Ok, Slawney, let us see...
1. I dealt with you in the same way I dealt with BWhite. Given your prior experience with me in personal, one-on-one detailed discusions on the very same cable, namely, NBS Statement, what did you think I meant by "push" in the CONTEXT of the rather playful post directed at BWhite? In other words, given the context of your quite specific personal experience of no "pushing" from me on the very same issue, the context of comeraderie of the post to Bwhite, much as I've had previously with you, the context of BWhite's evident stereo experience, comparable to your own in general terms (leading one to assume, with due credit to BWhite, that he is hardly "push-able"), what misguided probability analysis led you to the conclusion that "push" should be excised from its context for your suddenly literal purposes? If anything, one would tentatively conclude the opposite - especially a writer. Tell me, how did I treat you? And, Bwhite, did I push you in the sense of the negative that Slawney now implies was his justifiable assumption? Hmmm...
2. Tell me, after you have fully read the above discussion between myself and sead last year, what positions do I take which you feel are unsubstantiated or irrational vis-a-vis sead? Specifically, tell me which ones and I will explain them more fully. My position was/is that sead refused to answer my inquiry regarding what was the basis of his negative blanket characterizations of my fully laid out arguments. I can not have a dialogue with someone who answers such an inquiry by name calling or tangential list-making. That you would say I didn't treat sead with the same cognitive rigor and fairness as you claim for yourself in your "scientific reports" is itself, in my opinion, symptomatic of your continued bias vis-a-vis sead. Tell me what you think is unclear in those arguments. If you determine they are not unclear, then what do you think would lead you to say so in the context of sead and myself?
3. On your purported defense of sead, I stand by my statement. I believe the sum of your original post, in its context, is illustrative of my perception.
4. On "Er, cheers", of course I was being cynical. I guess I wonder how you didn't have too much trouble with that context but difficulty with the original one discussed in #1 herein. That said, my cynicism was consequent to your post - which deserved it for the reasons stated and did not, at least, hide its humor-tinged wryness (the "er")behind feigned offers of "diplomacy" - and, evidently, for you, was instructive (YES!!, for the selectively literal, that's a touch, not hateful, of condescension, brushed with an air of wry hope of finality :)).
Really, Slawney, you always seemed like a bright guy with good ears - which is why I approached my Editor at the time numerous times for a job for you writing after you asked if I would - so this could go on ad infinitum with you as sead's foil.
If you want to take up sead's banner in the "discussion" he and I had last year, then I'm game. It would be fun and I know - based on the CONTEXT of our prior relationship - that it would be fair and absent the name-calling, list-making that sead resorted to.
So, I'll let you serve first. ("non-provocatively", so we'll all be sure)...You pick the topic that relates to sound, musical experience and wire et al in those contexts. Otherwise, I think we should let this discussion return to observations on OTA and subjects rel;ated thereto (like my inquiry on the possible relationship of thin gauge wires and similar performance). |
Asa: The reason I addressed you the first time, whenever that was is that I felt you were here to patronize and not to bring a constructive contribution on the very subject of the topic. This you have proved yourself to be true beyond any reasonable doubt. We could have discussed NBS, we could have discussed Kondo (for which I have great respect btw) but we never could discuss OTA for a simple reason of you not having a clue of the product and that was the topic (to which I have tried to remind you on several ocassions). And, you wanted me to give you arguments against your hallucination (dunno what else could it be...). No way. So you got insulted... As I was when you first started name calling with " Sead don't be horse's ass". You may have selective memory but you were the one who started with insults and I certainly hope my provocations were never as hillbillish as you indeed acted. And, yes, I knew about your involvement with NBS from the beginning but I didn't feel like discrediting you. This may be a personal thing for you, but then, you must have seen too many gladiator movies... Audio is a hobby for me, more than anything else. Rational people don't kill each other over a hobby.
My intention was never to leave such a deep mark on your emotions.... Scares me even to think of what would happen if I was seriously attacking you and not kidding with you.... Btw, out of the personal interest, if I would ask you to send me one of your novels to read it, would you? I guess you would not. See, that is where we differ... Besides, of course, that I like to joke and you don't. I wish you prove me wrong on the last two assumptions.
Ah, I kinda find that "Er, cheers" cute.
Bwhite: Yes, sadly, I knew you would get insulted with my last post. Unfortunately. This has become a vanity fair, otherwise you would read my post in different eyes (maybe your own, for a change?) and not come with yet more sarcasm toward Ivo ("Who is he?"..... well, who are you for that matter, who is anyone?). Again, I tell you and you may call it deffensive from my side, it is perfecly great thing that you find your cabling arrangement suits better your setup than OTA, which was originally designed and intended for 47Labs setup and it comes as a surprise to me, believe it or not, that it works in other setups at all.
