Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

Asa : Guess I disagree.

you say >”In other words, both a piece of wire and an amp are just pieces of matter rearranged into different LOOKING forms, both which pass energy (music signal) through a lattice of molecular/atomic/quantum energy which we choose to call “matter.” If you are a true scientific person, then how can you say one rearrangement of matter is the source; and another is the mere conduit for that source, as if one appearance is somehow inherently more important than another? In a Newtonian way, how are they different?”

Well, for openers I just do not understand the first paragraph. A “Newtonian” explanation will not speak to the molecular/quantum distinctions you make in the first part of the sentence so really I don't see what you mean. Newton had no clue what an electron was much less molecular-quantum distinctions did he?

More basically, components do more than LOOK different. It's not about “appearance.”
They DO different things. Some complex - Some not so complex. It's all technology but at different levels. You say “it's all matter and its all passing energy.” ( So are you and I , are we no different than a wire?) Well yes, but a lot more is true too. A wire's job, for the most part, is simply to “pass energy” as you put it. A signal goes in one end and should go out the other. Unchanged. It does not have to transduce it like a driver or amplify it like a tube circuit. A driver must transform energy from electric charge to magnetic energy then to mechanical energy then to acoustic energy. Each transformation requires distortion and presents special problems. A tube, driver and a wire are all components -- but one has a relatively easy job to do and one has a far more complex one to do.

I know (or they tell us) at some quantum level we and all around us are the exact same. But for purposes of audio and everyday life a failure to see the differences in 18 inches of wire and an amp's circuit topology is simply amazing to me. Even in Physics (as currently understood) the laws that explain big things (gravity) do not apply to or fully explain small things (quantum physics.) Your attempt to explain away all of the differences in everyday life based upon things that apply to tiny quantum worlds seems a madness if you ask me. It's like deciding to walk out in front of a car because at a “fundamental quantum-molecular level” the car and you are basically the same star dust and almost entirely empty space. Unfortunately you’ll be dead.

In any event, I think the differences are more than "irrelevant variables" and the issue is not that they are "different looking forms" of some fundamental single micro reality but that they function very differently and have very different levels of complexity in the world in which we live. Anyone who has tried to make a cable and an amp circuit can tell you. See Sean's point above.

> “wire and amps are ***** in their fundamental nature, are no different for purposes of comparison.” Again this argument proves to much. From a micro genetic point of view you could probably say that a mouse and a lion are the same in their “fundamental nature.” That being the case, it’s a fool who does not see the differences in them for practical purposes.

IMHO, Your focus on the similarities of objects (abstraction/generalization) at one level (usually the micro) has caused you too lose site of the more important differences that do not fall within your chosen categories of abstraction. Abstraction is dangerous that way. It tends to emphasize the similar and ignore the particular and individual. (I have to laugh; I'm starting to talk like you)

Sincerely
I remain

Sean: yea, I agree. Wire is over-priced. If you can make it yourself and be happy with the result why in heavans would anyone pay someone else lots of money? Makes sense to me.

Clueless: thank you for the effort of your response. Actually I agree with most everything you say. You assume a difference because you make an assumption about what I said that is, er, fundamentally misplaced. I never said that applications of method and observation don't change as symmetries of complexity in matter arrangement change. Of course they do; everyone knows that. What I said was that when applying empiric parameters to varying levels of matter complexity, those attached to scientific materialist assumptions tend to categorize those varying levels not on complexity, or an empiric application of method to that complexity, but rather, limit the categories that can even be compared in the first instance (amp vs. wire) by categorizing wire-matter as something fundamentally different; so different that wire is not "technology" or a "component" and that anybody who receognizes this bias hiding behind abstractions is being un-scientific. We see this all the time in wire vs. amp discussions. Essentially, an assumptive bias runs throughout the relation of science and empiric method and technology that says that as complexity of the rearrangement increases (tools as rearranged matter work in concert, ie. a "machine") then, that rearrangement becomes more technolog-ic, and from that assumption, that the more complex rearrangement is "better". This then cascades into the reductionist assumption that the now "lesser" complex tool is too be dispensed in the categorization (wire is no longer a "component") which allows a complete reduction in its consideration. In other words, the discussion begins with an underlying assumption that wire is not "technologic" in any way and that those arguing from the contrary vantage are somehow being less "scientific" or empirically rigorous. None of this, of course, means that matter that manifests through our rearrangement into varying "complexities" does not respond to the application of scientific empiric method in differrnt ways.

However, I will note that, psychologically speaking, many people who are attached to scientific assumptions that negate matter rearrangement (tools/technology) that are less complex, are also the same people who invariably assume that anyone citing that bias must be also saying that there are not any differences of application to varying symmetries of complexity, even though one may have never said that. In other words, if one cites the categorization bias above, then those attached to defending that bias always seem to come in and say that you are saying that all rearrangement is radically relative, when that was never said at all. That you did this may be a point of reflection...

On "Newtonian" etc., not enough space here. If you want to talk more on this, please contact me directly and I will respond. My name is Mark Bucksath. Again, thank you for your reasoned, well thought response; it was nice to see.

