Sakura Systems OTA Cable Kit

Yes, Slawney, I'll correct you.

1. Where do you get off insinuating that I "personally" got someone to buy cable and now have some kind of vested "personal" interest that they keep them? You'd better read this stuff again because you are thinking too much. I like you so I'll chalk it up to quick fingers on keys and not enough self-reflection. The next time you insinuate that someone "influenced" someone else, the insinuation being that there was something subtlely nefarious in the motivation, you'd better think twice. Frankly, its an off-handed swipe at Bwhite that somehow he can't make his own decisions - which he can.

2. Sead (all the way back in November...) wouldn't honestly engage on a dialogue - failing to offer arguments for his positions while criticizing others' positions and finally resorting to the childishness of calling me names - and I called him out on it. He chose, evidently, to quiet-up and I let it go. What I don't get is your riding to his defense, mistakenly and months later (because, if you look, I haven't said anything to him since then, even ignoring his 4-29-02 swipe).

To wit: anyone who reads Sead's 4-29-02 comment above can readily discern his flippancy and to claim differently is, well...You know what really gets me about this? Inauthentic chimers-in who start off a post with a bunch of statements about how nice everyone is - establishing how nice they are - and then proceed to deride (Sead insinuating that Bwhite is trying to posture himself as an audio "God") and mischaracterize (saying that I "disqualified automatically" OTA - a complete lie) to others detriment and then end it all with a "cheers" (Sead's MO), or some other self-serving smarm thats supposed to make it all sweet again. And now a further mischaracterization from you, Slawney, that Sead did not commit these, um, "errors", and that he's just so-so misunderstood. Maybe Sead is alright in a deal, or over the phone, or shooting the audio bull one-on-one, but so far, he has a penchant of popping into discussions with an inauthentic sweet tone masking an actual derision.

3. No one is stating "conclusions", just opinions, and the thread is just fine. Where you've perceived the circumstance that's its getting out of hand - as in, insinuating that an opinion becomes a "conclusion" when, allegedly, offered to shut someone else up - perhaps has more to do with your desire to defend Sead, assumably, than the tone of this dialogue presently.

4. As much as we would all like to maintain out egalitarian self-delusions, ears are not equal and opinion is not radically subjective; in context, some opinion is more true than others. But dialogue works fine when everyone offers theirs' authentically, as an adult, and is willing to state why and how they arrived at that opinion. I'm soooo tired of hearing on these threads people who evidentally have a strong sense of opinion on the gear they like - which, Slawney, I know you do - to then at some juncture say that all opinions are equal, as if, by offering this observation, they are settling down a class of schoolchildren (and they the lone adult seeing from on high the foibles of others). There is a difference between the democratic notion that all have equal access to voice opinion and the fact that some opinion is better than another - all displines of knowledge depend on it. Yes, I know that opinion in audio is system-dependant, but that does not reduce all opinion into an undifferentiated morase of, er, "equality". Why people who obviously have a strong opinion feel compelled to at some point trot out a position that then claims all opinion is equal is beyond me. It does always seem to happen though when someone is being "diplomatic".

Slawney, in the future, let Sead defend his own "errors"; you get caught up in them when you try. Oh, and the next time you are wondering if, in fact, I "influenced" someone, you have my personal e-mail address. Just ask me.

Er, cheers,

Mark (Asa)

Whoa! While I would have enjoyed giving Sead a piece of my mind after reading his post, I felt that my unabridged response to him wasn't appropriate for this forum. I restrained and thus settled on simply letting him know that I was offended by his remark.

Sead has been an informative contributor to this forum over the past 9 months, however he has been rather defensive in situations regarding those who post comparisons - or in the case of Asa - who simply suggested that other manufacturers have been very successful with small gague wire. Sead's flippant attitude toward Asa ever since he drew that parallel between thin gague OTA and thin gague Kondo has been totally unfair and completely without merit.

The fact that Sead is a dealer for OTA should also be mentioned and may help to clarify his interest in this product.