To clear something out: My involvement with 47Labs as their European distributor was always very open and clear, althought my posting here is of a strictly private nature, and to stop you wondering about my interest in the subject, I will openly call upon everyone who has bought OTA cable in Europe as a consequence of this thread to stand up and say it loud. If anyone, except for Ivo (who was using OTA before either one of you in here knew it existed) and Slawney (who was sold PhonoCube in agreement with local dealer but supplied directly by myself for reasons beyond your interest, but quite benign) shows up, that will really be a proof of my interest in this thread other than a personal, plain audiophile joe interest to help out with some experience on topic called by someone else. If there will be nobody to say it, I will kindly ask you to stop with this dealer crap. This forum is dominantly an US affair and my affiliation with 47Labs stops on the shores of Atlantic as I am not at all involved with 47Labs operations in US of A. Or, if I have even oferred to sell anything to anyone who has participated to this thread up to this point, please say it loud and clear, otherwise shut up. I don't sell things here, I don't buy things here.... So, please, what my interest in Audiogon or in anyone in here liking OTA or not could be other than a simple passtime? Good thing is summer is coming and I will be playing tennis much more than wasting time on the net....
Of course, I am very much interested that 47Labs customers in Europe are pleased with their products and our dealers but that kind of correspondence I would never allow to become a public affair unless clients themselves feels like disclosing it. Customer support of Konus Audio Systems is something entirely different. The fact that Sead Lejlic as a private person discusses music, audio and yes, 47Labs things with people that are not even potentially customers from Europe obviously has a confusing effect on a $$$ orriented mind. Surprisingly, there are cultures in the world which are less materialistic oriented than yours and where not just about everyone you talk to is trying to sell you something and where you don't have to make appointment to your wife and your friends for some "social interference".
Slawney: No need to get cought into crossfire non-productive (except for lingual exhibitions) argues. Perhaps you are right, in real life we probably would all get fine together over a pint of lager but people get matchbox flammable on the net. Nothing new. I just enjoy exploring this aspect of human behaviour (well, Asa may be brilliant in his English usage but certainly is a dilletant in psychology, plain boring to argue with and I hope getting along with him is more fun?). :-)
Cheers,
Sead
p.s. If a further desire exists to continue with the pissing contest of a personal nature, you are welcome but in the next two, three weeks I will be away. Besides, it is boring.... |
Asa, re.: "what misguided probability analysis led you to the conclusion that "push" should be excised from its context for your suddenly literal purposes?" Two questions: 1.) What diacritical marks in the 04-25-02 post to Bwhite indicate that your post should be considered "rather playful"? Is it the "ahh" at the beginning? Emotives like this depend on intonation: I can easily imagine an "ahh" as a sign of relief, or a sign of frustration. Electronic writing alone does not let me know what kind of "ahh" this is. Perhaps we need to load up sound-files under our posts:-) But seriously, for someone who was not privy to your correspondence with Bwhite, what marks indicate that your message is merely humorous? Second question: 2.) What meaning would a non-literal reading of the word "push" give? Third question: 3.) how much of the 04-25-02 post is "playful"? Are we to interpret the statement "Glad you still like the KSL/NBS combo" as playful, and the concluding lines "Thank you, bwhite, and all of the others, for putting in the time with the OTA and letting us know about your experiences"--as just a jest?
I am not going to pick up the "discussion" between you and sead. You are correct to put the word "discussion" in quotes: it was not a discussion. I just reread the exchange (let us call it that). You are right to say that "sead refused (your) inquiry as to what was the basis of his negative blanket characterizations of (your) fully laid out arguments" He did however state his reason for not responding. I am not going to pick up this exchange, for a few reasons: 1.) it was not my "discussion"; 2.) it was not really a "discussion"; 3.) I do not know what sead would have said in response to your inquiry. Thus, forgive me, but I cannot "take up sead's banner" or be "sead's foil." I do not know what "sead's banner" really is, or if he has one. Besides, as I already said, I am trying not to defend him. He should answer for himself, if he wants to. I cannot put words in his mouth. And, I repeat, I am not responsible for his words.
