|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
01-07-2008
|
|
The subject of Amplification and Sound better or worse is covered by audio people. The audio people are generally not very bright in term of Sound. If they are bright then they mostly intellectually blind, if they not blind then they deaf, if not deaf then they are not demanding enough in term of Sound and if they are sonically demanding enough then they are … not to bright.
So, the Sound and Amplifiers is what audio people, mistakenly or not, deal with, or trying to convince themselves that they do. However, the subject of Consciousness and Amplifiers is absolutely out of attention and understanding of majority of audio hoodlums. Let do not make a cheap joke clamming hat most of Audio people have no Audio Consciousness. It is not a joke, it is fact and I will not mock this say fact. Still, among the 0.000000001% of all people who do audio and who do accidently have a listening consciousness AND at the same time do have and interest in subjects of “Abstract Audio” there is “thinking”. That “thinking” is about amplification as a tool that does not deal with Sound but rather deal with direct shaping of perceptional ability.
To me the subject of amplification and consciousness is not a subject of challenge but rather a subject of daily routine, although do need to remind it to myself frequently. The consciousness inflictions in audio were always my favorite subject and frankly speaking it is the only interesting subject in theoretical audio, besides the practicing. Still, I do admit that to view the relationship between electronic audio methods and consciousness is the most complicated among all relationships on audio. Electronics conducts Transformation of Reality and mind should distinct between contamination of original Realty and discrepancies of Reinstated Realty as well as to be able to differentiate the discrepancies of Realty from the discrepancies of the Realty transformation’s exchange mechanism.
The most complex in all of it is the purposeful structuring of the Reality Transformation (amplification) with intend to impact NOT the Sound of amplification but the Consciousness Impact of the Reinstated Reality. I do not claim that I own any know-how in this direction. I do have some very raw and none-expressed ideas in loudspeakers but I have no serious familiarity with the subject in Amplification and Consciousness.
I created this thread as a placeholder for my flowing posts. I do have some row ideas about the Amplification and Consciousness and as time goes by I will share some of them in here…. Rgs, Romy the caT
|
|
|
|
Posted by peter foster on
01-07-2008
|
 Romy the Cat wrote: | |
[snip] Electronics conducts Transformation of Reality and mind should distinct between contamination of original Realty and discrepancies of Reinstated Realty as well as to be able to differentiate the discrepancies of Realty from the discrepancies of the Realty transformation’s exchange mechanism. [snip] |
|
Dear Romy,
Since obtaining a pair of 'reference' microphones, microphone pre-amplifier and analog-to-digital converter as part of my playback system I have learned much about 'relative reality', 'transformation of reality', 'reinstated reality' and exchange mechanisms. I notice an acoustic guitar in one of your photos. Recording of acoustic guitar and voice and using my playback system as a real time monitor has given me useful perspective on what the player hears 'live', what the audience hears 'live', what the microphones 'hear' and what the playback system 'hears'. It is also possible to have the playback system play the recorded data in real time (while the recording is being made) which operates as a form of injection, i.e., the microphones are recording both the instrument and the playback at the same time (which works at lower playback volumes without feedback).
Regards, Peter Foster.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
01-08-2008
|
| peter foster wrote: | | Since obtaining a pair of 'reference' microphones, microphone pre-amplifier and analog-to-digital converter as part of my playback system I have learned much about 'relative reality', 'transformation of reality', 'reinstated reality' and exchange mechanisms. I notice an acoustic guitar in one of your photos. Recording of acoustic guitar and voice and using my playback system as a real time monitor has given me useful perspective on what the player hears 'live', what the audience hears 'live', what the microphones 'hear' and what the playback system 'hears'. It is also possible to have the playback system play the recorded data in real time (while the recording is being made) which operates as a form of injection, i.e., the microphones are recording both the instrument and the playback at the same time (which works at lower playback volumes without feedback).. |
|
Actually, Peter, what you describes was not necessarily what I meant, in fact the “Parallel Testing” settings most of the time is used for experiments with Sound Differences as the “Parallel Events” mostly used to exercise short-term sonic memories. Consciousness perception does not recognize “time” and it does not need instantaneous references. Anyhow, the exchange mechanisms in amplification devise is exchange of Reality of Sound into Reflective Reality. The complexity is that the Reflective Reality has own language and that language is NOT necessarily correlateable with “as is Reality”. The “Parallel Experiments” and the sound re-enforcement things, not matter how interesting they might be, are NOT the methods to observe or to learn about the language of the exchange mechanisms that takes place in amplification.
