MIT Love 'em or Hate 'em

This thread was initiated by Bundy asking about MIT. Not about "networked" cables in general. How many times do I need to repeat myself? S-L-O-W-L-Y, this time for krusty. My sole point is that you are making a sweeping generalization that is as hard to substantiate as saying that all tube amps that use the same output tube sound the same. I just find that listening to a product "might" be a better way to judge, if, in fact, it sounds good or not!
If you paid attention to what I wrote krusty you would realize that I never said anything about "correction" or "compensation" or even anything about the sound of these cables!

I am open minded about products that can improve my listening experience. I just like to hear them in my system before I decide what they sound like. I have been listening to every cable that I have been able to get my hands on for a while, which is not that many, I will say. When I find one that sounds better I will buy some. I don't care if it has a "box" on it filled with bat guano, or if the conductor is made from old coat hangers, if it sounds good I will use it. I may try to understand why bat guano might sound better than bird guano. In the end it's the sound that counts. You can't judge the sound with out listening to a product. O.K.?

So krusty if you want to pony up some cash for me to rid myself of my old "crap" gear I would be happy to spend your money on a new ARC Ref2 MkII, a pair of VTM200's and some Kimber Select throughout.While you're at it I might as well let you buy me some Vandy 5's(birdseye will do nicely). I don't accept personal checks.

Now Jetter, tell me more about that sister of yours!

Asa, admirable analysis. A joy to read and not to fault as far as I can see. Old Krusty is good for something afterall. A question: Don't know Kuhn, but did Popper REALLY live up to what he preached there? Cheers,

No, detlof, Popper did not, from what my admittedly limited knowledge of his ideas can tell (oh my God, Jetter, here's where we could, just could, veer into Jung!!!! Stooooone the witch!!!).

I'm not sure about his personal life, but, basically, in the end, in his philosophy he still defaulted to an assumption that the systematic analysis of science redeemed it as a method, even though his own critique on that method - that science is always finding new truth, so how can they ever say they have The Truth - undermined that hope, in a logical sense. I would say he had an intuition that this had to be the case and so adopted it. I feel the same BTW, to an extent, that extent tempered by my knowledge of what science IS, its limitations, and the true ground of science.

From what I know of the LSE philosophy dept, where Popper ensconsed himself, the quantification of reality (the progeny of British empiricism, Hume, Berkely, et al) was perhaps, in its lingering influence, not quite as far away as he might have thought. I think Popper was simply part of the general deconstruction of science - seeing its limitation through an application of its own reductionist rules to itself - that has been going on for quite a while now (you see, WilBishop, I do know how old some of this is....). He saw a facet of that limitation, but like all deconstructionism, never looked beyond that reduction to see a solution. Maybe that accounts for his ultimate default to science's systematic rigor for a grounding, and thus avoiding the conclusion of nihilism (the consequence of groundless-ness). Given that his own observations seemed to contradict that conclusion, perhaps that was, in the end, a personal choice of belief, perhaps one adopted in fear of what he believed to be its logical contra (without some ground in logic, reality becomes ground-less)

[except that reality is not grounded by logic...]

There are certainly some people out there who know more than that and can, perhaps, add or correct what I've said (OH MY GOD!! There it is, Jetter, the possibility, rearing its head like a regression to religion, like a hydra, of this thread going out of control, out of control of the thinking scientific mind towards some so-called creativity or dialogue that keeps us from controlling the truth, making it serve our purpose! Oh God, save us!!)

Detlof, if you know about Popper, perhaps - while we wait for Krusty to come back and for Jetter to think - I would be interested to know what you know. Anyone else too.

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CABLE?!

There, all served up, just like a baseball on a tee, just like when you were five.

Oh, detlof, when are we going to get that thread you promised on musicality? We must be sure to invite Krusty and Jetter. Remind me then.

LOL, will do ASA, thanks for your thoughts on P. Can't say much, know too little, but seems to make sense what you say. The musicality thread has yet to be born, too busy still writing up reports on all sorts of people to make some money to buy expensive cables and to eat.