Ok this will be a good thread.
Oh uncle and Marco, don't be spoiled sports. What are you afraid of? Big words, big idea? What makes it look big to you? Yes, switching to that Rapala floater was a good move... 6ch: yes, of course. Before man = deeper face. Also, though, "level face" = face: Form not different from form-less; form-less not separate from form. I know, as soon as I open my mouth and spat out "level" you/it/Tao hits me with a bamboo! :0) (and another :0) for now frowning Marco who doesn't like symbol ":0)") But, "level" "flag" "grain" are the floaters... On stereo, yes, pragmatist, you are right. It is how you make a sauce that determines how it tastes. Putting together a streeo is an art, which is why I like talking to all of you stereo-artists - some even stereo artist-teachers like twl, and in a different way 6ch. And even those of you who are in the closet about your "art" because it doesn't sound "scientific" enough (to the mirror), or has big words (like big macs and big fins...) BTW, who is L. Frank Baum? What did he say? Twitch, twitch. Twitch, twitch goes the line... |
Trolling, trolling, over the bounding sea! I like the little smiley guys just as much as the next guy Mark. L. Frank Baum was the author of the Wizard of Oz and that series of books. It ain't da big bad words that scare me. "Big" ideas? Huh?! "I think, therefore I.......must ascribe meaning and categorize every last quark, and every subtle nuance in the guise of some fabricated concept of "perfection" that is patently absurd?! You are an "artist" and therefore shall be worthy of more reverence and esteem than the next man who doesn't take life quite as seriously, or address their interests with such a degree of passion and or obsession as to shut off the rest of the world and discount other limitless possibillities. Yes, the coastline can be seen as both a complex and jagged line, AND a straight and smooth line, while out in space it's all just an insignificant spec of infintesmally unimportant dust... as are we. Now I'm getting into some Kafka and Heinrich Boll! The coastline can also be seen as a pipe wrench, a tree, or anything else you care to come up with,.... or not. Yes, I am frowning Marco right now Mark, I am crying, I am not happy right now. My dog Jax, my best friend of 13 years just died on Monday night. That kind of loss really puts all this B.S. into a whole different perspective. No offence intended, but it's really meaningless at face value. We make our own meaning and if you care to complicate it ad-infinitum, have at it. The Beatles, and countless other prophets, poets, artists, writers, gurus, as well as many other ordinary people (as are all of the previous list as well), they all have said it in so many different ways and in every conceivable language, and it is oh so simple: Love is all you need. And I think it was Steve Martin (as, "The Jerk") who may have added, ".....and this chair, that's all I need is this chair.....oh, and this paddle game,...and this..." Best, Marco |
Marco, truly sorry for your loss. Yes, they have souls... When they pass, that is when we confront the unknown, or what we percieve as Darkness. I understand. But ask, when the "I" defines inside and outside as Darkness, as a postmodern "no exit", what "me" is created? From there, can we love? Be still. |
Thank you for your kind words William & Mark. Rest assured Mark, that through the darkness I can also see how bright her light was. The light lingers even in her absence. I do celebrate her light as well as well as mourn the loss of her companionship. Were I lost in the darkness you would not be reading these words here at all. You are surely right Mark, they do indeed have souls. Marco |
Marco, I've been through that recently also. Very sorry to hear that it has happened to you. I thought that I couldn't get another dog, after that happened. But after 3 months, I couldn't live without one, either. I finally got another one, and it made all the difference in the world. You can't replace them, but you can love another one. When you feel like you can, then give it a try. |
You guys are getting me crying again! Thank you all for caring for a relative stranger. Twl we are blessed with a second wonderful angel of a dog who was Jax' companion for the past three years. His name is Diesel (appropriate for a 115 lb Bullmastiff). He misses Jax as much as we do and I think keeps wondering when she's going to show up again. Perhaps in the future we may consider yet another to be Diesel's companion. You are right though, there was only one 'Jax' and no other like her. Pardon the digression to a subject far from the topic of the post as well as from stereo gear in general. Those who share my love for dogs can get a few smiles from some pics I've done of Jax on a friends website here She made a whole lot of people smile in her lifetime. Thank you for the latitude and bandwidth to share her with all of you. Marco |
Very nice photos, Marco. I have a 135 pound male Rottweiler named Magnum. He just turned 2 years old, and was born on my 46th birthday. My previous Rottweiler was named Thunder and he died at 6 years old from cancer. He was as good as they get. I like the "big dogs" like you do. My dog is scary as hell to look at, but he's just a big baby to me. He wears a 30 inch collar! My old next door neighbor(who moved away now) was a Pit Bull breeder, and had 37 of them next door. Blues, Red Noses, Brindles, Black and White, all kinds. He had this awesome Red Nose named Chief that was 105 pounds of solid muscle. A perfect traditional Southern Red Nose with a head like a concrete block. A very awesomely beautiful dog. Give Diesel a big hug for me. |
