Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

Greg, we just subcontract an extruder--and if it's in Mexico we'll discuss business at the 'restaurant' where my girlfriends work and we'll charge on the Visa (actually the charge says "Restaurant Bar Alvarado"--my kind of place). Get the point?

On a serious note, if the Purist was that essential for recording someone like Mapleshade or Chesky would be using it--then a more sensible marketing structure would follow...and someone true to the music would become an evangelist about the product--just like Kevin Barret is a 1200 evangelist.

The more I play with my newly arranged system the more I reallize how futile it is to keep upgrading. Truth is my system's limit is the recording I am playing. No amount of money will be able to compensate for that--especially with the music that I listen to. This I emailed to Sedond a few minutes ago:

"In my system, I've realized the new homebrew speaker wire is not limiting--it's the source components. I need to get a modded ART Di/O and properly damp my CDP's transport. My 1200 needs better cabling (cryo'ed)and proper burn-in. I need to get rid of that Sumiko headshell and just use the silver wires in the Technics headshell, which is *much* lighter. Then get the upgraded Power Supply for my Monolithic and have Dan Wright put a top of the line Burr Brown op amp and some high speed Shotsky rectifiers. That's what will really kick my system in--not a $700-800 interconnect. The Tice ICs will get LN2 cryo & TPT retreatment, though...best bang for the $$$."

My mind is very clear.

Hey Psychic, why don't we hammer out the B-plan just in case there are takers... this is a crazy world, you know!

LOL, Asa, no he won't. He'll follow this thread in silent wonder only to break from the bushes at the right moment.
To your question briefly, lest Arnie and the others chide us, that what the Catholics tell us in their idea of the privatio boni, is that the horned one is, as you say, only an epiphenomenon of ultimate goodness. Not so, says the old man from Zurich, the devil is the other face of GOD. Therefore you have to love and to fear him at the same time. He had all the theologists of his time aflame of course. Not so, that the behaviorists hijacked Jung. They don't bother to read him. But the Jungians proudly point out, that some of their master's ideas seem to be corroborated by "modern science", as if that was the greater truth. LOL again.......
Greg, read you post only now, your marketing plan is truly mephistophelian, i.e. blissfully good and no, you need neither Kant nor Feuerbach, just read the book of Job. But your point is excellent. Cheers,

O.K. after over 200 posts I'm convinced I'm a pervert. I keep returning like someone who goes to auto races to see the crashes. I'm just waiting to see if the first person to hang themselves does so from the lenght of this thread or from an appropriate length of the latest fab cable.

Where is Muralman?!! I must be loosing my touch...

Unsound, yes, incidious, it must be stopped, stone the witch(es). Yea, BTW, isn't that a cable hanging loosley around your neck, you know, lookin' kinda like a noose? :)

Gregm: interesting point, thank you. I knew it was too much to mix the material relationship of Jungian (or is it Neo-Jungian?) archetypes together with the idea of bliss/not-bliss, and their sequence, if any. Ok, let me think... Each "coexist" you say, like in an integral, dynamic relationship where ones existence necessarily implies the other? I think that occurs as the dynamic in oscillation between the two (as prey recoil from the fear of loss, and as predator grasping towards the potentiality of bliss, or absense of loss). So, at the deepest level of consciousness, is a binary oscillation bewteen seeking bliss and avoiding its absense. But isn't that always about bliss? Isn't a predator created (in human consciousness) by the fear of becoming prey in the first instance? So, which is first, or are they both merely reflections of each other, each manifesting different to the eye based on their relationship to fear? Tao Te Ching says that this is the spinning wheel (hope and fear are still rungs on a ladder;the amoeba's binary instinctual program of light/dark, prey/predator, eat/be eaten, etc.) and that you can, by seeing this oscillation within yourself and, thus, seeing below it, step off the wheel, or step beyond it, realizing that it was powered by your own beleif in it. So, if that is true, then the oscillation spins as you describe, but its existence does not exclude the possibility of transcending it. What is your true face? Hope I understood you and not too confusing here.

Psychanimal: yes, it can become a spinning wheel if you get focused on the things of audio too much, switching too much. But what I found interesting is that you think your wires now have a greater performance envelope than the electronics. A materialist who thinks only amps are components might say, how can you tell that; if the components aren't translating? How can you tell its the wire? Of course, under the same reasoning, then how could we ever tell if one piece of electronics is superior to another? BTW, I like Tice wire, good value, good harmonics, should respond well to the cryo in its weak spots.

Detlof: what is Jung's true face, even if he doesn't see it? Love and fear at once; how Old Testament of him. It looks as if Carl J. couldn't escape his demons, so he just said they must "co-exist". First Rule: don't limit the Tao/God/Jehovah with two faces - that's a binary thing. When you listen to beautiful music what face do you have, predator-face or prey-face, or no-face? What is your true face-not-a-face? But you know this, don't you (the answer you have, before you started to answer to yourself)?

Detlof: yes, consciousness states are corrolated with material parts of the brain, although they are not bound by it. I was just wondering, since I pretty much stopped reading all the technical stuff a few years ago, if there was anything new. Not really important, though, just curious. You have better things to do than listen to me yap, I know. But thanks anyway. "Greater truth"? Why do psychologists always want to be scientists, or have a knee-jerk reaction to wanting to seem "scientific"? I think before one practices psychology one should know what it is. If you want to conduct experiments on things, go be a scientist (unless, of course, you can get to categorizing a rat as a thing...). Since the practice of psychology - therapy - is only as good as the therapist, it always has struck me as disconcerting that the one "treating" is more interested in the efficacy of his/her method than seeing through his/her own ego to see the fallacy of that attachment. Hmmm. Detlof, I am confident your are a very good therapist (read: healer).