delineation to the the identifying part of the listening mind, and, simultaneously, impart a perception of no-boundary between sound and space to the receptive parts of the listening mind; does not impart an intuitive sense that depth progresses back infinitely, rather than in planes defined by the players on them with a rear plane that, by its existence, defines rear space; does not infuse the deep harmonic fabric of the core note with air, so that sound is seen as integral with space (as it is in "reality"); does not infuse the transient attack with air, nor lend a sense of infinite dissipation to the decay of sound, etc.
Yes, SS has worked to surround players with a greater sense of space immediately around them and gathered within the planes that they occupy; and, yes, mechanical artifacts of distortion have been reduced, but this hardly should cause anyone to be tempted to claim that SS is approaching tube sound in quality of the listenting experience as a whole. By and large, SS has merely improved in the areas that it already excelled at, but reducing sterility in source distortion hardly makes up for the still existing - and I would argue, terminally flawed - rendition of space on: 1) space's integral relationship to sound as it moves within space 3) the sound projection's harmonic structure as it relates to space, and 4) the relationship of how differing sound sources intra-act in space simultaneously as they move out from and towards the listener.
This is what is meant by "congruency" and "continuity".
I do not want to say the SS can not be enjoyable and that it is not worthwhile, but that is a relative statement - and should not be altered just to make some more comfortable.
I have recommended systems composed of SS components, but that does not alter the present state of SS vs. tube, nor does setting up a "euphonic" strawman to push over when you are pushed, nor in, at the end, retreating in trailing arguments regarding price, convenience, etc.
Ahhhh, that felt goood..... |
Thank you all for your comments. Even though we disagree, lots of smart people with measured responses. Isn't that nice? You know, not so, er, "unilateral".
twl, thank you for pointing out the inherent flaws in relying completely on empiric evidence to draw conclusions.
Unsound, thank you for pointing out, that even though only a partial view of reality, empiric evidence is still valid and should be considered and not discounted.
I agree with both positions. The problem comes in when people become attached to one assumption or the other, which, by operation, negates the opposing pole completely.
Unsound, I want to address some issues you brought up; if not explicitly, then implicitly.
It always is interesting to me that people adopt assumptions without reflecting on the fact that these assumptions themselves rest upon deeper assumptions. A huge assumption adopted by 96% of post modern western culture regards "science", and the attachment to this assumption effects how you choose your stereo components (ie. what sound you conclude has "fidelity"; Unsound's implied measuring description for being closer to the Truth/Sound Absolute).
First, if we are being truly rigorous, assumably like a scientist, we should ask, What IS "science"? Well, I can't walk out my front door and point to it, so its not a thing. Its an abstraction used to encompass a set of assumptions about "reality" (like any philosophy), and like many assumptions it seems to become monolithic over time and through significant attachment to its ideas - but it is only a set of assumptions.
Then we should ask, what are the assumptions of "science"? Science assumes that all truth is derived from the manipulation and observation of changes in matter over time; we label this with the abstraction "empiric method", and it derives from the philosopher Descartes' ideas (whose worldview we call "Cartesian"). Galileo expanded this by saying that reality is like a machine and we can see the changes in matter easiest by observing certain variables of form: volume, length, etc. In other words, truth comes to us - or rather, we pull truth out of reality - if we limit ourselves to quantitative observation of physical reality (matter, or form). There are other assumptions, but these are the basic ones. The important part of this, however, is to then see that "science" has also, by implicit operation, adopted an even deeper assumption: that all ideas contrary to its assumptions are non-existent, or, if conceded, effectively non-existent because any knowldge outside "science" is inherently unknowable. Through this denial of that which is not itself -ideas not its ideas - it effectively reduces any other possible means of seeing truth (not coincidentally, the philosphy that science supplanted, medieval Judeo-Christian doctrine, applied this same assumption to science, ie. all rigid paradigms of assumptions deny that beyond itself).
Interestingly, the assumptions that "science" rests upon have been thoroughly deconstructed in the past fifty years and this is not disputed, even by most philosophers who love "science". Basically, Popper, Kuhn, Freyerabend etc. have shown that science itself can not stand up to its own assumptions. I'm not going to go into it, way too long, but essentially the reductionism used by science has led to the deconstruction of itself.
So, if scientific materialist assumptions have been shown to be partial, even using the rules of science, then why do people still cling to their attachment to them, as if they are sancrosanct? Isn't that irrational?
We can point to the relationship of capitalism (another abstraction, whose meaning is mutually reinforced self-interest, or another way, mutually-reinforced predation) and science, whereby science's power over matter results in technology. OK, yes, and many other surface symptoms, but there is an assumption still deeper in science - and that effects those who listen to mussic and who, unreflectively, adhere to its worldview.