Keeping the dogs at bay (I'm a cat lover), and getting back on topic. SPEAKERS are obviously the most important link in the chain!! For the reason given by others above that they are the most prone to aspects of distortion. All modern electronic equipment after a $1000 price point are generally competent and good at controlling distortion figures, but the accuracy of speakers varies greatly - regardless of price. Speakers have the greatest 'physical' impact on the sound produced in your house. THEY PHYSICALLY SHIFT AIR AND THEREFORE REACT TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ROOM. All speakers interact differently with different rooms, so the opportunity for error (ie, bad sound) is much greater. A loudspeaker's response and interaction with a room (and positioning) is one of the biggest arbiters in determining good/bad sound overall. When was the last time you chose a Preamp, Power Amp, a CDP, a DVDP, a DAC or a hi-end turntable because it did or didn't suit your room ?? Not very often I imagine... While on the subject of turntables, and to give you an historical perspective on this topic. Who do you think was one of the first people to hypothesise that the front end is the most important component? It was none other than Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn Sondek turntable fame, in the early 1970's. Naturally, being a purveyor (seller) of hi-end turntables - he would say this, wouldn't he? The hi-fi press at the time bought this fable and we've had to live with it for the last 30yrs or more. Ivor has a lot to answer for, considering also that his bouncy turntable set-up is not the most accurate transducer either! Regards, |
Stevem 1960, nice to hear someone with a sense of perspective on things audio. I have no idea of your age, but that may very well be a factor in your views. The source first notion, while appearing logical, is flawed in that it is based on the premise that all the links in the audio chain offer the same challenge to the designer and manufacturer. That's how you get audiophiles to accept that cables are as important as sources, preamps, amps or speakers. Once you put each link on the same footing, swallowing the source first notion is a direct consequence. Could you help me out here? A comment on the archival superiority of digital I made in another thread elicited the response that someone should buy me a pony. What does that expression mean, aside from the fact that my not consistently coming down on the side of analog in the GREAT DEBATE relegates me to the ranks of a tin-eared mid-fier (or worse)? Regards. |
Pbb, your premise is that "challenge to manufacturer" - as in, design sophistication at the construction level - determines "importance" of component in sound. Again, this is your scientific materialist bias once more on display (and feigning higher maturity with Stevem because of it, i.e. translating your ideology into ego inflation, which is what, not coincidentally, scientific materialism IS because it is motivated by a attachment to power over matter). In such an attachment, the mind believes that the manipulation of the thing of matter, in this case the construction of a stereo component, is the most "important" determinant of the "quality" of sound produced by that technology. In other words, complexity of construction of technology determines "quality" of output. Again, this is an attachment to the "complexity" - so percieved (see below) - of technology, because the scientific materialist mind is attached to his technologic tools (which are the means of his/her greater power over matter). This position, yours, in its logical extension - and, you are only using logic, and its all that you believe exists for deriving truth - dictates the worn-out premise, now widely discarded, that a person can look at a circuit and tell what sound comes out. Or - and here's the important part - how that output will effect the mind of the listener in terms of receptivity to the musical message. Now, back to your "sophistication" premise itself. This, again, is a bias towards complexity of construction in the technologic tool, then transposing that bias into the meaning, "sophisticated" (because, I mean, pbb, you MUST be correct if you are more sophisticated in your arrangement of matter, right?). But let's take a closer look at your premise, which is: more parts, preferably moving parts so we can really see how "complex" the techno-thing is, means something is more sophisticated. In other words, and regardless of the result of an experiment - namely, listening to the importance of a component on the sound and its effects on your mind - your premise dictates that a cable is less "important" because it is less complex by virtue of its assumed lower design sophistication. In other words, you attach determintive importance to technology (matter)at the expense of the result of the experiment. Your attachment dictates that the complexity of the technology determines effect, but regardless of the actual effect, you will ignore that effect if not in keeping with your bias! Scientists who ignore the results of experiments in default to an attachment to their technology are not being, uh, very scientif-ic. If a cable-thing, as material condiut, engenders in the mind of the listener an increased receptivity to musical meaning then, per se, it is more important. If a cable-thing engenders a new result, then regardless of how many moving parts you would like to juice your egoic lizard, it is more "sophisticated". The changed result, scientifically speaking, determines the next adaption in empiric method to achieve the next result, not the material technology-thing that was the conduit for the observation