Schroder sq and the new talea

Welcome home Frank, and thanks, for the detailed follow-up.

At the end of the day, the key takeaway, while not what everyone hoped for, was a very good one, nevertheless. New and old friendships were made / rekindled.

I agree with you, 100% about the volume control coarseness, which was exacerbated by two factors: (1) too much gain in the amplifiers for the speaker/room situation. This resulted in “living too low" on the dial” where the steps are larger, and (2) the change in cartridge / phono stage which resulted in a larger than expected gain mismatch at the point of entry into the line stage.

I agree with you. At 6pm on Saturday, our choice was to either kill the session, or to proceed with a "flawed" one (flawed according to expectations of a more direct comparison). We went full speed ahead, which I think was the right choice.

Ultimately, setting a deadline (rather than a goal) of 24 hours ahead of time for completing a test setup would have helped mitigate this. We could have (with Ralph's help, for example) reduced the gain in the Atma-sphere M-60 amps, to result in a more clockwise rotation of the volume dial, where the steps are less coarse. This would have helped level matching to a degree. Then, there’s the issue of loading that Ralph brought up ... easy to do a day ahead of time, but not so easy when it’s “show time”.

So, with the reality of a show, and all of the interruptions and potential catastrophic events, what's a fellow to do? I know that you were really slammed for time, and unable to run through your simulation as early both of us would have liked. Similarly, I was working on an equipment change that didn’t land in suite 1130 until 3am on Friday morning. Such is the reality of shows, and matching gear in unfamiliar places.

Perhaps the answer lies in some sort of hybrid approach for any future sessions - something you alluded to: to increase the population of "candidates".

This would allow us to put a hard deadline for any "entries", of 24 hours before "show time". If something hasn't been fleshed out by then, it doesn't get into the session. It sounds a bit harsh, but would serve as a means of "thinning the herd".

With that understanding, there will be no perception of a hidden agenda, and we can all get on with the business of playing with all of these toys. Heck! I don’t have a pony in this race ... other than my turntables (grin).

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Good Morning, Everyone

While I was not at RMAF, this thread has inspired me to comment. Each of you has contributed to this discussion's vitality and I have learned a great deal. Thank you.

I want to address aspects of Atmasphere's, Dertonarm's and Thom's entries, first via the Gladius metaphor, and then in a discussion of inherent quality.

We, interested in audio, exist in a [tiny (and some would say insignificant)] moment of time. The gladius was developed --I use this term because that sword was the result of accumulated learning applied to technology-- in a moment of time as limited in knowledge as is our own. *In its time* the gladius was a tool of the highest sophistication, bettered by none.

Throughout history there have been such devices, and they are the consequence of fortuitous factors coalescing at a peak of development. They are the product of their context, and could not have evolved earlier. And they fall prey to the progress of time, as we ourselves do.

Dertonarm's use of the gladius metaphor was most insightful, clearly illustrating the superiority of *a device that was applied to enforce a belief system*. The Romans' intention was conquest, like many before them. The gladius was not their only superior war tool, but the single-minded focus on exporting their way of life was the driving force of their success. In a synchronic sense (during the same time or era) the gladius was an indispensable tool for implementing a culture-wide intention. Underlying the Roman's enforced cultural imperative --do it our way, or the 'gladius way'-- was their assumption that they were right.

Skip forward a millennium or so. Much of what the Romans discovered has remained, eg. the "Roman" calendar. Is the gladius still a viable tool of "cultural enforcement"? That is, did the gladius' superiority survive diachronically (outside its era)? Clearly not, but the metallurgy that created it has greatly evolved. What was extraneous or outdated in the Roman cultural model was discarded, leaving a distilled essence of the rest. At this time, however, the tonearm was still Fred Flintstone's proverbial 'beak of the Pterodactyl'.

