Enemies of the revolution

[Ian Iveson]

RDH4, for being, for many people, the beginning of the end of music in
the home for decades. For explaining in minute detail exactly why
valves are now inferior to solid state for the purpose of audio
reproduction. For consolidating the primacy of engineering
objectives, removing music from the consideration of domestic audio,
and so paving the way for solid state. Transistors allow a better
engineering solution for an engineering problem. But they aren't art.

Audio reproduction, for not being possible, and for not being what we
want anyway. Finally we got to the Krell and found that kind of
perfection to be not what we had hoped for. Perfect numbers were
finally proven not to equal perfect performance. Only daft anarchists
believe that revolutions arise from failure: real revolutionaries look
for the crest of the wave. Hence the valve renaissance arrived just as
the solid state agenda was complete; just as its extraordinary success
cast a spotlight on the paucity of its intention, forcing the
revolutionary revelation that a domestic stereo system is unavoidably
a musical instrument, and should be developed as such. Arise ye
starvelings from your slumbers. The owl of Minerva flies just before
dawn.

Excessively tight control, including the use of excessive feedback,
for not allowing sound to be musical. For being something that good
musical instruments don't allow. For being something that musical
amplifiers and speakers don't have, in their components, in their
stages, or in their totality. For being the enemy of harmony and
plotting against euphony. We have nothing to lose but our chains.

Measured performance, for wagging the dog. Measurements facilitate
mass production for a mass audience, but they are secondary to
historical development through playing, listening and experimenting.

The concept of inherent feedback in triodes, for being wrong, and for
being a tactical error in the face of the resurgent, not to mention
insurgent, apologists and running dogs of the SS military-industrial
imperialist catastrophe. The great, musical thing about triodes is
that they can get by without much feedback. They can approximate
reproduction and do music at the same time, in the right context. Its
a kind of dialectic. Feedback in triodes would be a marketing blunder
with nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Kampft mit uns!

Sweetness and Light,

Ian

[maxhifi]

"Ian Iveson" > wrote in message
k...
> RDH4, for being, for many people, the beginning of the end of music in
> the home for decades. For explaining in minute detail exactly why
> valves are now inferior to solid state for the purpose of audio
> reproduction. For consolidating the primacy of engineering
> objectives, removing music from the consideration of domestic audio,
> and so paving the way for solid state. Transistors allow a better
> engineering solution for an engineering problem. But they aren't art.
>
> Audio reproduction, for not being possible, and for not being what we
> want anyway. Finally we got to the Krell and found that kind of
> perfection to be not what we had hoped for. Perfect numbers were
> finally proven not to equal perfect performance. Only daft anarchists
> believe that revolutions arise from failure: real revolutionaries look
> for the crest of the wave. Hence the valve renaissance arrived just as
> the solid state agenda was complete; just as its extraordinary success
> cast a spotlight on the paucity of its intention, forcing the
> revolutionary revelation that a domestic stereo system is unavoidably
> a musical instrument, and should be developed as such. Arise ye
> starvelings from your slumbers. The owl of Minerva flies just before
> dawn.
>
> Excessively tight control, including the use of excessive feedback,
> for not allowing sound to be musical. For being something that good
> musical instruments don't allow. For being something that musical
> amplifiers and speakers don't have, in their components, in their
> stages, or in their totality. For being the enemy of harmony and
> plotting against euphony. We have nothing to lose but our chains.
>
> Measured performance, for wagging the dog. Measurements facilitate
> mass production for a mass audience, but they are secondary to
> historical development through playing, listening and experimenting.
>
> The concept of inherent feedback in triodes, for being wrong, and for
> being a tactical error in the face of the resurgent, not to mention
> insurgent, apologists and running dogs of the SS military-industrial
> imperialist catastrophe. The great, musical thing about triodes is
> that they can get by without much feedback. They can approximate
> reproduction and do music at the same time, in the right context. Its
> a kind of dialectic. Feedback in triodes would be a marketing blunder
> with nothing to gain and everything to lose.
>
> Kampft mit uns!
>
> Sweetness and Light,
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>

Were any sort of mind altering substances involved in the creation of this
essay ? It sounds like something Henry Miller would have written had he been
passionate about audio!

[Andre Jute]

Now you're cooking with gas, Ian!

