Ying/yang is the function of cognition directed at the "what is", which, presto!, even science points to as infinite in its physical reflection to this structuring perception (remember, "infinity" is an abstraction for an experience beyond terms, beyong dualistic encompassment; if all is infinite, then there can be no non-infinite separate from it; words and science point to it so we can talk, but the infinite is expereinced in a trans-dual space of the mind).
Ying and Yang, twl, you say perhaps never meeting but never apart? The symmetry of your observance determines whether you only see one (Ying/Yang as manifestation of your dualistic cognition, seeking to manipulate things) or view the world dualistically AND a perception beyond those limitations that integrates both IN THE SAME MOMENT OF SIGHT (integrating Ying/Yang seen manifesting through the cognitive's mind construction of "what is" and, also, at once, through the trans-cognitive sight integrating opposition). This "see-ing" both ways at once has to do with the causal ground of Ying/Yang, and seeing this arisement as it arises as your own mind's constructed cognitive processing. You have to observe your own processing until you know that "you" are not only those constructs; you settle by "letting go" of your attachment to all thought as defining your ground nature. This open space of the mind, stably reached, reveals both sights at once.
Every road is a road towards this integration. "Data" may point in that direction, or our words here for that matter, but only YOU can go there with your OWN MIND; the "what is" is suseptible to measurement of others to give you pointing koans, and pointing mathematics on subset and/or chaos and/or quantum uncertainty theories, but you can not look to the others' "measurements" to go there; you must have the courage/faith to go there yourself, beyond the ideas of yourself. Until then, you will live in a world where you believe in the paradox, a dualism of separablity your thoughts inherently impose, rather than seeing its integral resolution in each moment of experience, thinking or not, "you" or "other".
It is not only a knowledge for Kings, or for Kings of knowledge...
PS Wonderful words twl.
Have a nice wkend all. |
Realism. Always. Because Neutrality implies measured flat system response from 5 hz (or whatever that low is ) to 20K hz (or whatevr that high is) at certain intervals say 16 hz , 20 hz, 32 hz and so forth. What happens in between is what the Realistic well nuanced musical system sounds.
Realistic well nuanced musical system reproduces realistic tonal balance not only fundamentals but also lower and upper harmonics of an instrument. Analytical Neutral systems don't necessarily does that hence could be uninvolving.
Other way to look at this is: A piano notes from 25hz lowest to 8 K hz highest. Analytical system can measure flat even say (but may not) 25 hz, 26 hz, 27 hz and to 7999hz , 8000 hz of piano notes. But what happens at undertones, overtones, overall tonal balance. There is no way to measure the' flatness' of these wide band at each freq cut-off.
Therefore a realistic, Well nuanced musical system, if there is way to measure, will come close to live sound of the same very well recording.
GOD IS IN THE NUANCE (realistic). An audiophile slogan. |
Since mics, etc. will always take away something from the original sound, it would seem components would have to add some of that back. Meaning the must put out more than they get in.
Not the best example but: say SET's are quicker than reality. Since some speed is lost in the recording process, SET's just put it back at the realistic amount of the original event. |
Cdc, an argument like that could be used to justify engineers using EQ, harmonic enhancers and other creative outboard devices. |
There are some wonderful comments here and I want to posit a few thoughts.There is a simple way to check "real" in your room in your home.I assume some of us own and play acoustic instruments or can go to acoustic house concerts in there cities and or invite musicians to your home to play and get some free grub(they love that).Sit in your sweet spot,listen, make notes,how does the attack,decay and timbral qualities sound to you with a real instrument in your room.My wife plays her taylor guitar in the living room where the system is so I can make comparisons.Is this the perfect solution?,no but it is one way to reference sans opinion and hyperbole.I like to find solutions to questions like these and not run down my battery on conjecture.Between the hundreds of us here we can find a referencing tool for checking the realism of our systems and a guitar,violin,horn,singers,drummers and others in your listening room does it for me. |
I've occasionally had esteemed, graying jazz musicians play live alongside my Steinway, between my Parsifal Encores.
Mostly standup, acoustic guitar, voice, and violin.
I'm impressed by the fact that I can REPRODUCE my piano by careful mic placement such that its bottom end sounds BETTER than live! Ha! There's no mystery, here, afterall, as the left Earthworks mic sits so close to the soundboard and lower strings that I can "make" my beloved "B" sound bigger and better through my Encores than the set of wavefronts that hit me when I'm playing the thing. It's all about wave propagation and summation at the listening (playing) position. Sure the top octaves are more complex live, with that truly wonderful "B magic octave", etc.