If you look above, you'll see I said that science "pulls" truth from reality. In other words, an underlying, determitive assumption of science (as it operates in the world) is to assume that the truth it can derive is obtained (like an object) by taking truth FROM reality. This assumption is how you approach reality, namely, in an active way where the matter of reality is seen by the mind as "out there"; reality releases truth only with our minds' objectifying manipulation of it.
Now, in stereo an orientation of this type produces certain choices; you choose components that produce a sound that is congruent with you orientation. Hence, if you adhere to "science" - and all its assumptions, even if you are not aware of all of them - they produce a filtering effect on what you choose. In this case, each of the cascading assumptions described above produces a certain choice (or argument supporting that choice), namely, an adherence to the assumption on objectifying matter produces a bias torwards believing that a soundfield is most "accurate" or has the most "fidelity" to truth where objects are primary (carving out of sources as things and implicit reduction of space, even to the point where space is seen as a void, ie, non-existent, as with the above poster who said space was "formless waste"); an adherence to assumption that such truth is found by examining the soundfield with an active identifying mind that defaults towards greater detail in sources (bounding them into more easily identified objects); an adherence to "science" as the primary diviner of truth coupled with a recoil from all ideas that are not "scientific"; a bias torwards "scientific" means (measurement)with all outside of that derived knowledge significantly relegated, if not denied, etc.
It is NOT coincidental that those who prefer SS that carves out images into source-objects, who want "accuracy" through Galilean quantitainve means, who favor source-object over space, are the same minds who adhere, unreflectively, to the assumptions of science. These peoples' stereos create a soundfield "out there" as if it were a thing because they are orientated towards reality in this way.
And this effects how they listen and what they are willing to concede can be heard by others. When you sit down initially to listen, the active mind carries over from your active day (from a capitalistic culture chasing the quantitative accummulation of objects) and looks at sound as if it were "out there", seeing the detail, gauging with thinking the quantitative volume of what's produced. But, as you sink deeper and thinking fades, the concerns of that thinking mind fade and other truths of the music are revealed; with the fading of objectified thinking that which not an object (space) rises as an integral part of the music, and the other intra-related nuances noted in my first post. But the active mind, the scientific attached mind that believes it must be active to see truth fails to let go of that thinking, fails to open to the music in receptivity. In that recoil from opening to other ways to see truth (or to listen)the actively-attached mind denies any deeper levels as...non-existent.
It is not a coincidence that people who listen to SS as the diviner of truth - a technology that values accuracy of source detail over space - are the same people who trumpet "science" as the primary means to truth and any other means, or the levels of listening depths accomplished by other menas, as non-existant.
They must stay active, they must have objects of detailed sound, they must reduce all that is not a sound-object into "formless waste" of non-existence, they must apply their minds to the soundfield "out there" and rearrange and carve its sound-objects.
Above all, beneath all, they must not become receptive. Because you see, the ability to become receptive is attained not by grasping at the soundfield "out there" but by letting go of your attachment to do so.
It is very simple, actually; but not simplistic.
Thank you for your patience in reading this. |
On Pass. I like it: had a 30 for about a year, and have recommended it to some people in the past. Ono was nice, etc. and were very similar in sound. Like it more than almost all other SS.
Yes, the SE topology, assuming that's the factor, does make Pass more "realistic" in terms of objective criteria and more musical (meaning: catalyzes seeping into the music and receptive state of listening) more than many SS units (I also have recommended to people the Lamm 1.1 hybrids for the same reasons).
With that said, the Pass units suffer from some of the same problems. Source projection contains more air, but leading transient still posseses a discernible "dryness" which increases in obviousness as energy increases and one approaches boundary between source and space (hence, still delineating that dichotomy). Power handling can help (with its own trade-offs) but not to great degree IMHO. The air around sources, in fact, seems more pressurized, but still dissipates as you move away from sources and particlarly in the furthest depth field. Space has tendancy towards sterility rather than "aliveness" in most circumstances (you can tip the tendancy a bit with component matching, so Pass has more flexibility in this regard, but the wall is still there on spatial performance).
Nice stuff, better than the rest, I like it more than mushy euphonic tube gear much of the time, but still not close in these respects. I'd go for a Lamm 1.1 before Pass. |
Jetter, I wrote that when I was drunk! Sincerest apologies. I regret every word, just ignore it. Oh my God, what will happen to us if we read such things!!