The passage that you addressed to me back on 10-31-01 that I like to recall in its entirety is the following:
"What I think is being missed here in a NBS Statement (your series 1, right Slawney?)and Sakura comparison (assumably IC's)is the synergy issue between IC's and spkr cable. NBS IC's are superior IMHO to their spkr cable - and many other speaker cables match well to their IC's sans their spkr cables. I look at NBS as an interjector of a certain nuance in harmonic complexity (deep into the harmonic fabric) and spatial realism (at the shallower levels of listening, in how sound waves move in space; symmetrical and continuous and with proper projection qualities) and at the deepest levels existentially (the deep intuitive grasp that the "event" of musical connection between mind and music is not cut by a soundfield that lacks a intuition of dimension). In the most advanced systems, these are the qualities that one is still after and a component that accomplishes it should not be relegated based on an immediate reaction to "speed', "detail", and the thrill of dynamic swing and contrast that are predomonantly appreciated at less deep levels of listening (which doesn't mean that they aren't important, just that they can get in the way if over-emphasized in relative value). " (end quote)
I agree completely that NBS speaker cables are not as good as their ICs. Having owned and/or used four different types of NBS speaker cable/IC combinations, the IC was always more impressive than the speaker cable (even at the Statement level). I do not know if there is a synergy between NBS Statement IC and OTA speaker cable like there is between NBS and AN Kondo, but I am eager to find out. In my eagerness to replace all of my NBS cables with OTA, I did not try out too many hybrid arrangments. This was because of 1.) my initial excitement with OTA (esp. in the phono cable application, which was a total success, after the RFI problem was solved), 2.) the eagerness to hear an entirely OTA cable infrastructure (the effect of the cable is additive), 3.) the perceived sonic difference between NBS and OTA, which led me to believe that, when used together, they would cancel each other's strengths. I am actually going to go back and see if an NBS IC/ OTA speaker cable combination is not the best combination yet. It certainly turned out true that and NBS / OTA power cord arrangement turned out the best. But this will take time, because of the need to rearrange equipment to fit the NBS back into the system--which is difficult because of the stiffness and weight of the cable.
As far as sead's tip about suspending the OTA cables, I always kept my cables off of the floor. But I did recently notice that some of the OTA digital cables were sort of tangled up with the analog ICs. A few were even touching the metal parts of my rack. Once I straightened the cables out, re-introducing some distance between them, and isolated them from the rack, the sound actually improved even more: become even more clear, more extended, rich, and organized. This was also the case when I noticed a while back that too much OTA speaker cable was resting against my speaker cabinet, and picking up resonances from the drivers. Moving them away helped out quite alot. |
Ivo - thanks for the introducing yourself. I appreciate it and it's a pleasure to meet you.. :) Perhaps my statement was too strong in suggesting that as an unregistered Audiogon user your posts were not credible. I do believe that registering, as a user is important because there are so many people who post non-sense as unregistered in hopes to hide behind their anonymity. Registration somehow limits the non-sense but occasionally a few get by the screeners.
When you made the statement, "OTA cables are so natural and neutral that they sometimes present how the rest of the system is bad. It's not the problem of OTA, it's the problem of poor source, amp or speakers." I simply laughed it off. No harm done. I have read others say worse about those who dislike lesser cables.
I have spent a great deal of time with OTA and have been extremely polite in my appraisal of the product. There are more reasons why I no longer use it but lets just focus on what I have stated. What you took as me saying "too fast" was actually stated as "a little too fast". That's a big difference. That judgment was not based on a comparison between OTA and other cables per se but more a familiarity of my CD Player (Mephisto II), which tends to be a bit slow & relaxed sounding. The player maintains that character with every interconnect I have tried - except the OTA. The mild increase in speed (previously referred to as being "a little too fast") was accompanied by the disappearance of a certain "magical" quality I hold dear in the Mephisto. The more I listened the more I realized the OTA was restricting something somehow. While it seemed to have reasonably good dynamics it was clearly restricted somewhere since my components no longer sounded like my components were supposed to sound. With the OTA, my system was simply un-involving. Sorry...
Hi Slawney - being a reviewer, Asa has fantastic experience with audio products. It just happens that he pointed me (not pushed) toward these cables. At the time of my meeting Asa, I was caught up in the pain of Siltech, Valhalla, and other more mainstream brands. After a few emails with him I felt that Asa's experience with various cables paralleled mine in many ways. His knowledge, suggestions, and vivid descriptions were most welcome. Quite frankly, Asa saved me a lot of time and money with his suggestions.
These forums are designed to help people and this is a case where it did. Asa, through the forum, guided me from being a chronic 4 interconnect a week user to finding something that worked very well. Of course if we had never met, I would have eventually found the right cables - I just might be a lot poorer.
Asa
Thanks for your help!!
Sead
Nothing for you - The personal insults and degrading comments you have so eloquently defecated upon this forum are inappropriate, as I am sure you well know. I will not entertain your banal existence with fuel for further insolence. |
Bwhite, I'm glad that you find proper cables and that you returned magic, involvement and right speed to your system.
After all, OTA is a lesser cable design and its main purpose is to connect 47 labs components, nothing more.
But, you have to admit that OTA has struggled very good with your esoteric cable designs!
Happy listening,
Ivo |