So the more-neutral (huh?) reproduced position sounds BETTER (thanks to purely-objective, science-proven stuff about physics, mic placement, Earthworks' transient response, a fully-Class A amp chain, etc.) than my oh-so-"REAL" 800 lb, 7' friggin acoustic transducer IN THE ROOM!
So the above discussion's "it's so nice that them poles should meet" near-waltz resolution and male-bonding now has to address THIS redefining of the turf! Would ya?...could ya? (And PLEASE keep Jung, Mazwell (my collegiate days fave) and Kant (especially, you engineers!) outta this.
And Asa's only allowed 20% of the thread-inches (sorry, I love ya too, buddy, but my eyes grow tired at these early AMs).....
So I'm a pig cryin' in shit: I'll be able to make recordings of MYSELF IN MY ROOM that sound as good as the near-best commercial ones (except for room ambience, of course), so I can't complain...'ceprt I can't figure out how to use this Alesis Masterlink....
A grateful and happy Thanksgiving to all! |
Onhwy, I bought a used GRACE 2ch Lunatec mic pre for $800, rather than two glitzy 101s. Glad I did: the small Lunatec velco's under the piano out of sight, its detented knobs are finger-friendly in the dark, and its TOTALLY silent.
Get one used NOW as it's been replaced by the Lunatec V3 with a DAC in it for $300 more. The Alesis has a fine DAC, so it'd be redundant. Readers should note that I made 40 foot cheap-but-great Canare XLRs from mic thru pre thru Masterlink to Aleph P! $0.44/ft! A pro favorite, and now I know why. Yet when it came time to connect the Masterlink to the beloved Aleph P pre, my left/right brain balancing act between Asa's subjectivity (Nordost?) and pro engineers' (TWO of 'em watching me intently, laughing all the way) objectivity (more Canare) resulted in a crisis of audiophilia nervosa...so I made the Canares AND bought a 1/2m Blue Heaven XLR (at least I didn't get SPM, eh?).
My new/old piano teacher insists that I perfect getting my lower back energy projecting into my Brahms' chords, instead of sweating the wire. Man '0 man is she right? No wonder we marry these other-chromosomed types, eh? Cheers. |
Twl,
Ying and Yang is dualism. The "truth" is non-dual... The "supreme truth" cannot be contradicted to each other! Ying/Yang can only bring you to the door, but not into "the house". This is where "great men" are different from men... |
Yes, yes, can we take a break now? |
|
|
Most everyone in one way or another have touched on my feelings about "neutrality" and "realism" so I won't expound, but I'll tell a quick story. About 26 years ago(give or take) I was just getting into my first "high-end" system ( Musical Concepts modified Hafler DH200amp and DH 101 preamp,Linn Sondek LP-12w/Monster Alpha MC,cassette deck(CD wasn't around yet)and the new DCM Time Windows. This wasn't state-of-the-art but it was musical for me and since I was still trying to complete college and money was tight, I thought it was acceptable. A friend of mine had another system that he was proud of( I can't remember the amplification, but the speakers were some floor-standing Janzen electrostats) so it came down to a competition of who had the best-sounding system. After listening to each other's sytem for many hours on several weekend visits, we each felt our own system was the better set-up. One night, while we were embibing heavily on some Crown Royal bourbon ( we were at my friend's house), my friend looked at me and asked," How can you say your system is better when it is obvious my system sounds better. I told him," Look,your system sounds nice, but mine sounds more life-like and realistic." He then smiled and said,"Well, maybe, but mine sounds better than real." I guess the moral to this story is "realism" is in the ear of the beholder.We all hear differently and what sounds more real to me may not to you.That's why we'll always have the s.s. vs. tube debates,etc., and why a website like Audiogon will never die out as long as there are audiophiles. There are many camps in musicdom and we all need to respect each other's opinion of what sounds best to us. |
Crown Royale Bourbon!? I thought that Crown Royal was whiskey. No wonder you can't agree on "realism", you don't even know the "real" whiskey!
Salut, Bob P. |
Whiskey,bourbon. I don't drink anymore so who cares? Besides, it's spelled Royal, not Royale. And who said I can't tell what's reality ? As they said in the Old West, Bob, " Here's lookin' at ya "...I'm sorry you missed the point of my story,you little nit-picker,you... |
Sherod, I didn't miss the point of your story, but what is most of audiophilia if it isn't picking nits. BTW, I did spell Royal correctly the second time!
You and your friend were not really discussing which system was more realistic (both of your systems are quite good), but discussing taste. Goes with the bourbon, er, whiskey.
Salut, Bob P. |