Flash forward another six centuries, noting that the interval has diminished. There are people discussing the merits of material selection for building devices of peace --tonearms. (and parrying in words about its best design implementation)

Today's technology offers new materials that mitigates if not solving inherent limitations of the old. For the modern era, substitute carbon fiber for gladius iron. Yet some of the lessons learned in creating that iron remain in the [updated] lexicon of metallurgy. We continue to build upon our cumulative knowledge base.

New materials are irrelevant unless their properties are marshaled toward a goal with *intention*. The tonearm will not improve in perceived value --the value to the designer and to the end user-- without the intention of improved performance. The goal, for many of us, is an increased authenticity, a greater simulacrum to music as we perceive it in live performance.

As to value and how it is determined: something is worth what a person is willing to pay. We could digress into a discussion of currency value, what sweat equity means today, etc. however all of us who have time and money to aspire to audio delight are privileged --simply admit it.

Let's take authenticity to live music as the premise upon which we select our audio components, though there are certainly other premises at work. Perceived value is highly individualized, no less than a preference for John Coltrane over Zoot Sims.

Now we're down to what you and I prefer. Even if our tastes are currently similar (synchronic), they will likely develop and change over time (diachronic), just as the pool of materials available to audio designers. So is value, too, a moving target?

The noted photographer Ansel Adams was challenged for the price of his photographs, the critic claiming he could make the same photograph in the same sixtieth of a second. 'A sixtieth of a second and forty-two years,' Adams responded.

Ansel suffered from his own success [in marketing as well as photography]. His prices went up so fast in the 1970s that he lost money:by the time he caught up on past orders, the value of his prints had risen. The point here is the speed with which perception can, in a 'good market', change its valuation of an esthetic experience. So, again, time is a factor in determining value, just as those forty-two years seasoned the soul behind Ansel Adams' eye, enriching his product. Parenthetically, Edward Weston never sold a photograph for more than $25, and one of his was the first to bring a million dollars at auction.

Now to the 'if a little is good, then more must be better' approach. I'm a fan of complete truth. By this I mean not leaving out *essential* details. 'Moderation in all things' is a common but incomplete saying, in my estimation. Though not as absolute or pithy, 'Moderation in all things, including Moderation' is more truthful. All work and no play makes Jack [worse than] a dull geek. If one doesn't occasionally go a little mad, then moderation is merely a diet of deprivation. So 'if a little is good', then it's likely to take more time to make less be more effective.

Mies van der Rohe, the Bauhaus architect who flourished in the US, proclaimed 'Less is More'. While *he* knew what he was saying, taken out of context his aphorism is food for dischord [!]. To reach the point in design that 'there is nothing inessential remaining' takes a combination of experience (however it's accumulated), very hard work, patience and persistence. Most often More [work] leads to [what appears to be] Less, hence my comment about complete truth.

This More/Less diatribe applies to authenticity in the reproduction of music. When there is Less [artifice from an electronic component], there is More [music that can survive the process of reproduction]. This is at the heart of our present endeavor. As the history and present state of our hobby attests, it takes time to get the Sound Absolute: we're not there yet and Edison patented the first recording and playback 'system' in 1878.

Some time ago, we named ourselves homo sapiens, or in loose translation man who knows or is wise --by extension, man-who-is-right. I think part of our problem lies in the assumptions behind this, our first self-designation. We *don't* know, clearly, because we are still learning. What leads us to know what little we do, is curiosity. For that reason, I submit that we rename ourselves audio homo curioso in the interest of putting aside the incomplete truth, the assumption that we know something, or that what we know is right.

If we approach things from a point of view that we do not 'know' but have *some* knowledge upon which we seek to build as we learn, then we stand first, to better cooperate, as we have in this forum, and second, not to be afraid of our ignorance, but to see it as a positive force guiding us in our inquiries.

In retrospect, perhaps Dertonarm's gladius metaphor was prescient in our evolving definition of audio, its terminology, and knowledge in general: just when we think we know something, like the meaning of the gladius as it pertains to audio, we realize the need to acknowledge the *contemporary* meaning of 'moving iron'.