Ivo (whoever HE is) posted as an unregistered Audiogon user and we all know how much credibility those folks have. It seems that Sead is the only one here who knows Ivo. Interesting.

Bwhite, my name is Ivo Sunjic. I'm 45, married, no kids. I live in Sarajevo. I'm economist and I work, from time to time, as a film production manager in the Saga film production company in Sarajevo. But, most of the incomes that I make is through the offices I rent here in Sarajevo.

I'm an audiophile for 25 years. Tried a owned a lot of so-called high end gear.

I listen to 47 laboratory Flatfish/Progression/Dumpty CD player, Gaincard/Humpty amp and Konus Audio Essence full range speakers. Cablings are OTA, from power cords to interconnects and speaker cables.

No, I'm not registered here in Audiogon. Honestly, I didn't think it was important. And, I'm not a person who like to discuss so much about the audio through the internet. Sometimes it is difficult to express your feelings in English language. I sent 4-5 posts to the Audio Asylum and a few posts here, on Audiogon. Oh, yes. I registered my system on Audio Asylum's inmate systems. I made a couple of contacts with some good people asking for their advice and that's all. I have to admit that's poor internet biography to get some credibility on Audiogon.

Sead and I share the same passion for audio for years. We live in the same town and of course we know each other!

So, I send posts only when I feel it's important to say something which would be useful to someone. Your statement that OTA could be "too fast" just made me wish to say something.
I have to say that the quantity of sarcasm and irony from the following posts really surprised me :(
I really sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention. I appreciate your efforts in order to achieve good, natural sound from your system.

I hope you believe that I'm not a ghost!

Best wishes,
Ivo

Asa, while I agree with some of what you say in your response, I need to clarify some things.

First, your first correction (1. in the above) of me.

Asa (04-30-02): "Where do you get off insinuating that I "personally" got someone to buy cable and now have some kind of vested "personal" interest that they keep them? You'd better read this stuff again because you are thinking too much."

Ok, I will read what you wrote on this forum on 04-25-02, more or less to Bwhite as addressee, after his latest assessment of OTA, and the return to NBS/AN Kondo.

Here are your own words:

"Bwhite: ahh, you've ended up where we started. I have been watching to see if you liked the OTA better than the hideously expensive NBS/KSL I pushed you towards - and had been feeling bad that you could have been just as happy with the OTA (which I haven't heard). Glad you still like the KSL/NBS combo."

It is the use of this phrase "pushed you towards" which I would like to remind you of. Since you are a writer, I will ask you a simple hermeneutic question: What do you mean by the verb "push" in the phrase "pushed you towards?
1. to exert pressure or force
2. to thrust, shove or drive
3. to follow up vigorously, promote (a campaign, a claim)
4. to bring into a critical state; esp. to make critically needful
5. to urge or promote the use, sale, success, etc.

All meanings are listed by Websters. How should I understand what you wrote?

And, as a second question, what is wrong with the word "influence" by comparison to "push"? It is actually the weakest power to produce effects on others in the scale that goes from Influence, Authority, Prestige, and Weight.

To go back to Websters.

"Influence" implies the power of persons or things (whether or not exerted consciously or overtly) to affect others.

"Authority" implies the power to command acceptance, belief, obedience, etc., based on strength of character, expertness of knowledge, etc.

"Prestige" implies the power to command esteem or admiration, based on brilliance of achievement or outstanding superiority

"Weight" implies influence that is more or less preponderant in its effect.

Influence, authority, prestige, weight are clearly attractive features. Judging by a few signs, some members of audiogon attribute these features to you. Personally, I attribute influence, authority, and prestige to you, based on numerous posts. It is up to Bwhite to say if he gives you influence, authority, prestige, or weight in his selection of cables. I would guess from previous e-mail correspondence with him that he gives you authority, even prestige based on your ability to put together systems with well-selected components. But I assumed "influence" based on the fact that you both use similar cable systems, and even have the same preamp (Syrah) on one of your systems, although that may have changed.

