[DigitalFreak]

Quote:

 
What did you think of the LCD 2? I still see some conflicting opinions about the Audez'e headphones. I'm curious to hear what your take on them is.

Well lets see, clarity wise the HE 6 was cleaner sounding overall. Bass extension was deeper and also cleaner on the HE-6 but not by much. The LCD 2 had a more warmer sound and the bass was fuller sounding then the HE-6 and had a touch more resonance in it's mid bass. Transient response was very good on both of them but the HE-6 treble could come across as more harsh on some songs while the treble on the LCD-2 was smoother. That being said the HE-6 seemed to sound like it had more air in the highs. I would have to give the title of genre master to the LCD-2 because it seemed to sound acceptably nice with everything while the HE-6 not so much so. I didn't like it to much with some rock tracks although I will say Lenny Kravitz American Woman and Are You Gonna Go My Way sounded quite nice on it. As far as mids went I liked the LCD-2 even though they weren't as clean sounding compared to the HE-6. Guitars had a weightier sound and a more satisfying crunch behind them which really made me want to tap my feet. Marilyn Manson's Beautiful People sounded very very good on the LCD 2. The HE-6 came across as the more aggressive faster more revealing of bad source headphone while the LCD-2 came across as the more laid back mellower sounding more forgiving of source headphone. Honestly, both headphones were winners in my book. You can't go wrong with either of them they're both phenomenal sounding headphones. I'm hoping my buddy keeps his HE-6 around for awhile so when I get my Paradox I can do some A/B ing and see how it stacks up to a HifiMan top tier can.

 

[C.C.S.]

Quote:

Well lets see, clarity wise the HE 6 was cleaner sounding overall. Bass extension was deeper and also cleaner on the HE-6 but not by much. The LCD 2 had a more warmer sound and the bass was fuller sounding then the HE-6 and had a touch more resonance in it's mid bass. Transient response was very good on both of them but the HE-6 treble could come across as more harsh on some songs while the treble on the LCD-2 was smoother. That being said the HE-6 seemed to sound like it had more air in the highs. I would have to give the title of genre master to the LCD-2 because it seemed to sound acceptably nice with everything while the HE-6 not so much so. I didn't like it to much with some rock tracks although I will say Lenny Kravitz American Woman and Are You Gonna Go My Way sounded quite nice on it. As far as mids went I liked the LCD-2 even though they weren't as clean sounding compared to the HE-6. Guitars had a weightier sound and a more satisfying crunch behind them which really made me want to tap my feet. Marilyn Manson's Beautiful People sounded very very good on the LCD 2. The HE-6 came across as the more aggressive faster more revealing of bad source headphone while the LCD-2 came across as the more laid back mellower sounding more forgiving of source headphone. Honestly, both headphones were winners in my book. You can't go wrong with either of them they're both phenomenal sounding headphones. I'm hoping my buddy keeps his HE-6 around for awhile so when I get my Paradox I can do some A/B ing and see how it stacks up to a HifiMan top tier can.

 
I'm definitely interested in hearing that comparison. The Paradox has been getting a lot of good press recently and I get the impression that people feel it can compare with some really high-end stuff. Granted, I won't have the money for anything more in quite some time, but I think that my next full-size headphone will probably be a Paradox regardless of whether people thinks it can completely match TOTL performance or not. Based on my reading, it should perform a bit better than my HD600 and add a little bit of isolation as a bonus.

 

[pdiddypdler]

So you decided on the Paradox DF, did you go for the basic model or get some fancy paintjobs?
 
I'm trying to decide between the Paradox or the HE400 at the moment.
 
Hope it works out well for you!  

 

[MuppetFace]

 
Let's not forget the original thesis that was being advanced: that Hegel and Marx caused so much damage to the Russian people. My whole point is that what ended up happening in Russia had little fidelity to what Hegel and Marx actually advocated, at least according to quite a few interpretations. Especially with regard to Hegel, who was studied quite intensely by Lenin but had nothing to do with Stalin, who I would say ended up "causing so much damage to the Russian people" compared to Hegel or Marx. The failure of communism in the 20th century (Stalinism and Maoism) isn't the same thing as the failure of Marxism. Hell, some would say it wasn't even communism that actually failed because it wasn't communism that was actually ever truly implemented.
 
 
Trying to argue that there was no market economy to be abolished in the first place is beside the point because we're not talking about the size of that economy but the division of classes that arise from it, anyway. The argument that Marx's theories seem to apply more to industrial and not agrarian bases sort of invalidates the argument, since if Marx's theories didn't really "apply" to Russia or "fit" when they were forced or implemented anyway, then it seems rather odd to lay the blame at Marx himself. Many interpretations of Marx posit that there is a historical motor at work and that this class struggle and eventual revolt is inevitable and occurs once society reaches a certain point. If you're arguing that Russia hadn't yet reached that point….
 