The Cat
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
02-19-2008
|
The recent protracted electricity nonsense has given me some particular situations to think about, and the Shannon references have started me thinking about the "Point of Divergence", not just in terms of sound and music but also in terms of consciousness, along with all its "background" trappings, such as expectations.
There are already posts at this site about musical epiphanies happening in automobiles. I will give myself up here to mention that some of my own most profound musical experiences came during (then legal) LSD experiments, when the only thing of note that was "altered", as far as I know, was my brain chemistry, and the "sound system" "responsible" for the musical ecstacy was a college-staple KLH portable record player.
Then, there is the ML2, which seems to take a +/- rigorous approach to dealing with consciousness/"expectations", whether acquired or basal, by somehow dishing out sound that has been "dealt with" in some sort of proprietary manner that is supposed to related to "how we hear".
I understand from "experience" that "things from outside" can "enter the equation" and alter our perceptions, but I sure don't understand much more than that.
So I appreciate that some people have an approach more rigorous than voodoo.
Best regards,
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
02-19-2008
|
| Paul S wrote: | | Then, there is the ML2, which seems to take a +/- rigorous approach to dealing with consciousness/"expectations", whether acquired or basal, by somehow dishing out sound that has been "dealt with" in some sort of proprietary manner that is supposed to related to "how we hear". |
|
Hm, I am very impressed, Paul!
I did not see before anybody was able to make this comment. You are very correct: with all tremendous sonic intellect of ML2’s Sound, string form a certain level of perception and form a certain level of listening intelligence the sound of ML2 become to be very suffocating. From there, the further your objectives go the more ML2 acts like a python. Why do you think I make so much fun of the Lamm’s “republicanism” and his ill-inflammatory desire to be a person who is in charge of lynching?
The caT
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
02-19-2008
|
Hold on to your ML2s, folks; Romy's only kidding.
Aren't you, Romy?
You know, this site is like fly paper for the vacuous shopper.
But I'm sure McCain will have things turned around before you can say, habeus corpus.
Best regards,
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
02-19-2008
|
| Paul S wrote: | | Hold on to your ML2s, folks; Romy's only kidding. Aren't you, Romy? |
|
Well, my apologies if I misunderstood you and extended too much credit to your thoughts about ML2 and how this amp interacts with consciousness. I consider this subject is one of the most interesting at my site, at least to me, but it is OK. I am accustomed that when I am among audio people begin to talk seriously then people perceive that I was kidding….
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
02-20-2008
|
Actually, Romy, I did not think you were kidding, because I get it, just as you gathered. As you know, as I have posted, the ML2 has been the pivot point of my system for over a year now, and this is exactly because of how this facinating interaction has altered my perception of music reproduction. Nor was the "hidden" other half - or more - of this phenomenon lost on me. This site has provided tools and templates to understand better and share what I hear, and this sync'd well with the recent "Divergence", Shannon, etc., to ratchet my understanding up a notch.
Because Amplification does not mean the amp to me in the first place, I would never bet the farm on the amp, nor would I let my expectations center like that, at least not for long. For me, It's The Idea.
So, perhaps I am the one who was mistaken, because I thought I felt the breeze from a collective gasp, and I jumped in to provide [comic] relief, out of ken for the "second conversation" being "followed" by others. I'm afraid it did not occur to me that you would take that seriously; it wasn't meant for you, anyway.
