|
|
Romy the Cat
Boston, MA
Posts 10,447
Joined on 05-28-2004
|
Post #:
|
4
|
|
Post ID:
|
29626
|
|
Reply to:
|
29625
|
|
|
|
Damping... And I am sorry....
|
|
|
|
|
Fencki, let me poison your existence with one ugly question—one that has become a primary question for me over the last six months. It was not something you were looking for, but let’s celebrate my craziness…
You have a tonearm and you are missing a damping container. You are operating under the presumption that by using a damping container you will obtain a better result, or a more complete product. In your view, where is the logic located that connects the presence of a damping container with a better audible result? Yes, I understand the physical reasoning that we tend to believe, but the question is more subtle. What is the mechanism that converts this physical logic—something we all know—into an actually tangible audible experience? I am not speaking about merely recognizing differences in experience, but about establishing a methodologically proper bridge between the physical reasons for the benefits of damping and your subjective experience—not simply what was heard, but what was understood in the sound that was heard.
This last sentence is critical. We all agree that the presence of damping in the tonearm objectively changes the audible experience. However, the purpose of listening is not merely to hear, but to understand. The key question therefore remains: how does the change in tonearm damping affect our ability to understand musicality, and how does it increase (or decrease) our capacity to form spiritual images in response to variations of acoustic pressure?
"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|