Albert Porters after market panzerholz plinths

"Just some thoughts; fire away."

Frogman,

you've got the passion which is likely 98% of the battle in my mind! Most of the rest doesn't really matter.

Where can we buy the PanzerHolz wood? ... I really want to try.

Thanks

Frogman, The relation between the whole and the parts is called aggregate when the parts are 'similar' or composition when the parts are disimilar. A sentence or statement, for example, is a composition. The notion of essence is from Aristotle. For him then a particular part
must be essencial while the other parts are 'only' accidental. This doctrine is called 'essencialism' but is untenable in logical, philosophical and scientific sence. Why should ,say, word 'is' in 'S is P' (subject predicat)be
essential? BTW the 'is' in this 'S is P' composition has 4 different logical readings so as a consequence we need a new determination of the 'essence' among those 4 logical readings of ,seemingly, 'the same word'.
There are some 'parts' of a composition, say a symphony, that we may like more then the other parts. To me every person is free to choose his own 'beloved part'. While we
all have probable different inclinations or sensitivitys we
have this in common that we love music in general.
Regards,

Google is your friend.

BKB Industrial in Ontario carries it. Couldn't find any sources in the states.

**** The notion of essence is from Aristotle. For him then a particular part
must be essencial while the other parts are 'only' accidental. This doctrine is called 'essencialism' but is untenable in logical, philosophical and scientific sence.****

Namdric, in one of your own posts in a different, previous thread you also wrote:

****I was wrong to suppose some kind of 'objective facts' behind our preferences****.

I disagree.

Aristotle was correct. The notion of "essence" is at the root of many of the discussions/arguments that we engage in, in our efforts to determine the superiority of one "part" over another similar part. It is usually a pointless argument because there is always that pesky issue of "preferences". But, the fact that we all have our preferences does not invalidate the existence of an indentifiable "essence". Or, to use a term dear to audiophiles, an "Absolute". The real issue, as I see it, is the normal and very human discomfort that we all feel at the notion that our own personal knowledge and understanding is incomplete; that there is room for further knowledge and understanding.

In that same previous thread you also correctly pointed out the "we all hear the same way". Putting aside the issue of the "interpretation" of what we are hearing, you are absolutely correct. As concerns music and sound, the "essence" of music is something that is most definitely identifiable and recognizable. Extensive exposure to the sound of live music is not the only way to gain a deeper understanding of the essence of music, but it is certainly the most effective. I say "not the only way", because the power of music is something that will always touch us; in spite of ourselves. But this "essence" that we talk about, as concerns the record/playback process, is something that is primarily at the mercy of those "parts" of the equipment "composition" that concern rhythm. There is where most of what determines the preservation of expressive nuance lies. I don't believe this is a matter of "preference", but in fact, an absolute.

Regards.