Sorry, Romy, but you can be pretty freaking funny, yourself. I have actually laughed 'til I choked, not just at your sarcasm but also at the way you can home in on something (or someone) like a giant magnifying glass, not to mention the "Romy-isms", which are often more apt than their English "counterparts", to hilarious effect.
And I am too droll.
I hope you have gathered from my other posts that I do not place much faith in the idea of AI, either, as it relates to amps, consciousness, or morality. AI strikes me as either the bequest or the edict of some megalo-maniac who thinks himself "good with numbers", and so seems to me more like Republican Lamm than the "scientific alternative" he probably thinks he is. I suspect this is one reason why I have trouble with "digital", because it seems somehow more mechanical than the machine itself, let alone the guy who made the machine. Basically, I hear the Big Voice, I look behind the curtain.
But, I am prattling.
Best regards,
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
02-20-2008
|
|
The AI is generally a bogus term, purely marketing term. AI is a term from the same family as the term “synergy”. I do not like AI and I usually use “behavioral patterns”. The behavioral patterns are specific and defined; they are not a generic BS that might be hidden behind the AI. However, there are behavioral patterns and there are the residues of the people who implement the behavioral patterns. Indian sound thinker Hazrat Inayat Khan proposed that tasting food it is possible to lead what was in the head of the cook who prepared the food. The same is with audio devises…
In a given case the behavioral patterns of amplifiers are the aptitude that was given to the amplifier buy a designer intention but it is also a reflection of the creator ego. The relationship between purity of intentions and the subconscious impact of person ego that contaminate the intentions is a complex subject. It is a complex subject to deal with at personal level but it is very easy to recognize how the ego self-manipulation in someone accomplishment. ML2 is very good illustration how an amplifier unwillingly inherits designer ego. BTW, it is not the ONLY explanation, there are few other factors. However, when I talk about anti-liberalism of Lamm ML2 amplifier and narrow-mindedness of Vladimir Lamm I do see a connection. Returning to Hazrat Khan: if you remember in Gabriel Marques when a wife did not like her husband then she cooked meals that had a smell of opened window…. Rgs, Romy the Cat
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
02-20-2008
|
The cool thing is how Lamm figured out how to get one's attention off the window, albeit, apparently, through a fairly didactic program of "organizing", "correcting" and/or "mitigating" certain information he realized contributed to that particular distraction. And, as you have noted, he did in a way he thought would be "profitable". If any ideals were in play to begin with, it's ironic that subsequent descriptions of the amp would be linked to Lamm's "profit motive". At least that's how I see/hear it. The whole thing about control over parts through fear-mongering has a too-familiar ring, and this approach says as much about the perpetrator's perception/opinion of "the market" as it does about the obvious "free market" ideology it springs from.
In view of the above, I find it interesting that the amp work better for me at settings other than its maker intended and instructed.
I get and tie-in your mention of the high-speed Morse code training. This is just another example of ways in which "The Soviets" were light years ahead of the vested "Amerika". Nor has it escaped me that State Sponsored culture was not all bad, and that the general level of perception, at least on that level, was probably raised by it. So here we have an artifact of that awareness, perhaps guided by the desire to "succeed" all along, staking a claim in the West and putting that stamp on his "products". Very interesting.
By the way, I have absolutely no idea where/how the ML2 comes by its truly astounding, unparlleled tonal/harmonic integrity, but I am still a hopelessly addicted to this effect. Also, as you predicted, my rather limited speakers have so far +/- "synergised"/"saved" me from the ML2's viscous lid and non-venemous "embrace", given good electricity. With bad electricity the "process" itself is much more noticable to me.
As you have said, if there's the key to "escaping" from "Lamm's Rule" it is HIGH efficiency speakers, since the only known escape engine remains the "true" SET.