Now let's go back to the second part of the original argument: that it's somehow baffling that Hegel is still influential, and that this influence is probably the result of people seeing Hegel as an explanation for Western society. This is quite simply inaccurate. Firstly, because Hegel isn't that influential anymore. Really, the heyday of his popularity in the 20th century occurred early on in France and persisted for a few decades. This was mostly confined to academic circles, and the French saw a "return to Hegel" as something vogue. By the 60s it had pretty much died out however, with a few lingering examinations in the form of Lacan or Derrida. Really, the biggest reason for Hegel's revitalization was Marxism, but even within Marxism there was a growing distrust of Hegel, mainly led by Althusser and his associates like Balibar and Badiou. Even before that, the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory was very mistrusting of Hegel. See Adorno and Horkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment which was extremely critical of the modern enlightenment and its influence.
 
Really, the biggest "influence" of Hegel is a negative one: as the focal point many different groups tried to surpass. There aren't many "new" ideas in the history of philosophy, and some would argue that Hegel's system was a sort of epochal event in that respect, with the history of philosophy leading up to it and everything afterward being, in some way, a response to it. That's because his system subsumes just about everything within it, making it particularly challenging to escape without starting from a point of axiomatic denial and proceeding from there. Dialectics in particular is a powerful philosophic tool that sees its most significant development in Hegel. Still, in much of the West today, Hegelianism is not viewed as being particularly useful now. Analytic philosophy in particular has no use for Hegel. Pargmatism has no use for Hegel. Or Utilitarianism. Or logical positivism / scientism. These are the predominant schools of thought in the US today. Hegel only really exists as a relic of continental philosophy, a ghost haunting the darkened hallways of academia.
 
Really, only a handful of philosophers are still treating Hegel as a serious topic of discussion: Jameson, Comay, Zizek, etc.
 
Speaking of:
 

 
 

 

[cheapfi]

To be honest any political system could be considered benevolent and good for the people if the right people are in charge.  The truth of the matter is that human nature is the problem.  Those who most want to lead are the least desirable for the position.  That is why the founding fathers wrote the constitution as they did.  The constitution was never about giving power to the central government as restricting it, and there was a lot of common sense applied to it.  In contrast socialist ideals call for a government to have complete control over everything and to parcel it out to each person.
 
I do consider Lenin, Marx, and most socialists to be naive. Did they mean to cause harm? No, But because of their blatant optimism about humanity and naive ideals, suffering came about.  Was it directly their fault? Probably not.   We can't ignore the reality that history shows us.  Socialist and communist regimes tend towards Stalin-ism and dictatorships.  The worst individuals come into power with an unlimited government at their disposal, then suppress the population to maintain their power.  It always seems that those in power also feel they deserve more for 'selflessly serving their country',  then we get a ruling class living in wealth while the proletariat lives in relative poverty. We have farmers working to produce for others, factory workers working to fulfill the quotas of a ruling class.  For the proletariat is it much different than feudalism. You still have a ruling class and working(peasant) class with only the freedoms the ruling class allows.
 
Why try to force equality on people?  Give them as equal an opportunity as practical, then allow them the freedom to screw up their lives. The education system is our society's attempt at that.  We cannot compensate for all the choices of a parent, we try to help the children with social programs to create a more level field of opportunity, neither party in America would give up trying to give children equal opportunity.
 
True equality would mean tyrannical suppression of some and forcing everyone to a level of mediocrity that everyone can achieve. That is why living standards languish in socialist countries. Without the motivation of profit technological progress is suppressed in all but the sciences required to maintain control.  These policies create the ideal environment for dictatorships to arise. Is it really a surprise that most dictators in the post industrial age came to power through a socialist party?  Hitler and his national socialist party, Saddam Hussein and his Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party, Mao and Stalin from the communist party.... The list is quite large.

 

[ardgedee]

Last night I dreamt that I had to have my new pair of custom IEMs remoulded for some reason.

Now, one of the interesting details about these customs (in real life) is that it has three sound tubes. One of them is quite long, and wraps around under the back plate to connect to the driver, which is mounted horizontally.

So in the dream, the remould was done by an American company (not one that exists in real life) and, while they had faithfully remoulded them with all inner components and physical specifications intact, the tubes were all perfectly straight. The result was an IEM over 5cm long, sticking out of my ears like little plastic spikes.

 

[rroseperry]

cheapfi, you do know that just because socialist is in the name of something it doesn't make it so, right?

 

[mutabor]

Quote:

 
Let's not forget the original thesis that was being advanced: that Hegel and Marx caused so much damage to the Russian people. My whole point is that what ended up happening in Russia had little fidelity to what Hegel and Marx actually advocated, at least according to quite a few interpretations. Especially with regard to Hegel, who was studied quite intensely by Lenin but had nothing to do with Stalin, who I would say ended up "causing so much damage to the Russian people" compared to Hegel or Marx. The failure of communism in the 20th century (Stalinism and Maoism) isn't the same thing as the failure of Marxism. Hell, some would say it wasn't even communism that actually failed because it wasn't communism that was actually ever truly implemented.