Pass another cold one... |
You know, I know that I can shoot the wind with the best of them, but having dialogue, at all varying levels of (so-called) cognitive sophistication, is good. I try not to obfuscate, but realize that there are also some people out there who will challenge the ideas because I haven't defined my terms well enough. Its a line, and tough when you try to be as concise as you know how. That said, I know its a mouth-full.
On relevance. In the hiend, you have (so-called) Romantic Idealists on one side arguing that anything "scientific" is rigid denial and wanting "warm" music and on the other side those attached to scientific/technological explanations, each arguing from an absolutist position. This creates a "negative feedback" dialogue loop where the discussion has nothing to do with the merits and is propelled by intellectual territoriality (rationality defaulting to prey/predator instincts). Interestingly, this is the same situation in general culture: science has been shown to be great at manipulating matter and finding all kinds of truth that we can use to make all kinds of gadgets, but now we find that it can't tell us everything that is "human" (it provides functional knowledge that can lead to pleasure OR meaning, but doesn't, inherently, gaurantee the latter). Yet, we can't go back to mytho-magical medieval thinking either. The result of this is science arguing with anyone who wants to move beyond it on one side of the fence with people who want to move beyond science on the other side arguing that science is flawed (it isn't, only our use of that power is misguided). So you have people attached to form on one side arguing with people who define themselves as people-who-are-against-people-who-are-attached-to-form on the other (which is their own attachment, ie they define themselves not by whast they go towards, but by what they are not). This is a "negative feedback loop" of ego.
There is a third alternative: that science is not negated but fully integrated into a next sight, one that is not attached to being active (science vs. nature, pulling from the "what is", etc.) nor is attached to not being that (attached to their limited exposure to receptiveness, ie so-called "New Agers"). The mind that sees beyond both these attachments is the mind that transcends both and integrates both.
The hiend is interesting, at least to me, because unlike any other microcosm I can think of, you have the Romantic Idealists and scientific empiricists in such close proximity AND both engagaing in an activity together - essentially, a parallel run experiment on the mind, ie listening to music through technology devices. In other words, in the hiend, the matter-attached and the attached-to-against-matter-attached are both conducting the same experiment, something that can't be escaped by either in dialogue.
But what is truly interesting is that the people attached to active thinking to derive truth actually are listening to stereo and reaching states of listening (where they derive perceptive information, or truth)that are without thought; they are conducting an experiment on their own mind where they disprove their own assumptions. This can not be escaped by the materially attached: the mind moves from active thinking to a silence-absent-thought that itself reveals to them other information. Their denial of it, and their argument that only thinking and/or technology produces listening (truth), is symptomatic of their attachment.
OK, enough. I know I've tried everyone's patience.
Muralman: I love off the topic, which as I've said above, it really isn't. I don't think, however, that anything I said would regress to "traditional myth." In addition to categorizing any idea outside their own matrix of ideas as unknowable or non-existent, science also - in fact, its oldest recoil - claims that you are nothing but the mythological past, ie. all ideas not ours are regressions to mytho-magical worldviews, characteristic of the medieval Catholic Church that we've just moved beyond, says they. This is then used to claim that such ideas are inherently irrational, ie regressions, which, not surprisingly, we then don't need to consider because they are irrational. Nice irrational circularity, eh? You have to be more careful with these types of characterizations in this context; you've gotten it from a worldview that, I know looking at the rest of what you say, you don't identify with. You are too smart for that, truly. Apart from that, I think we see things about the same. You are a good writer to, BTW.
Zaikes: I agree its your brain - but again, not simply material: its your MIND. And not simply subjective - its your mind and "what is" out there, stereo or not. Subject/object, mind/matter are integral, participatory. The "what is" is SUSCEPTIBLE to your mind - and the scientific active thoughts it produces. "It" is not inert with your mind the only God. |
6chac: Run, but not before you too, say something? Maybe I just didn't get it (although I liked it). Were you refering to the fact that this thread seems to be highjacked and there is no hope and, God, please, no more, and...Whatever the reference - you can tell us, or just me - it was a nice quote, one I wasn't aware of.
Mytho-magical shamanism aside, its true, you know. Did you intend that? |
Zaike, yes, kill the Buddha if you see him on the road, to Damascus or anywhere else, so to speak. Objectively, with the active mind, you can only know a fraction of it, one fraction at a time (or through putting the fractions back together). Subjectively, the very filtering lens of subjectivity ensures that you only see partially at any given time. But, seeing trans-objectively, trans-subjectively, both at once, neither separate, you can "know" the All.
