Let's forget about being politically correct

Shubert: I'm not sure if you heard, but today it was announced that, perhaps, a Russian mathematician had proved Poincare's Theorem. To do this he employed a mathematical device to "round" geometric space. In other words, in order to prove the postulate, an approximation device was used (actually, that device was already found earlier, but there were still some large "bumps" left on the solid; the newest device is an extension of that one, which removes the remaining large bumps; an approximation device used on an approximation). They say it will resolve many vexing Newtonian spatial problems in higher math, so that's a good thing - especially because the guy, if his peer group agrees that he's right, about two years from now, he'll get $2 million from the Clay Foundation, and undoubtedly the Field's Medal on top of that. BIG discovery - but, its still an approximation...

On the "Other" part: yes, science grasps what it can of the other. The problem is when one confuses the material with sentience, or being. Yes, science is anthropocentric - human centered - yet, not only in its reduction of human mind into a thing, but also non-human mind into meaninglessness, which is actually what I study. This, IMHO, is the biggest problem we, as a species, presently face. Its not about cognition, but about transcending an attachment to the power of cognition over the objectified "Other", in matter, in human mind as categorized as matter, and, in non-human being as categorized as a product-thing, as matter; and, its about a concurrent opening of empathic identification with being where "other" evaporates...

TOK, hello. You make some very good points, especially about the fact that the proof is in the subjective pudding. In other words, how can you describe the color purple to a blind man? The premise is that only experience is the final arbiter, for yourself. With that said, carrying that position to the extreme and saying that dialogue becomes radically relative because only listening will tell you the truth is, well, epistimologically unsound - to use some "philosophy" - because that position relativises all knowledge that is conveyed. In other words, although I say that words or math is an approximation, saying that does not reduce all such knowledge to a relativistic morasse (as Shubertmaniac was worried about above, and Immanuel Kant before him). And, I might add, by relativising all knowledege as equal, you negate dialogue, even the opinion, interestingly, that you just gave. As you might know, philosophically speaking, that is called a performative error, meaning that you give an opinion that all opinion is equal, so how can that opinion itself be truer?

So, I assume you must not believe that completely because you do offer your opinion as a basis for your belief: that based upon a comparison between one tube preamp and one SS pre you, impliedly, assert your position. However, a proper empiric experiment, at least one that is brought to a peer group, needs a higher sample rate in order to be valid.

But I can take your opinion without the empiric validity because, well, I have a personal context: I've read your posts and have the feel that you love music and have some pretty good ears (the Ayre IS a nice piece). Well, then, in that context, all I can say is that I'm glad that you have found happiness with the Ayre and its certainly not about dueling preamps here. What I would ask is that you keep your mind open to expanding your sample, say, to a AudioNote Kondo, or a Supratek, or a Joule (although that wouldn't be my personal recommendation in your situation), or a Callisto. Frankly, Brimars or no Brimars, I think you might hear something over time with the Supratek, or if you pulled it out. Again, glad that you are happy. Thank you for braving the breach with your thoughts.

Shubertmaniac, well said. I think it is important to try to maintain an appropriate balance between the scientific, the anectodal, and that emotional response with which we clumsily and perhaps inadequately try to ART(?)iculate, both expressively and receptively.

Asa, my mind is open. I would wholly agree that the Supratek is a killer preamp. A local friend of mine got one recently (one of my tube friends). I love the piece, and it works well in his system. One day he will bring it down to my system. And, I may even get one eventually. The Supratek is better than his other preamp which is a tube one and was made for him specially by a tube equipment designer (I cringe to think how much money he has in his old preamp).

I personally think that preamps are some of the hardest pieces for companies to do well. So many of them are not good at all... My opinion is that the preamp tends to be the component that puts the biggest sonic fingerprint on the end sound of the music. However, I also think that one badly matched AC cord in a system can totally screw up the sound as well...

I have had other tube preamps before, but I used the SF3SE and Ayre K-3x as comperable high dollar examples. I do know there are not too many preamps I would be happy with, and very few would make my short audition (should I have to come up with one: Hovland HP100, Ayre K-1x, Supratek preamps, and Niagra PL-L.

I even am very fond of tube amps. I have a friend who has the Tenors in an absolutely reference system, and the Tenors + the rest of his system totally blows me away. I once almost bought a pair of the Wolcotts, but when I brought them home their were technical problems (turned out something came unsodered). Anyway I returned them. They would have probably sounded pretty darn good heh heh. My only problem with tube amps is the cost of maintaining the tubes. The more power they can put out, usually the more tubes they have, and the more it costs to retube them. My 2 channel system is used for both HT and 2 channel so my two channel amp is left on 24/7 and gets a good workout. I would go through amp tubes fast.