Here is what you wrote on 04-25-02:

"If you remember, I've also have the Audionote IC from CD to pre, and NBS Pro from pre to amp in this second system and found combo complementary."

I do not think it is a coincidence that Bwhite has a similar set-up. The fact that he does, does not necessarily imply your influence. And if you did influence Bwhite, I never meant to imply a "nefarious" motivation. You are absolutely wrong if you think that I was implying you had a wicked, villainous, iniquitous intent in "pushing" Bwhite "towards" NBS / AN. These are superior cables, and the fact that they work well together is a valuable discovery. The fact that Bwhite has started to describe the differences between OTA and AN Kondo is also valuable. I believe someone asked you to do the same, asa, a long time ago, annd I do not recall your differentiation of the two. And this is for a very good reason: you have not heard OTA, as you yourself say. This is completely honest. If we go backk to Redkiwi's request at the very beginning of this forum, he said: "If you have not heard this cable, please don't bother posting your opinions of how it MUST sound here." I am not sure if you have actually done what Redkiwi asked those who have not heard OTA not to do. But in some of your reflections on the cognitive structure of the listener, and the differentiation of different types of listening, as well as the appeal that certain cables (not OTA is mentioned, but I think it is implied) has to "that part of our minds that listens more analytically" I think, yes, you, asa, are starting to post opinions of "how OTA MUST sound."

Second, here is the second thing (2.) that you correct me on.

"Inauthentic chimers-in who start off a post with a bunch of statements about how nice everyone is - establishing how nice they are - and then proceed to deride (Sead insinuating that Bwhite is trying to posture himself as an audio "God") and mischaracterize (saying that I "disqualified automatically" OTA - a complete lie) to others detriment and then end it all with a "cheers" (Sead's MO) And now a further mischaracterization from you, Slawney, that Sead did not commit these, um, "errors", and that he's just so-so misunderstood."

I never claimed that Sead did not provoke you or Bwhite. What I dislike is the fact that there is not a real explication/argument (in German, we would say, "Auseinandersetzung") between you and sead. All of us here could learn alot from a genuine dialogue between you and sead.

As far as your third correction, I am not trying to defend sead. Clearly, his tactics are provocative. So are yours. You sign the previous post with his moniker, "er, cheers" with your "er" reminding us that your complimentary close is meant entirely cynically. It is actually a citation of sead's cynical complimentary close of 04-29-02.
As far as "conclusions," I meant this word in the sense that each experiment has a "conclusion." In case you have not noticed, I have been modelling alot of my posts on this forum following the format of the scientific report. To perform an experiment with OTA, and not state a conclusion to me is, well, inconclusive, and not very productive. Bwhite, I feel, has concluded FOR NBS/AN AGAINST OTA. That is his right. If he explains the reason why he concludes in this way, then I will learn from him. He has, in fact, raised a few questions in my mind about a possible "subtractive aspect" of OTA, which I will be listening for when I revert back to the NBSs.

In your fourth correction, you write:

"dialogue works fine when everyone offers theirs' authentically, as an adult, and is willing to state why and how they arrived at that opinion."

I completely agree with this statement. However, I do not agree with what you insinuate in your next sentence:

"I'm soooo tired of hearing on these threads people who evidentally have a strong sense of opinion on the gear they like - which, Slawney, I know you do - to then at some juncture say that all opinions are equal, as if, by offering this observation, they are settling down a class of schoolchildren (and they the lone adult seeing from on high the foibles of others)."

I am opposed to a radical subjectivism or relativism of the "all opinions are equal" type. What I actually mean was better formulated on 04-27-02:

"As soon as one enters the field of personalized judgement on this score, argument becomes insane, demented, weird, extravagant, and pointless given the different requirements of all of our systems."

