MIT Love 'em or Hate 'em

Sorry to chime in so late, but I am bewildered -- not only at WHAT uncle said, but at how (s)he expressed it. The latter, IMO, raised the controversy.

But the originality of what uncle said, with all due respect, floored me.
Unless I'm mistaken, the main jist in uncle's MIT/wire related epistles was:
*a good wire is one that carries signals as unsullied as possible, esp. when the components being connected are very good sonic performers;
*wires with "boxes" introduce alter (introducing filtering?) the signal they are transmitting and that is no good -- unless the point pursued is to kmowingly USE wire to tune a given system;
*A well-matched system usually performs better than one that is not;

Excuse me, but what else is new or, rather, no kidding!

*MIT cable has boxes (some models do, anyway) so it is introducing filtering where it shouldn't -- unles you want to "tune" the system, as above;
*Some people will be taken by gobbledegook (marketing, I suppose)and spend money -- boxes on wires constitute a case of such gobbledegook;

Well, that may be matter of necessity (see Detlof above with Spectral -- I have been in a similar boat), or one of taste: "ear & gear". Again, anything new?

Not doubting uncle's experience -- but we hardly enjoyed it here this time! Respectful cheers

What I don't get and never have is why MIT draws such angst and emotion. It's just a hifi component for goodness sake. A big reason I think our hobby is small in numbers is because of such subjective opinions that get shoved down people's throat and can be intimidating. I'm sure many people have turned away from this hobby because of that - especially when they go into a highend shop and get that audiogeeksuperiority attitude from employees and customers alike - I've seen it. Most everyone digs music and most dig good stereo systems - you don't have to be an engineer, you don't have spend alot of money, you don't have to buy and sell equipment on a daily basis etc, etc etc to consider yourself an audiophile and you shouldn't have to assume your place in the pecking order expert line - so lighten up and ROCK ON!

I get the impression that Krusty does have experience that is valuable to our discussion, and for that reason I will miss him, assuming that his promise is sincere. The problem is that I don't think he's leaving because of the reasons he states. Knowing that Krusty could not addresss these issues given his departure point in argument is why I entered the post the way I did, and why, you will note, he chose not to respond to me directly.

The symptomatic aspect of krusty's posts, if you look at them carefully, is that he was never able to respond to my inquiries, soon claiming that opinions contrary to his own are per se regressions, and, importantly, religious regressions with Judeo-Christian overtones ("infidels", "Bible", "walk on water").

I have said this before, but I would ask, politely, if you could all listen just this once. Many people who make scientific arguments whose assumptive premises are questioned make very similar responses - ones that don't answer the question and whose patterns can be predicted. How? Because, interestingly, krusty's progression of argument mirrors the discipline of science's own response to such questions over the past two hundred years. When questioned, science has responded, in an historical cascade, that 1) any knowledge not scientific knowlwedge does not exist, then 2) even if knowledge exists outside science, that knowledge is inherently unknowable, then 3) even if knowable, if you claim you know, then you are irrational because...Well, there is no "because", because at this point science merely says that they are going to quit discussing it, go back to their rulers and, as they go out the door, mutter that you are merely regressing to some mytho-magical delusion. Why always the medieval religious references? Because science arose out of the previous ruling paradigm of Judeo-Christian doctrine, and sees that doctrine as its enemy, and so it, and its acolytes, naturally posit any claims of irrationality in Judeo-Christian terms.

And this, symptomatically, is exactly what Krusty did. First he posited a "technical" (read: scientific) theory where subjective criteria were reduced, the operation of that reduction being the ascendancy of his scientific arguments, even though, by the rules of empiric methodology, the subjective is primary to the technique, ie. "technicalities" are the primary knowledge (#1 above). He then stated that some people may have subjective knowledge outside his technicalities, but that they are relegated as a matter of course to his own, without offerring why (# 2 above). Then, when his assumptions were questioned using the same scientific methodology he applied to others (an argument mirroring the deconstruction of scientific exclusivity over the past fifty years), his response was that he was quitting and stormed out uttering his mytho-magical accusations.

This is denial, and the emotion behind it ("senioritas" as a way of saying that other posters are lacking in verility) is not symptomatic of a frustration that ideas were not listened to, but that the primary exclusivity of scientific assumptions was questioned. A worldview was questioned, one that tells you that if you just reduce things into "technicalities" enough, then you will find the truth and be safe. This is a safe matrix of ideas to exist within - just like medieval Judeo-Christian doctrine was a comfortable delusion to stay within - and when it is questioned, the exclusivity of the worldview is questioned. Just like the medieval church, the bearers of the present exclusivity to Truth react combatively when questioned. This is not a coincidence, and the accusations of regression in religious terms then only becomes paradoxical, if not ironic.

Science and its "technicalities" are tools of the mind. Does this mean that MIT cable networks are immune from technical questioning? No, the tool should be used, but not to beat other people over the head with because you choose to believe that science is your primary God. That is ideology fueled by the ego, not science. The medieval church had little to do with Jesus; scientism has little to do with science. The recoil of either had/has little to do with the truth of ideas and more to do with the ego's need to adopt an ideology that can make one feel safe and then taken out into the world to be used against others.

I have been somewhat entertained by the proponents on both "sides" of this issue. The only thing that was actually "proven", though, was the notion that fur would fly.

Despite of Uncle Fester's tone at times, there was some decent advice. There is plenty of fodder in the thread to support the claim that many just don't like it when people disagree with their opinion and that otherwise mild-mannered folks will cast off the cloak of reason when someone does so.

I decided to check out the aunt's husband's recommendation regarding Nirvana cables, and came up with this "testimonial" from their website (which I quote below) - speaking of gobbledygook!!

"Steve,

This is the best cable I have ever heard-by a big margin over most all, and a surprisingly significant amount over my previous favorite, the Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx. I still can't believe how much better it is. My system has never sounded better. More people should hear these, why would anyone pay $4,000 for a pair of Xxxxxxxxxx with some gobbledygook RC network in an expensive box, when this is available with no bullshit? It's also great that you don't make any secrets about the construction technique, and provide measurements. Wait 'till my friends at Listen Up and Soundings hear this.

Thanks again.

Christopher"
http://www.nirvanaaudio.com/reviews.htm

Clueless, right, but half truths as gospel and then again and again and not really picking up threads offered to start a conversation. Come now, you and I, at least I think so, state clearly when we feel a tad ..clueless. So lets not be trite and bullshit were it belongs, here...please (-:
And Pops yes, so true, its completely irrational, but then perhaps Krusty did have a point after all: It somehow does not seem right that 15k plus cables, which at that price point should supposedly just pass signal, without adding or subtracting, have arcane boxes, which, the legend goes, must necessarily colour the signal, twist it, "filter it". That these boxes possibly help to make the cable just what it should, pass the signal and as little else as possible, seems to cross nobody's mind. Besides MIT is closely linked with Spectral and you will get exactly the same heated reaction about that brand. It has to do with their marketing, I think. They have a very snobbish-nose turned up attitude, don't particularly spoil dealers and snub most of that crowd. It is understandable that they try to hit back and that gets desiminated all over the place. I've listened to people bashing Spectral and MIT, who never even heard them and I suppose that was basically part of my irritation about our good Uncle above, who was beating a dead horse ad nauseam as far as I was concerend...and that dear Clueless is no longer BS, that is simply a pain in the...neck.