Observations on Audiogon Posts

I also agree with the first 3 posts and Kjweisner hit it on the head -- validation - or confirmation of the validity of what that person heard/saw/read/surf'd/etc. You have to also remember there are audiophiles out there who do not have access to quality gear, primarilly because of geographical inconveniences. So, keep that in mind & BTW, who cares if someone asks a question on gear -- the last I checked, posts are free of charge.

I agree with what has been said thus far but do find that many do not seem to have done any research and want a pat answer to an elusive question "how will it sound to me?" Or worse want someone (sales vulture?) to just tell them what to buy.

The real answer - only the poster can know from really listening to the gear but I do understand the value of ancedotal reports and experience with equipment.

I have bought and sold gear for 9 years before discovering piece by piece what I liked to hear from source (smooth & warm), amps (OTL speed and definition), wire (neutral clarity), speakers (involving & musical) preamp (passive) and synergy (warm, emotional, quick transients, not forward, coherent, maybe sacrificing some detail to gain that). The trip was remarkable but the end result is like coming home.

I still swap gear but not as much and look for things up my auditory alley so to speak when I do.

i think most people don't have a clue what they like because the qualities that they allegedly value contract each other.

there is an example on this thread, but i am not trying to nitpick o0r be critical.

if one desires the quality "x" and the quality "y", and x and y are inconsistent with each other, it is not possible to attain both.

here is an example. wanting to achieve warmth and transparency. the idea of warmth involves suboth subtractive and additive colorations, while transparency ,ideally entails no coloration. off course nothing is perfect.

it is best to be consistent with one's goals, so as to avoid disappointments. one should be aware of the meaning of adjectives to ensure they are consistent with each other.

again, i am not trying to be critical. rather just suggesting that one be aware of what one really wants as to presentation and examines the possibilities of attaining them.

i have a reputation of preferring a dark sound. it would be counterproductive if i suddenly wanted resolution with my "darkness'.

if you have the facility to alter the sound of your stereo system, you can have warmth and transparency, but not at the same time.

Frankly, I think it takes a while (and an ear with some real listening time and experience) to figure out that there is not one objectively "right" sound that you can get out of a system at a particular price range for all your purposes and all your music. I think that is what sparks a good bit of the arguing that goes on among audio hobbyists. As noted, the question "which sounds best" is the wrong question. The better question is "which sounds best if my end goal is X." But that's not the one that gets asked much of the time...and that's because it takes some time...maybe quite a bit of time...to figure out (1) that there is no one "right" sound; (2) that each of us tends to value one or the other different characteristics of higher end audio gear, often depending on where we are in our listening histories; and (3) that all of this is affected by what we continue to learn by listening to real, live music.

I have a music degree and 25 years of listening to (relatively) high end gear, and lots of listening to live music is fine venues, and am still surprised at my own listening "stupidity" from time to time. I'm still discovering what I like in reproduced sound, and I'm still discovering its limits. (It's just a recording, after all. It's not the real thing...but every now and then, it reminds me of the real thing...)