Let me put it this way. To the extent that the participants cannot visit one another (some of us are very far away from each other geographically) to listen to each of our different systems, we really do not share the same objective conditions on which a reliable discussion of the performance of OTA can be based. For instance, I cannot really evaluate why albert said that OTA "lacked weight" in comparison to his standard ICs (which I think are PAD) since I did not hear his system with OTA and with PAD. Nevertheless, I can (based on his "weight," and it would be wrong not to recognize that albert does have alot of "weight" here) assume that there is the possibility that OTA can "lack weight" in certain systems with a SONY 9000 player.

Last but not least, your request for me to not defend sead:

"Slawney, in the future, let Sead defend his own "errors"; you get caught up in them when you try."

implies 1.) that I tried to defend him (maybe you are right here), and that 2.) I should not in the future do this (I will try not to) and that 3.) anyone who defends him gets caught up in his "errors" by implication.

It is 3.) that I reject. Let me make this perfectly clear asa:

I have not said the same things to you as sead has, and I have and take no responsibility for what he said to you.

I am glad that you invite me to e-mail you personally, which I will do so even if I do NOT suspect that you influenced someone.

Ok, Slawney, let us see...

1. I dealt with you in the same way I dealt with BWhite. Given your prior experience with me in personal, one-on-one detailed discusions on the very same cable, namely, NBS Statement, what did you think I meant by "push" in the CONTEXT of the rather playful post directed at BWhite? In other words, given the context of your quite specific personal experience of no "pushing" from me on the very same issue, the context of comeraderie of the post to Bwhite, much as I've had previously with you, the context of BWhite's evident stereo experience, comparable to your own in general terms (leading one to assume, with due credit to BWhite, that he is hardly "push-able"), what misguided probability analysis led you to the conclusion that "push" should be excised from its context for your suddenly literal purposes? If anything, one would tentatively conclude the opposite - especially a writer. Tell me, how did I treat you? And, Bwhite, did I push you in the sense of the negative that Slawney now implies was his justifiable assumption? Hmmm...

2. Tell me, after you have fully read the above discussion between myself and sead last year, what positions do I take which you feel are unsubstantiated or irrational vis-a-vis sead? Specifically, tell me which ones and I will explain them more fully. My position was/is that sead refused to answer my inquiry regarding what was the basis of his negative blanket characterizations of my fully laid out arguments. I can not have a dialogue with someone who answers such an inquiry by name calling or tangential list-making. That you would say I didn't treat sead with the same cognitive rigor and fairness as you claim for yourself in your "scientific reports" is itself, in my opinion, symptomatic of your continued bias vis-a-vis sead. Tell me what you think is unclear in those arguments. If you determine they are not unclear, then what do you think would lead you to say so in the context of sead and myself?

3. On your purported defense of sead, I stand by my statement. I believe the sum of your original post, in its context, is illustrative of my perception.

4. On "Er, cheers", of course I was being cynical. I guess I wonder how you didn't have too much trouble with that context but difficulty with the original one discussed in #1 herein. That said, my cynicism was consequent to your post - which deserved it for the reasons stated and did not, at least, hide its humor-tinged wryness (the "er")behind feigned offers of "diplomacy" - and, evidently, for you, was instructive (YES!!, for the selectively literal, that's a touch, not hateful, of condescension, brushed with an air of wry hope of finality :)).

Really, Slawney, you always seemed like a bright guy with good ears - which is why I approached my Editor at the time numerous times for a job for you writing after you asked if I would - so this could go on ad infinitum with you as sead's foil.

If you want to take up sead's banner in the "discussion" he and I had last year, then I'm game. It would be fun and I know - based on the CONTEXT of our prior relationship - that it would be fair and absent the name-calling, list-making that sead resorted to.

So, I'll let you serve first. ("non-provocatively", so we'll all be sure)...You pick the topic that relates to sound, musical experience and wire et al in those contexts. Otherwise, I think we should let this discussion return to observations on OTA and subjects rel;ated thereto (like my inquiry on the possible relationship of thin gauge wires and similar performance).