Andre Jute
Former idolator

Ian Iveson wrote:
> RDH4, for being, for many people, the beginning of the end of music in
> the home for decades. For explaining in minute detail exactly why
> valves are now inferior to solid state for the purpose of audio
> reproduction. For consolidating the primacy of engineering
> objectives, removing music from the consideration of domestic audio,
> and so paving the way for solid state. Transistors allow a better
> engineering solution for an engineering problem. But they aren't art.
>
> Audio reproduction, for not being possible, and for not being what we
> want anyway. Finally we got to the Krell and found that kind of
> perfection to be not what we had hoped for. Perfect numbers were
> finally proven not to equal perfect performance. Only daft anarchists
> believe that revolutions arise from failure: real revolutionaries look
> for the crest of the wave. Hence the valve renaissance arrived just as
> the solid state agenda was complete; just as its extraordinary success
> cast a spotlight on the paucity of its intention, forcing the
> revolutionary revelation that a domestic stereo system is unavoidably
> a musical instrument, and should be developed as such. Arise ye
> starvelings from your slumbers. The owl of Minerva flies just before
> dawn.
>
> Excessively tight control, including the use of excessive feedback,
> for not allowing sound to be musical. For being something that good
> musical instruments don't allow. For being something that musical
> amplifiers and speakers don't have, in their components, in their
> stages, or in their totality. For being the enemy of harmony and
> plotting against euphony. We have nothing to lose but our chains.
>
> Measured performance, for wagging the dog. Measurements facilitate
> mass production for a mass audience, but they are secondary to
> historical development through playing, listening and experimenting.
>
> The concept of inherent feedback in triodes, for being wrong, and for
> being a tactical error in the face of the resurgent, not to mention
> insurgent, apologists and running dogs of the SS military-industrial
> imperialist catastrophe. The great, musical thing about triodes is
> that they can get by without much feedback. They can approximate
> reproduction and do music at the same time, in the right context. Its
> a kind of dialectic. Feedback in triodes would be a marketing blunder
> with nothing to gain and everything to lose.
>
> Kampft mit uns!
>
> Sweetness and Light,
>
> Ian

[Andre Jute]

Ian Iveson wrote:
> RDH4, for being, for many people, the beginning of the end of music in
> the home for decades. For explaining in minute detail exactly why
> valves are now inferior to solid state for the purpose of audio
> reproduction. For consolidating the primacy of engineering
> objectives, removing music from the consideration of domestic audio,
> and so paving the way for solid state. Transistors allow a better
> engineering solution for an engineering problem. But they aren't art.
>
> Audio reproduction, for not being possible, and for not being what we
> want anyway. Finally we got to the Krell and found that kind of
> perfection to be not what we had hoped for. Perfect numbers were
> finally proven not to equal perfect performance.

I once helped the proud new owner of one of my 845 amps throw his Krell
over the side of his yacht (1). I wonder if that -- plus a lot of
prayer and maybe a little flagellation -- will get me past St Peter.

Andre Jute

(1) Actually, I didn't know we were carrying it outside to throw it
over; I would have saved the beautifully made and very substantial
heatsinks for a Zen amp...

>Only daft anarchists
> believe that revolutions arise from failure: real revolutionaries look
> for the crest of the wave. Hence the valve renaissance arrived just as
> the solid state agenda was complete; just as its extraordinary success
> cast a spotlight on the paucity of its intention, forcing the
> revolutionary revelation that a domestic stereo system is unavoidably
> a musical instrument, and should be developed as such. Arise ye
> starvelings from your slumbers. The owl of Minerva flies just before
> dawn.
>
> Excessively tight control, including the use of excessive feedback,
> for not allowing sound to be musical. For being something that good
> musical instruments don't allow. For being something that musical
> amplifiers and speakers don't have, in their components, in their
> stages, or in their totality. For being the enemy of harmony and
> plotting against euphony. We have nothing to lose but our chains.
>
> Measured performance, for wagging the dog. Measurements facilitate
> mass production for a mass audience, but they are secondary to
> historical development through playing, listening and experimenting.
>
> The concept of inherent feedback in triodes, for being wrong, and for
> being a tactical error in the face of the resurgent, not to mention
> insurgent, apologists and running dogs of the SS military-industrial
> imperialist catastrophe. The great, musical thing about triodes is
> that they can get by without much feedback. They can approximate
> reproduction and do music at the same time, in the right context. Its
> a kind of dialectic. Feedback in triodes would be a marketing blunder
> with nothing to gain and everything to lose.
>
> Kampft mit uns!
>
> Sweetness and Light,
>
> Ian

[Eeyore]

Ian Iveson wrote:

> Transistors allow a better
> engineering solution for an engineering problem. But they aren't art.

No ? They may require a certain skill to get their best for sure.


> Excessively tight control, including the use of excessive feedback,
> for not allowing sound to be musical.

You're kidding right ? You can reduce speaker damping just like an SET by
adding series resistance in the speaker cable btw.


> For being something that good musical instruments don't allow.

Don't be silly ! Good electronics is 'agnostic' about what it's
reproducing.


