Schroder sq and the new talea

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 Those are remainds of Aristotelian 'essences' one outdated 'theory'.Dertonarm uses obviously 'value' and 'quality' as synonym wich they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.

Dear Nandric, maybe it is more than problematic to draw any line between "value" (which has become a foremost economic term) and "quality" (which today is corrupted by reality too) in the bright light of the day.
Does "value" indeed need a receptor and his/her individual matrix of preferences, likes and dislikes?
If it does, then of course it is and will always be a subjective perspective and thus a futile concept.
But if "value" ( here in a tool or product) can ( and will ...) be recognized beyond preference and sympathy (both always personal and subjective), then it is inherent - i.e. an essence.
REgards,
D.

I meant, dear Nandric, that the Talea and the Schroeder are just tonearms.

Just tonearms, yes. But viewed as tools to reach a higher state of musical enjoyment and all that that may entail for some of us, well that is something more, no?