Unsound: yes, science up til this point has been reductionist - break it into parts, watch the parts - but empiric method does not mean that integral conclusions can not be drawn. It depends on your orientation; the method is nuetral and discloses truth through breaking up or putting back together. I disagree on your definition of "mystical": it is not only concerned with the whole, because seeing the parts is also seeing the whole. You can look and see parts (reductionist-orientated scientist), you can look to see the whole (going up to a mountain and not coming down), or you can come down from the mountain, realize that the only "Zen" up there is the "Zen" you brought with you, that "it" is everywhere, and see parts and the whole at the same time - they are not exclusive perceptions. Transcending that belief is part of their integration.
My main point was that an active mind directed at sound/music only discloses certain truths, albeit important ones; to "see" more musical meaning, you must let go of that active urge/instinct and become receptive to the music. And, that these perceptions exist on a deepening contiuum of perception and that a belief in one over the other is a function of egoic attachment to an "idea", not what the experience/experiment itself discloses. The active mind is characterized by objectifying external reality as a series of "things-out-there" and derives from our predatory evolution, that has served us quite well. This mental faculty, because of its focus, focuses the experience of music through that cognitive lens, producing a mind that seeks to control the soundfield through the imposition of "accuracy". But there are deeper levels to listen from, and which require a receptive orientation to the external music. We can call this state "receptive" only to give it a label opposite from "active", but, in fact, it is not opposite from the thinking mind, but before it. The place where receptivity occurs is the ground of thinking, and is prior to it. Denial of the ground of receptivity is a denial of the source of thinking; the thinking mind denying its source, which is not separate from itself. That is irrationality, and the causal source of alienation, from a deeper experience of music, and the Music. |
Kevziek, I'm glad that we all (er, mostly me...) didn't scare you off your own thread!
On transients, yes, I couldn't say it any better. That's exactly it. I only used "dryness" because I didn't want to go into too much description when I was using up so much space on other things. Breath is the best to look at. It doesn't project the energy, the explosiveness, of, say a hard struck string, but, nevertheless, it has a leading edge transient. Meaning, that all sounds have a beginning as they move out in space. To project this movement, the source (singer/instrument in music)must project with varying force to create a wavefront (and here we see, again, that the sound is not separate from the space because the wavefront in not separate from the air). Transients which possess a disproportionate amount of energy loaded at the transient, relative to the core and decay of the sound, draw the thinking mind to them because they are not "natural"; the transient does not sound "real" because its sound is imbalanced. As the distortion rises in lesser components, the loaded energy carries that increased distortion at the transient and our thinking mind is even more drawn to it (as if it is an object), keeping us from deeper listening levels. Modern SS has done well at reducing distortive remnants, but not all. If you listen to SS breath it lacks a "wetness" that air from the lungs possesses and that effects how the stereo is able to replicate the projection as it moves in space. SS does not capture this "wetness", even though distortive "frission/tension" within the projection is reduced. The SS breath carries a steady "dry" character, while tube breath changes as it moves out, like wind hitting different surfaces differently, but in a subtle way because the energy is low, and carries the "wetness-of-air" even as the breath projection infinitely dissipates.
Second observation: as energy increases, the "dryness" of SS transient energy increases, again creating incongruencies from one time and the next - also not a part of how sound sounds in "reality"
Sound possesses an organic, continuous quality that is fully integrated with the surrounding space, so that it never occurs to us to even think about whether there is a sound separate from space. Tube replicates this existential quality of space/source; it replicates their integral relationship. SS creates dimensional/existential discontinuities that draw our attention, engage the examining thinking mind, and regardless of the distortion issue, causes a deep part of us, the part that instinctively apprehends space/time, or its unnatural absense, to sit up and listen - but not listen to music, but listen for disconsonant reality.
"Pressurized"....tough to find words to describe an existential quality that we live so within that we don't have a vocabulary to encompass a description of its absense. Space is not a thing; it is dimensional vessel that carries within itself all things - you, me, sound, everything. SS creates the impression of dimension (read: existence without motion of wavefront) directly around the projection, but then dissipates at an unnaturally quick pace and into a space that seems to drop off into a void. Since none of us have ever experienced non-existence, or even dissipation of dimension (there is no void in reality; even without things space is a dimensional vacuity, not a void, and even in our atmosphere there is no vacuity), this draws our mind at a very deep level towards identifying this most unusual spatial/void discontinuity.
Tubes, on the other hand, replicate the dimension of the space you are in right now to a greater degree, both in how they replicate space when no sounds are moving through (not a void), when space carries a sound wavefront (how sound symmetrically moves into, moves through and dissipates), and how two sounds intra-act in space (two instruments playing at once).