> Measured performance, for wagging the dog.

For being objective and scientific you mean ?


> Measurements facilitate
> mass production for a mass audience, but they are secondary to
> historical development through playing, listening and experimenting.

Meaasurements are primary to all historic developments in audio. Only
hobbyists use the ear alone. And a very misleading 'measurement tool' it
can be on its own too.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

> Now you're cooking with gas, Ian!

Kerosene more likely.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

> I once helped the proud new owner of one of my 845 amps throw his Krell
> over the side of his yacht (1). I wonder if that -- plus a lot of
> prayer and maybe a little flagellation -- will get me past St Peter.

Idiot.

Graham

[[email protected]]

Eeyore wrote:

> Ian Iveson wrote:
>
> > Transistors allow a better
> > engineering solution for an engineering problem. But they aren't art.
>
> No ? They may require a certain skill to get their best for sure.
>

Hi RATs,

Sigh. Everything requires a "certain skill" to get anything resembling
quality for the final product. And only Ego claims it has achieved
absolute perfection.

A famous speaker builder was givng a sales pitch for his atmospheric
pressure modulators and fielded a question about crossover upgrades:
"Well, you can make my speakers sound differemt, but, you can't make
them sound better."

He then announced his new, upgraded products, without blushing.

Either humans can do something or they can't. Physics,
non-denominational reality, does not check academic credentials nor
require any ID forms whatsoever. Only the lame posing 'professionals'
claim only the 'truly educated' can get lucky with a soldering gun. It
is a nice, romantic lie, but, the simple fact is nobody gets to be a
god from a few years of drinking in the Engineering school bar. All you
get is some clues about how to speak as if you truly believed. (If you
truly do believe, you are dumber than most.) Nobody but us hobbyists
care what our junk actually sounds like. All the real professionals can
do is pose as if they are hip to what that inelegant statistical mob
called the retail market appears to think. Eyesore is not truly stupid,
but, he thinks his customers are. OK, maybe he is stupid, too, but, it
is his posturing as representing Truth and Beauty as the Sure Product
of his sticking his little physical property probes up the ass of his
creations which damns him as a poseur.

>
> > Excessively tight control, including the use of excessive feedback,
> > for not allowing sound to be musical.
>
> You're kidding right ? You can reduce speaker damping just like an SET by
> adding series resistance in the speaker cable btw.
>

Everybody is kidding. This is a simple hobby, where everyone wants to
be in charge. The wretched tiny samples taken in the recording process
can be entertaining.

The leap from amusement to aggrandizement is made in trying to sell
junk that can be fun as the Holy artifacts for Commanding the audio
gods. Recording engineers are not gods. Playback engineers are not
gods.

Gods may inspire musicians, occasionally.

Marketing inspires engineers. Gods and money are the same to some
people. Not all. Money is a societal group fantasy which clearly
simplifies barter. Gods may enhance the imagination, not just pump up
the fantasy.


>
> > For being something that good musical instruments don't allow.
>
> Don't be silly ! Good electronics is 'agnostic' about what it's
> reproducing.
>

Perhaps 'ignostic' would be a better choice of words. Electronics do
not serve gods, they simply amuse some men ... who amuse some babes
intent on attempting reproduction ... at their convenience.


>
> > Measured performance, for wagging the dog.
>
> For being objective and scientific you mean ?
>

No, for being incomplete, monochromatic samples posing as the gods,
themselves.


>
> > Measurements facilitate
> > mass production for a mass audience, but they are secondary to
> > historical development through playing, listening and experimenting.
>
> Meaasurements are primary to all historic developments in audio. Only
> hobbyists use the ear alone. And a very misleading 'measurement tool' it
> can be on its own too.
>
> Graham

Misdirection is a better term. Look at the meter to "truly see" what
you "truly hear" would be a good trick, if you could pull it off.

Obviously Eyesore thinks he can see exactly what he hears. The fact
that real, live musicians give him something even his 'engineering
marvels' do not is just one of those things?

Live Music goes in one end of the stick of aural reproduction. The
other end is jammed up our our audio asshole. It doesn't matter what
flavor of **** we smear on it, audio is always the ****ty end of that
stick.

Who's **** stinks least is not the question.

Who makes us dream of aural delights most dearly might be, but, only
after someone does. So far, only real musicians do.

Engineers just pull their dicks and stare at their meters, drooling
accuracy.

Some hobbyists may try and bridge the gap.

Only people seeking easy wealth dare claim there is no gap.

We hobbyists can only hear some wretched approximations of dismally
small samples.

Pose as you must, or may, or please. I have heard a good piano well
played in this house. My Audio Dungeon only hints of that truly fine
dream.