KF

TOK: yes, tubes can be a hassle, especially on amps. I had an early Jadis that required 8 matched outputs, 4 matched drivers and 2 matched inputs that drove me up the wall. Actually, I don't think I could live witha big multi-tube amp again. That why I've settled on the SE route; many compromises in dynamics - you can get them, but you really have to balance it out correctly if using anything other than horns (and I've never been a horn guy...) - but let's me have the existential qualities I talked about above with minimum of tube hassles. So, I do know what you mean.

I agree wholeheartedly on what you said about pre's; I think that's why I yap about them so much, and why I've pushed the Supratek here. The pre is really the fulcrum of the system. In a beginning system, many times its best to construct a system from the speakers back (a relative statement guys; I know everything is important...), but I've found at some point it is very hard to get everything to click - at the point of delving into PC's as you mentioned - unless you build from the pre outwards. Yea, I know, speakers are the most personal choice, and you should never get speakers to make a pre happy, but I assume at that level the person knows what speakers work for him/her; the pre is the tough one, the integrator of the system, if you will, at that point.

I know what people mean by mushy tube sound. Many tube components are euphonic band-aids (many times for digital systems...), but that usually is encountered in beginning systems (where tuning is impossible to get around so you might as well deal with it as best you can, implanting a glimmer of what is possible and making the system, at the very least, non-fatiguing). With more advanced sytems, IMHO, you start to hear the pre weaknesses, both euphonic and in the ways I've described above, in that order. So, a euphonic pre may be a relative, valuable panacea in a beginning to mid-level system, but when the system moves to another level, the tube pre is left behind. That doesn't mean, as many people who make this transition assume, that any tube pre thereafter will be "colored". Believing so would be like saying an Ayre has the same degree of distortive artifacts as a beginner SS pre because lesser SS pre's generally retain that hallmark.

Anyway, things change as you go up the ladder, and valid assumptions at one point of system transition are not necessarily valid farther on. My position is that in the "magical" systems - and the "magic" of pyschic immersion in the event of musicality is what you end up shooting for towards the end - a tube pre, as a fulcrum of such system, is nearly indispensible towards attaining the spatial/dimensional/existential qualities in the stereo that catalyze the listening mind towards these deepest receptive levels of "art appreciation".

I want to be immersed in Van Gogh's "Wheat Fields and Cyprees Trees" - to be transported into the essence of beauty and exist within and as "it". And while I appreciate the realism of an Inge, or the brushwork of Sargeant, painting reality in terms of what the less deep mind sees as an accurate rendition of reality does not mean that because of that accuracy you will experience the art - the art you create when you put together a system - necessarily the same way at deeper symmetries of perception.

Reducing distortive artifacts is an admirable goal, but should, in the later transitions of your audio journey, not be a determitive one (this is not a lecture to you TOK, just me blathering again...).

TOK, I would be very interested in your reaction to the Supratek. I recommend it alot around here, and one of the reasons is because its detail and dynamics are so strong that people coming from SS - where those qualities are accentuated - don't recoil from its percieved absense as much. A "state-of-the-art" tube pre is not a piece that is appreciated right away, especially if you have a good SS pre already. With such SS pre's its hard to point to what they are not doing - its a subtle ommission of the existential qualities I talked about above - until you live with a (assumably) non-euphonic, hard-wired, dynamic NOS outfitted tube pre for a while, and then, and this is important, then take it out. Only then do you realize over the next month what is missing. It won't come to you right away because its not the thinking part of the mind that is missing it; the ommision needs time to arise into your non-listening thoughts, so to speak. This is because, as I've noted above, they are percieved, or their absense, when you are listening and not-thinking.

Oh, BTW, last thing: You have to have the right IC running from the pre to the amp in a tube system (and even with a tube pre/SS amp system, although to a lesser degree). Its critical, folks, so going from a SS system and using your Nordost isn't going to cut it. As we know, when a more musical component is inserted into a system, synergy usually requires that those pieces around it move up too. When accuracy is your goal, you can stay with the same Nordost-like IC's longer; but with a systems that aims towards the "magical" the IC becomes integral.

Asa: I was able to follow along with your last post 100% : ) I have to say that i agree with the points that you were making and found one point particularly interesting. That is, your comments about Nordost cabling.

The little bit of Nordost that i've tried did sound very "accurate" i.e. very detailed, fast, clean, etc..., but a large portion of the "magic" or "musicality" seemed to be knocked out of the system at the same time. Part of this might have been due to the lack of bass weight & warmth / shift in tonal balance that i experienced. The funny thing is that, according to most High End reviewers, the expensive Nordost stuff is the cream of the crop. My guess is that many of us have very different priorities & goals for our systems and this is just further evidence of that point.

Kind of funny how there are SO many variables that can be affected at one time by one component or cable change. Sean
>