Best regards,
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
02-20-2008
|
| Paul S wrote: | | … he did in a way he thought would be "profitable". If any ideals were in play to begin with, it's ironic that subsequent descriptions of the amp would be linked to Lamm's "profit motive". At least that's how I see/hear it. The whole thing about control … |
|
Yes, Vladimir had that idea “pay for sex” but the profitably itself is not the problem. The problems is that is soon perception of a creator begin to be managed by rules and stratification and hierarchy then the rules begin to devastate creator’s perception and impact the creator’s capacity. Sure, if one wishes to moderate cost per transaction then s/he can do half-ass composing of a prelude or s/he can badly develop the characters in of a novel. However, here is where nothing else then ego take over and what is particularly interesting is that nothing else then ego manages own perception of success of that mission. Have you seen a result of a process where superfluous rules are enforced by superfluous forces?
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
02-21-2008
|
It took me a little while to figure out that "ego" here is the classical sense of nothing but, where personality is merely its trappings/accretions.
Regarding the primal ego it is easy to see the difference between growth and evolution or speech and dialog. Art is necessarily Dialog and the Artist necessarily engages in Dialog in a process of transformation/evolution. The ego is overwhelmed/swamped with the sense of opportunity, and it knows no limits but itself. Perfect feedback becomes nullity.
I am reminded of a statement attributed to VL. He was asked about his elaluation methods, such as listening. His reply came past a curled lip: "Listening evaluations are for 'audiophiles'. I design with a pencil."
The "free market" is the perfect medium for the ego, like shit and darkness for mushrooms.
Best regards,
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by Romy the Cat on
02-21-2008
|
| Paul S wrote: | | It took me a little while to figure out that "ego" here is the classical sense of nothing but, where personality is merely its trappings/accretions. |
|
You might, if you wish, to recognize this ego as the "consciousness it" from the "Forbidden Planet" (1956).
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
02-21-2008
|
I saw that film exactly once, in 1956, and it has stuck with me ever since.
At the very least, this does not bode well for the person who falls asleep while listening.
I'll try to keep my ears (and eyes) open.
I remember a while back the later Lamm amps were compared to the Krell.
Funny that anyone would actually name themselves after a race that self-destructed.
But there's probably a lesson in that, too.
For one thing, there may be such a thing as too much amplification...
Best regards,
Paul S
|
|
|
|
Posted by el`Ol on
02-22-2008
|
| Romy the Cat wrote: | |
Still, among the 0.000000001% of all people who do audio and who do accidently have a listening consciousness AND at the same time do have and interest in subjects of “Abstract Audio” there is “thinking”.
Rgs, Romy the caT |
|
Wow!
I didn´t know you are the only one in this sector of the galaxy.
|
|
|
|
Posted by Paul S on
05-01-2008
|
With the electricity being so bad my listening has been limited, and what I've been hearing has shifted my focus somewhat, which is annoying, to be sure, but it is also educational. I have been playing around with plate loading a little and noting the differences in the sound, and I have been shuffling through memories to try to compare the ML2s to other SETs I have tried. It's not like I ever lost appreciation for what no NFB SETs can do, but it is only recently that new super/sub-sets of realization have come to me about the nature of amplification as an abstract concept versus any number of approaches to actually "amplify" sound, specifically music. And, weird as it sounds to say it, this has literally changed not only how I hear but it has also changed what I am hearing, all the time.
It's not like my early impressions about the ML2 "effects" have changed, exactly; it's more like my perception of what these effects mean has changed.
In meditating on this matrix, I am thinking of the very best SET "immediacy", which, although very cool, has only been available over a very small part of the musical performance via SETs I have tried. And I am wondering how much of this delicious immediacy is made available from just the form of amplification that least restricts or controls -- anything.
I know this is an old idea, even hackneyed, and everyone and his brother claims to have come up with The Answer to The Problem of The Simplest Circuit.
So, where do we find this immediacy with FR and unlimited dynamics?
It seems ironic that to get the FR "dynamics" we wind up having to channel and in so doing ultimately cap them.
And I mean this in both abstract and "practical" terms.
It appears that pre-digested sound of any sort will ultimately be lacking in vitality.
Paul S
|
|