This is a simple hobby. Only simpletons think they are its master :)

Happy Ears!
Al

[Peter Wieck]

Eeyore wrote:

>that he missed the point entirely.

Graham:

This is one situation where Ian and McCoy have it "right". They are
preaching Revealed Religion, and therefore it brooks no argument,
accepts no logic, and requires nothing but absolute, abject belief.
Within those parameters, nothing outside of their revelations are
acceptable. All who exist or believe outside those parameters are
necessarily damned.

Let it alone and let them evolve to their inevitable conclusion. It
will be either Magic Kool Aid in some distant location, or
self-immolation while trapped like vermin. Either way, the ultimate
result of rigid beliefs held in the face of all reason.

What is important is that they do not succeed at forcing their religion
on others. Deal with them on a factual, actual basis and they have no
power. Attempt to convert them to said facts and realities only
empowers them.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Iveson" > wrote in
message k

> RDH4, for being, for many people, the beginning of the
> end of music in the home for decades. For explaining in
> minute detail exactly why valves are now inferior to
> solid state for the purpose of audio reproduction. For
> consolidating the primacy of engineering objectives,
> removing music from the consideration of domestic audio,
> and so paving the way for solid state. Transistors allow
> a better engineering solution for an engineering problem.

So far so good.

> But they aren't art.

Absolute hogwash.

> Audio reproduction, for not being possible, and for not
> being what we want anyway.

If audio reproduction is not possible, then you've never experienced it and
neither has anybody else. So what you're doing is cursing the dark instead
of trying to shed some light.

> Finally we got to the Krell
> and found that kind of perfection to be not what we had
> hoped for.

The moral of the story (and this isn't it) is that a perfect amplifier is
not the only important part of an audio system. If you need that lesson,
then you really need some education!

> Perfect numbers were finally proven not to
> equal perfect performance.

See above.

> Only daft anarchists believe
> that revolutions arise from failure: real revolutionaries
> look for the crest of the wave.

The author seems to lack the mental equipment it takes to realize that these
are not mutually exclusive.

> Hence the valve
> renaissance arrived just as the solid state agenda was
> complete;

Absolutely false. The valve renaissance is in some sense based on the
nihilism that the author has just spewed on us. It's suicidal if your goal
is the best possible sound.

> just as its extraordinary success cast a
> spotlight on the paucity of its intention, forcing the
> revolutionary revelation that a domestic stereo system is
> unavoidably a musical instrument, and should be developed
> as such.

Total rubbish. If you want to make your own music right now, get a musical
instrument. If you want to hear music that you or someone else made at some
other time, get a good system for music reproduction.

> Arise ye starvelings from your slumbers. The owl
> of Minerva flies just before dawn.

Owls eat rats. I like Chateubriand.

> Excessively tight control, including the use of excessive
> feedback, for not allowing sound to be musical.

If you want your woofers to ring like a bass guitar, then yes drive your
woofers with a source impedance that would make their designer cringe.

> For being something that good musical instruments don't allow. For
> being something that musical amplifiers and speakers
> don't have, in their components, in their stages, or in
> their totality. For being the enemy of harmony and
> plotting against euphony. We have nothing to lose but our
> chains.

Follow this author's thoughts at your own risk!

> Measured performance, for wagging the dog. Measurements
> facilitate mass production for a mass audience, but they
> are secondary to historical development through playing,
> listening and experimenting.

Playing listening and experimenting is the long hard way to evaluate the
abilty of audio gear to reproduce music. Theoretical circuit analysis and
measurements can be effective shortcuts. If all you want to do is play,
then by all means pick the most inefficent means you can. Warm your
soldering iron over an open fire that you started by rubbing two sticks, if
you have the time.

> The concept of inherent feedback in triodes, for being
> wrong, and for being a tactical error in the face of the
> resurgent, not to mention insurgent, apologists and
> running dogs of the SS military-industrial imperialist
> catastrophe.

Time saving hint: Since this isn't a sentence, it can't possibly make any
sense.

> The great, musical thing about triodes is
> that they can get by without much feedback.

Someone is obviously confused about the difference between making your own
music now, or listening to music that you or someone made a while back.

> They can
> approximate reproduction and do music at the same time,
> in the right context. Its a kind of dialectic. Feedback
> in triodes would be a marketing blunder with nothing to
> gain and everything to lose.

> Kampft mit uns!
>
> Sweetness and Light,

Weirdness.

[[email protected]]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

>
>
> Yersofulla****!!


Hi RATs!

Fart Pudwig, you are too kind. Or two of a kind. Or a toucan.

Sigh. This NG needs more sweet treats like you to keep up our morale :)

Snorts and Kisses,

Al