Krusty:
Thank you for responding.
I agree, the pre amp is the fulcrum of a system, or at least should never be relegated in consideration.
Also, we agree that "technical" arguments are important. My question is whether you consider them 1) inherently determinitive, or 2) important as a variable of consideration, but determitive in this particular instance (ie. that the scientific explanations you provide are sufficient for us as a consensual group of peers to conclude that they are dispository of subjective experience).
On your tone: you need self-reflection. When you say to someone, effectively, I've already answered that question with "technical" data/argument, so "look back and read", when you should know, and do know, that that person has read what you've said, then you are being flippant and tangentially patronizing. My position has always been that if you want to be patronizing then one should have the courage to do so without hiding behind inaccurate I-already-said-that language. If you did not intend this tone, then, given others' similar reactions, you may wish to exercise some prudence.
Why "inaccurate" circular reference?
Again, what is the basis in your assumption that "technical" arguments are sufficient? If your experience in listening had been different, would that, given your worldview, mean that the "technical" arguments were wrong, notwithstanding their linear elegance?
If all technology is rearranged matter in various forms, then what character of one form (wire) causes it to be fundamentallly different than another? You say, through analogy, that the base/alkaline quality of water - that differentiation on PH - is important. When that differentiation analogy is applied to the issue at hand, what is the determinitive difference between an amp and a piece of wire; what is more "alkaline" about an amp and less "alkaline" about a wire vis-a-vis each other? More/less functional, more/less complex, or what? Without another analogy, or referring back to "technical" arguments, first tell me the assumptive context of those arguments, namely, what is the "alkaline" nature of wire matter vs. amp matter?
I appreciate your offering your subjective experience with box/non-box wire and how, assumably, that experience bolstered your technical investigations. Again, I remain interested in the relative importance you apply to these modes of experience/investigation in general, or in this context (if that prioritizing changes based upon comparison of the experiment results with the prior "technical" hypotheses).
One thing to remember about boxes on wire, ie so-called passive networks. Many of these networks came about, in a technical way, as a "band-aid" for earlier SS amplification and its lack of harmonic sophistication and spatial continuity (the "tube" networks of, say, MIT only came later and are not considered state-of-the-art in tube cirles, predominantly speaking). Moreover, many of these boxed cables directed at SS systems (and its afficianados) were designed for specific components and systems, ie Watt II spkrs with earlier Spectral needed MIT to "band-aid" it in the aforementioned areas, particularly the Watts, worse from the spkr/amp combo. Did this system approach also have a marketing angle behind it? Undeniably. And should we be "technically" on guard, so to speak, when we percieve this mix of design and avarice? Of course. But none of that, or the frustration that it engenders, should lead to patronization, adversarialness, etc. in the first instance, and particularly when the context for technical arguments that, assumably, justify that attitude have themselves gone undisclosed.
Krusty, I like polemic as much as the next guy, and like to stir the pot now and then myself, but describing your subjective experiences is not "methodology" ("philosophical" or otherwise), but the results of an empiric method (listening tests). I am inquiring as to the assumptions that underly your technical methodology.
Second, looking at your subjective evidence, it appears that you too have mainly a SS orientation. Has this always been your methodological approach, ie point of methodological departure, and, if so, why?
Last, I want to share your concern that some people are harmed/harm themselves by buying expensive wire - boxed or unboxed - believing it will change their audio world, only to later find that it did not. And yes, system building does have its dynamics that involve changing priorities between electronic components and wire components as sophistication increases in the system. Your emotional response may be understood, but that momentum of emotion does not explain the assumptions of your technique, nor justify the tone of your "concern".