Stepping on the shoulders of learning from the past we can reach higher in our quest to understand our present with the humility that inevitably comes from knowing that there is yet more to learn.

Best,
David (Audio Homo Curioso)

Thanks for defining synchronic and diachronic. I am a better person for it.

Dear Lew, I have no idea what you mean. Anyway Davids
contribution wich I very much enjoyed and admire is not
about 'definitions'. He uses lingustic theory (from de Saussuree on) as á 'conceptual fráme'. Ie the diachronic and the synchronic linguistics to show the historical as well as present 'state of affair' in our knowledge and
'technology' in their mutual dependance.I realy don't like
to fight about words ( I am a foreigner) but I noticed that
David used the expression 'inherent quality' while Dertonarm used the expression 'inherent value'. I think that the word 'inherent' in both expressions is superfluous
and deceptive. Those are remainds of Aristotelian 'essences' one outdated 'theory'.Dertonarm uses obviously 'value' and 'quality' as synonym wich they
are not and David 'forget' the difference between the 'pure'- and 'applied' science. The objects have the qualitys they have independent of us (aka objective) so we need to discovere them before we can use them. It is of course impossible to discovere qualitys wich are non existant. And if some quality yet unknown to us exist then in some object. But 'the value' without valuation and valuating subject is a strange construction.

Regards,

Dear Cdk84, allow me to - briefly- address a few points in your excellent post.
Furthermore I want to take the opportunity to clarify once and for all 2 misunderstandings.
First, I took - explicit and for good reason ! - the example of that specific gladius made from superior alloy, solely available to and from that celtic-bavarian tribe. I did so ONLY to illustrate the point ( apparently futile ...) of the concept of "inherent quality".
Only this specific version of the gladius and only to illustrate the point.

Roman history in particular and military history in general is my side passion since almost 40 years now. Of course, neither the gladius, nor the light pilum with it’s predetermined breaking point, nor the most versatile roman evolution of the static spartan/makedonian phalanx, nor the Marian reforms, nor the inability of Rome's rivals to form endurable alliances was the solemn reason for Rome's "imperial success". There were other much more important reasons which evolved out of roman inner society, pragmatic modern thinking with a secular sense to reality, certain traumata in their early history and a most astonishing ability of the roman upper class to adapt to changes and of their engineers to assimilate every single smart technical idea they found - wherever they went.
As long as roman society was able to adapt to the changes of time they prevailed - and they (certain circles in the roman patrician families) knew the importance of that ability to change very well.
BTW - the roman gladius is referred to in ancient times (and by the romans themselves ) as the "spanish sword", as it was “found” first among the celtic tribes in Iberia during the punic wars... and thus it had it’s military impact only in conjunction with the large rectangular scutum used by the roman legionary and the very special way of close combat and teamwork in battle.
We can discuss that in length and to my great amusement, but we are already boring our audiophile fellows.

Inherent quality.......
If - I know it is hard for everyone - we can leave aside the aspects (rather: terms..) "price", “market”, “commercial product” and "what you pay for it" for a brief moment, maybe then it becomes clear, that something like an “inherent (product) quality” of a tool (tonearm, longbow, shoe or gladius..) exists.
We all are so "encaged" in our everyday life and surrounded by marketing and price in everything (everyone of us in the “1st” world is confronted with 5-6000 sales and marketing advertisements every day), that it becomes hard to leave that omnipresent sphere even for a moment.
20 years ago I graduated with a master degree in marketing. Cum laude. I know what I am talking about and have learned - and used - the mechanisms and tools of marketing well enough. Knowing the “enemy” inside out opens up the horizon and perspective.
If we can not accept “inherent quality” ( at least as a perspective..) just because it doesn’t necessary shows so on the price tag, we are fooling ourselves.