 
So what in your opinion Marx advocated? Excerptions from the Communist Manifesto ( by Marx and Engels):
 

"Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians.

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product.

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat."
 

Marx advocated VIOLENCE and DESTRUCTION of people. Did we see it in the history of Russian Revolution? Yes. And you are trying to convince me that Marx didn't cause damage to Russia? Lenin did exactly what was in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. He violently overthrown the so called bourgeoisie for the sway of the proletariat. There was a severe Civil War between the Red Army ( proletariat Army) and the White Army ( bourgeoisie Army) which led to millions killed. Lenin personally made orders to kill innocent people.

Lenin didn't fight "evil" tsar Army. He fought the liberal army of Russia. Liberal forces of Russia overthrew tsar and then Bolsheviks started war against the Liberal Party of Russia. Lenin called the Liberal Centrist Party of Russia - bourgeoisie, who proletariat had to destroy. Millions and millions of people had to be destroyed for the sway of the proletariat. These were exactly Marx's ideas.

You can argue that Marx wanted proletariat to become the majority of society so that when they kill the minority ( the bourgeoisie) it's not a big deal. But it's unrealistic because the working class ( the proletariat) will never become the majority of society.

Marx regarded middle class as rats. Not worthy of a pity. In the battle between proletariat and bourgeoisie middle class had to disappear.

 

 

 

 

[cheapfi]

Quote:

cheapfi, you do know that just because socialist is in the name of something it doesn't make it so, right?

 
I know that, however each of those parties was based on socialist ideals, at least initially. Some may have had a mix of nationalist ideals as well but socialism was also involved.  Look it up.
 
Take the Nazi Party. They proscribed to a form of socialism in that they wanted to nationalize production in multiple industries, eliminate private companies and create an ideal society free of capitalism, they also spoke out vehemently about the evils of capitalism, which they described as a method for Jews controlling nations.  Their appeal to the masses was a combination of socialist ideal, nationalist pride, and someone to blame for your failures.  They deviated from socialism with a belief  that the superior (aryan race) should dominate the inferior races. This was the radical views of the Nazi party.
 
Hitler deviated from national socialism with a practical approach to private companies allowing them to exist if they served the party's goals. It is ironic that the greatest war criminal of the 20th century would have been considered a moderate candidate compared to his party.  
 
In the end they were reclassified as a Fascist Regime which was more accurate at that time, but initially they borrowed heavily from socialism.  They tried to create a party with both a proletarian and nationalist identity.   It just became something else a short time later.
 
My point was that socialism rarely lasts, it tends to evolve into fascism, stalinism, or a dictatorship.  It is simply incompatible with true human nature..  It can be maintained by force as communism or adapted into a socialist democracy such as France or Greece.  However socialist democracies are inherently unstable, and tend to self destruct fiscally through the need to buy votes.
 
Liberals point at Nazi's as being the far far right wing.  This isn't actually correct, their ideals were a mix from both ends.  In America we consider white supremacists to be those seeking a return to the past, or reactionaries.  This is why many people consider Nazi's to be a step beyond conservatism. In truth they played both ends of the board.
 
In Germany during the 1930s the reactionaries were monarchists trying to reestablish the monarchy, there was a conservative party, a liberal party, and a communist party.  They had the whole spectrum.   Nazi's almost seemed moderate from the viewpoint of the 1930s. 

 

[Vuroth]

Quote:

What are you smoking over there?
 
I was brought up on socialist propaganda from the early age ( when you where not even born). You have NO IDEA what subject you are trying to take. You remind me a sofa dreamer who decided to conquer the highest peaks of Himalayas.

I don't know enough on any of the subjects to warrant an opinion.
 
That said, if you are of that age, you surely should have learned by now that being right on the internet does not absolve one from being a jerk on the internet.

 

[ardgedee]

I think that there's been more than the usual amount of concern over people being wrong on the internet lately. I like good intelligent discussions but when the debate starts feeding on itself it might be a good time for people to let it rest and collect their thoughts.

 

[warrenpchi]

I'm usually not that big on our more minor holidays here in the US... but as it seems oddly fitting in this case, I'd like to wish everyone a happy Armistice Day. 

 

[ardgedee]

It's also Diwali this week.

 

[warrenpchi]

Quote:

It's also Diwali this week.

 
Hmm, are you (or do you know anyone that is) a Jain?

 

[ardgedee]

It's a national holiday in India, and it's significant to both Jains and Hindus. People there are taking anywhere from Tuesday to the whole week off. But to answer your questions -- No and yes.