Tubes may have less "detail" for the identifying mind that wants sound to look like a statue garden "out there", but, I would argue, its rendition is less "real". The ability of a sound simulcrum to catalyze the mind to seep deeper IS the definition of musical; musical-ity is not a quality, but a progression of the listening mind. Tubes catalyze this progression to much greater degree than SS because they present existential qualities in a way that we find congruent, so that we never sit up and think of them (and is why they are so difficult to describe when we finally get around to it, and which is why our present audio vocabulary is insufficient to describe the current state of the hiend). |
"Cleanest", "silky clean", qualities of space to be measured "technically" only in terms of diminishing distortion...yes, if these are the values you adhere to, or your bias in seeing sound, then follow Muralman and get a SS amp...
But, I believe there is more to stereo spatial performance than measuring the technical aspects of distortion. I don't think its radically subjective at all.
And, yes, if you are married to a speaker whose impedance drops to 1 ohm (the Scintillas) then, yes, you will not like a tube amp - because that would be incompetance to marry the two - and will, by necessity, need high powered, current dumping SS amps...and perhaps, to perfect that choice, perfect an argument biased towards the SS amps that you must have...
I've reviewed for TAS, UA, been in the hobby for 25 years etc. and, trust me, I've given Pass a fair shake.
As for hearing acuity, and your implied reccomendation of your own hearing, let me remind: there are many people with great acuity in technical terms who still can not hear what "musical" is. The mind in primary and causal to the ears (mind precedes material). I know many people who are older and have lost some upper frequency acuity who, nevertheless, have exceedingly musical systems. People who claim that the "technical" aspects of frequency acuity are determitive of the ability to hear what is "musical" - and use that argument to bolster their claims - are the same materially biased people who believe that space should be as "clean" as possible. Again, this is not a coincidence.
Muralman, I think you are right: SS is the right choice for you, and , admittedly, I don't think Jadis would match well with Apogees. Then again, I don't know anyone who would actually consider it. |
6chac:
1.Where one can not say, it is best to remain silent. That seems to have escaped your long response, all the while you claim that one can not say. That is delusiuonal, or if volitional, inauthentic.
2. There is a difference between claiming that you are encompassing the Truth in its entirety in words, versus using words to point at the Truth. Granted, pointing at the moon is not the moon, but Jesus and Buddha talked about the "what is" - or Zen, or God, or a higher level of organization, or whatever row you want to hoe - all the time, so I'll go with them, if you don't mind.
2. If someone claims they are enlightened, they usually aren't. I'm not, I know that.
3. I never heard the Buddha say that "I am right and you are wrong" with such judgemental force. Hmmm...
4. What does it mean when someone goes on and on decrying others going on and on?
5. If one has to look it up from someone else, or decry thinking and dialogue, itself part of the "what is", then he probably doesn't know.
Too far afield even for me. 6chac, if you want to continue, contact me directly and I will talk to you there. |
On 6chac: this is what happens when someone reads too many books on "Zen". Actually, glad you are having fun, just clean up after you get out of the sandbox and go home for supper.
On Muralman: what, if I note the materialistic bias in your statements, I'm being derisive? Jeez, a guy who wants "technically clean" sound recoiling against someone noting his materialistic bias, imagine that...
As far as the Scintilla being the end-all in speakers, I think its safe to say that you need to get out more. But, again, I'm glad you had an experience that showed you something more (which, empirically-speaking, may raise the possibility that there is more for you to learn...)
"Spirituality is a pet vein", like a tangential hobby. Hmm, interestingly view.
Two guys who know it all after hearing Scintillas, or reading some Zen. What more can I say, you've perfected a perfect way to immunize your ideas; conclusions without any reasons other than, well, no reasons. You're right, Muralman, the fact that your daughter and son play instruments thoroughly deconstructs my observations. So, now that I have been so thoroughly deconstructed by a duo of zen/sound enlightened beings, I will say, have a nice wkend.
Oh, that's not sarcasm you are hearing; its broken bamboo across your back. |
Well, I don't know about a spanking - remember, I did invite you both to contact me off this forum, which you chose not to do - so, I'll just leave you to your Apogees. Which, again, I consider nice speakers and am glad that you have found your nirvana, or close to it. As the old philosospher's adage goes, you can't teach the color purple to a blind man. I think the "what is" has it rigged that way. Actually, now that I think of it you and Bolin do have many qualities of perception in common - he loves the ARC VT100 6550-based amp and Nordost SPM too, components that if you haven't listened too, you should because you might like them. I'm going to have to take the good writer part back though; "hands on ivory" is just too much for me this morning. You write well when you are not so juiced up. I re-extend my invitation to a reasoned, mature conversation where their isn't an audience.
Apart from that, be well. |
Oh, Kevsiak, if you do buy some equipment, I think we would all be interested in your reactions. |