Ok, from there, if we agree that amps and wire are both made of varying complexities of rearrangement, and that varying degrees of complex cognitive application are required for each varying symmetry, ie. its takes more complex thinking to design and construct an amp than a piece of wire, then does this necessarily imply that 1) wire is not a "component" or 2)that wire is "less" of a component than an amp (Clueless' conclusion after his experience with less and more complex tools)?

Since we seem to agree that wire is rearranged matter just like an amp and is subject to some consideration, the question then becomes: how much relative to more complex tools that it fits between?

Points to consider:

1) It is important to differentiate between the above reference between "design" and "construct". In other words, a design may be more creative even though the resultant tool is less relatively complex in its construction. For instance, if I build an amp that merely copies a 1930 design, is it a more "complex" design than a design of a piece of wire that incorporates new ideas on electro-magnetism and/or quantum fluctuations? I have pointed out that people attached to the scientific materialist bias cited above tend to default to a position that looks to the construction complexity as opposed to the design complexity in cognitive-creative terms. But since creating the amp/wire begins in the mind, wouldn'y it be more logical, even more accurate, to say that the "complexity" of a "component" begins in its design, rather than in the result of that design as constructed in matter?

2)Ok, apart from 1) above, arguendo, let's assume that the creativeness is equal in an amp vs. wire design. Does that difference in complexity make the amp more important in performance criteria than the wire? Clueless seems to say so, but what if, in performance, and regardless of the complexity in design or construction of either, the wire produces a greater accurate musicality jump in the system?

3) So, given the evident answer to 2) above, namely that performance is LOGICALLY the final arbiter beyond design and construction issues and their accordant complexity, or lack thereof, how important is "complexity" of matter rearrangement (the complexity of the construction of the stereo piece) in determining the importance of any given insertion of a stereo piece into a sysytem?

4) Is there any person who has collected the experience to be able to "construct" a state-of-the-art system who would ever say that wire isn't extemely important in the resultant sound of such system? If, in practice, this opinion is predominantly true for such demographic of users, then what possible validity, in practice, can the position hold that says that "complexity" in construction is determintive? If, empirically, I observe a sample of results ( advanced system constructors who say wire is critical) and I determine that this response/observation is consistent over time, then isn't my ignoring the results of this empiric observation (in default to my assumption that construction "complexity" is determinitive) itself un-scientific?

So we understand this time around, the operative term is "determitive". I agree that a strong correlation exists between design creativity and/or construction complexity and that these "scientific" factors are important to look at. The quetion is, can a bias in this direction as cited above be supported in logical, experential or even scientific ways? Or rather, is a continued adherence to this bias more symptomatic of an attachment to the rearrangement itself, and hence, an attachment to scientific materialist assumptions?

Just some things to consider.

Oops, I just stumbled over Clueless' and Asa's argument. Its late here in Europe and I'm too tired to give it the serious thought it deserves. Will have to pospone it. At first glimpse, it seems that both are right, only their viewpoints are basically different and since I'm trained in neither, I swim in deep water....As far as I can see, Asa's point is philosophical, epimistological, following the lines of theory of knowledge. (Erkenntnistheorie, as we call it here). And from this point of view, he is of course absolutely right and it is an elegant argument to my mind, because it seems not to be concerned with the complexity of both forms of "matter" in question and rightly so, to my simple way of thinking, because "science" only knows what it can know within its concepts and do we really know, all that is going on in a wire, passing a signal, or in an amp, for that matter?

Clueless, as I understand him, also makes perfect sense to me, because he seems to argue on the basis of what is known about the functionings of amps and wires and hence it seems reasonaable to say, that the goings on within an amp are more complex than in a piece of wire.

Funny, though, I still, probably naively, prefer Asa's point of view, because intuitively I sense, that it encompasses both what is scientifically known and what is not. I leaves things open to the searching mind: Both wire and amp are forms of matter, about the goings in and about them, we don't really know very much. Since Heisenberg, Pauli and Jung we know, that the interaction of mind and matter can have an influence on both, where we don't know, what is egg and what is hen and what is doing what to which side. Of course we know a lot about what goes on in matter (Clueless), but since we do not really know what matter is in its essence, having no real Archemidian point outside of it, since yes, we are also part of it, Asa's view - in my naive understanding - puts amp, wire, the observing mind, all creation under the sun on one and the same level qualitatively. This makes for great openeness...also for the curious scientific mind.
Cheers,

You put Heisenberg and Jung together Detof? Interesting. I much prefer Jung as a man. I'm not trained in that as you are but I suppose I've read about half of his collected writing in amazement. An amazing life. Where do you think he stands as a psychologist(if you want to label him as such) in the 20th century if you don't mind me asking?

(Also, I think I misunderstood Asa more than disagreed with him and my point was epistemological in that you have to apply a system of thought where it is meant to be applied. Einstein if you want to know gravity, Q physics if you are subatomic, Newton's calculas if you want to go to the moon and yes, even audio has a certain structure all it's own too.)

Sincerely
I remain,