of that result. To believe otherwise, is per se an attachment to the material at the expense of the very premises of scientific method it prays allegiance to - and, at the expense of the Music. Yes, pbb, I know what you like to hear and why you claim digital is superior (assumably without conducting a proper experiment on yorself, relying, unscientifically, on the material "sophistication" rather than a result that would challenge your bias...). You are a scientific materialist, as much a zeolot for that ideology as any other fundamentalist: you see the world as material, through that prism, and, hence you compare objects for your results from matter. You look out at sound as a thing to be objectified; you seek "accuracy" and "detail" so as to further carve boundaries around the sound projection, to make it easier to percieve as if an object. Space as an integral vessel for the sound projection is relegated to a void, because you are focused on the sound-thing and not the space. You create a soundscape that is populated by a near visual experience of sound-objects of heightened detail boundaries, even more in relief from your void background of space, because the visual senses are object-oriented. You choose digital because, as a newer technological thing, you believe it is more "sophisticated", but below that, you choose it because it makes it easier for you to see the sound object. Any transition boundary not delineated is called "euphonic", etc., etc. pbb, argue for your limitaions and, sure enough, they are yours. You are the man on the ground saying the Earth is flat, needing to say it to stay with all of your things, and the power over things. My only question for you: Do you believe that dogs have souls? And why? |
Damn, pbb, you've become a dry hole...and, thereby, have made me one (!) (fade in: rousing shouts from the gallery!!). So, if you are not a Tarpon, and dogs have souls, and the orientation of the mind creates the mind that then listens to the next note, hearing the Silence a bit more between the notes, then what "are" you then? Hmmm. Hello Muralman! Goodbye 6ch and twl, til meet you fishing next time! BTW, we have notes and what's between notes, or sound and silence. But, what comes first? Is it an irrelvant question in the context of how we build our stereos, and to what is the most "important" component? I don't think so, and here is why in the context of what component is most "important" at any given point on the curve of learning to listen better. It isn't sound-then-silence, like flipping from one to the next, because, even using the causality laws of physics, one must precede the other; and, thereby, be the causal ground of the other. It is: notes ARISE out of silence. So, if silence is prior to sound, don't you think its "important" - as in, determitively important in the first instance, the first causal instance - that silence, or dimension, be a priority of a component? And, lo and behold, isn't it the feeling of dimension/space/continuity that is the Grail of the best stereos? Maybe one could then counter by saying that the sound is equally important as silence, and that's true, but in the best systems, isn't it the act of INFUSING the harmonic, as its ground, deeper and deeper, which makes it "better"? twl, when you get a "better" TT and harmonics become "better" within the core projection of voice, isn't it 1) the continuity of the projection through space getting better, and 2) the harmonic progressively infused with a ground of air/space/dimension that has improved to the most appreciable degree, even within the projection itself, and therefore, becomes most "important"? Just some ideas thrown out. :0) |
My version about the dog is different, though. - The dog (being) has soul (no mind); therefore, it dares (desire without desire) to jump into the water, run through the fire, to save it friend (owner). - The dog (being) has soul and mind (thinks that the mind is the soul => consfused) that's why it hates the postman. :-) |
6ch: in mine here, being = soul and mind = think. I like the action stuff, though. Dog's mind is even more thing orientated than we are; it doesn't "like" the postman-thing in its place-thing (territory). It is a child... Who here hates the postman (message delivery man)? Twitch, twitch goes the popper. |
Asa & 6chac - If you had a few more participants you could have an Audiogon Circle-Jerk going on. Sounds from his last post like Asa already spent his wad though! Heck, a bit of Viagra and you'll be up and hummin' in no time. I don't know if you'll find many more A'goners who can talk that Alan Watts- Krishnamurti-Kahil Ghibran schpeel, but I'm getting myself all hot and bothered by all that intellectual, literary and philisophical prowess being demonstrated! My word, what big vocabularies you two have!! What wild imaginations!! OOOHHHH, don't point that thing at me sailor, it might go off! Marco PS Thar she blows!! Man the harpoon!!! ;-p |
Marco, the net is the circle. You know how to spell Krishnamurti; congrats, by that act, you are in the circle! BTW, I'm sure there is someone out there that, even though they know how to spell "Krishnamurti", will say you are purposely using big words to, well, you never really say... (volitional obfuscation, is that want you want to say, but, for some reason, don't?). But, hold on a second, you understand the words here, but are saying the same thing as what some undoubtedly feel on your Krishnamurti-Ghibran name drop! Hmmm, I wonder what that incongruency means? People, when they know what a word means, do not recoil from it per se, but rather from its meaning. A common ploy is to attack the "big-ness" of a word when you are really not willing to engage on a conceptual level. This ploy assumes, in fact counts on, that there are other people out there, in the hinterlands, just waiting to crest the hill with pitchforks, that feel similarly but who have not said so. The rallying of people against "big" words - even though, incongruently, you understand them - is an inauthentic action to suppress the idea or meaning that the word or words denote (Stone the witch!). Marco, I don't think anything has been "obfuscated" from you, either intentionally or not, but rather you are just having a little temper tantrum (don't blame the dog-feeling this week...) that you are not able to "win", and which I assume you are used to most of the time. Close enough to the bone? |
Ah Asa - you mistook my post as agressive and I regret to inform you that it was not intended that way. My apologies if it came off as being contentious. Your "welcome to the circle" was more the response I had expected as I was fully aware that, in posting what I did, I was most certainly spanking the monkey online. Ain't we all? Indeed the net IS the circle! Well put. As far as "understanding" the BIG words, and your in-depth analasys of my conflicted motivations; In truth I am amused and delighted by yours and 6chac's verbal jousting, as much as I was amused by your criticisms above. Love to be challenged, entertained and 'enlightened' to the chi and the tao in such an unlikely forum. On that note I clasp my hands together, close my eyes, and bow ever so slightly from the waste so as not to give either of you two master-fisherman access to my nether-regions, and back towards the door never taking my eyes from either of you! All the best, Marco |
No sweat Asa! I was hoping the reference to Melville at the end might have clued you in to my intentions of 'oneness-in-wanking', but I can see it could be easily overlooked or misinterpreted. Nevertheless, as I said, I did enjoy your retort regardless. Loved the image of the "people out there, in the hinterlands, just waiting to crest the hill with pitchforks" ...had me laughing out loud! You are a gifted writer! Hope you put that gift to some good use. I always cross-reference folks I enjoy (or sometimes don't particularly enjoy..in your case it is the former) with their answers from the past to get a better point of reference. I must say, I really enjoyed your responses on a thread titled "TUBES Do It -- Transistors Don't. I have never read that particular position so eloquently and articulately posited as you did in that thread. I just happen to agree completely and that contributes to my appreciation of your mastery of the word. You can still have 6chac beat you with a broom if you like, but don't do it on my account! Regards, Marco |
Gosh, I've been freelancing my whole life, when did they go and change weekends to Thursday?! I want to be in your time zone Mark! Or is it one of those weird holidaze dictated by who knows who....the Dairy industry perhaps?! Is it Elsie the Cow's Birthday?! Wish I had a boss who would stop me.....bet you wish I had a boss who would stop me too! Perhaps the moderator will catch on and stop all of us! Auggggghhhhhh, Ahhhhhhhh, uhh, uhh, uhh, ohhhhh! I think I made a mess of my keyboard8oeiuy9()0(**)(09(&()(&&$%### M*a&(*(r_((#c)(()@#$o |
Jax2, you are very funny! I had a good laugh! I am not worthy of yor praise. I am no intelligence, I don't use big words, I am bad in literature, and don't care about philosophy. I'd only read Lao Tzu twice (one time in my language, other time in English), at the time I don't understood zap. I read Krishna once in English, in the library; now, compare my English to date to about a couple dozen years ago, need I say more? I hardly read pass the sixth page! I read a lot of Buddhist Sutras, again my little brain could not hold it, so mostly forgotten, same as the Bibles! Marco, the word "weekend" is only a a word. Pick any moment/minute/hour/day/month/year/centuries/pass/present/future, etc... and call it a "weekend" it will be a "weekend"... "They" as of who? YOU! You get the meaning you can change the wording, You don't get the meaning, you're stuck in word! Live word is word that refects meaning. Have a nice weekend. :-) |
Marco, While impressive, THE POWER OF CHI cannot hope to match THE POWER OF CHIA. Once you fully grok this deep truth, meditate on this haiku: If your dog, Green with envy, applies right filter will he be well Red? |
Thanks guys. Came back from wkend and got a big laugh form above! Call me thoroughly "grok'd"!! Question: what is the sound of one green Chia dog clapping; when I look at a green Chia dog walking (Sean Penn to be cast in the new Miramax film), is the dog moving or my mind? When you are listening to your stereo and deep into the Music and your thoughts are settled, quiet in the mind, receptive to "what is", and you open your eyes and there is a green dog standing in front of you. In the moment before you say "green" what is the dog? What are "you"? Answer: 6ch's No-thing. But as I say this, 6ch hits me with a stick! Why? The Galena woods are green. |
The finger's only use is to point to the moon, it's not the moon; words, sentences, languages only use is to reflect the "true meaning" (non-dual). Once the meaning is understood, words themselves'-destructed; "No perceiver, no perceived, only perceiv-ing"; no path, no searcher, no searching... Well said, Asa... |
Jax2, did you say you too busy on Rel's Haiku? Keep on busy with it, some meaningful words. Don't get me wrong, it will turn red. Once it does, you will thank Rel for it. We talk all day (weeks), Rel only writes one quote! How powerful... Rel, did it turn red for you? Or rather... Look! The sky is red... |
