Technical sophistication

Thanks for the detailed reply! I have Harley's book and I've consulted it occasionally. Perhaps a more disciplined and conscientious course of study is in order.

Two parts of the book were for me the most valuable were the section on listening skills and terminology and the chapter on the turntable. The advice on why the turntable is the centerpiece of any proper high end music system was for me a revelation. This was years ago back when the CD was supposed to be perfect sound forever. Its been so long and things have changed so much maybe people don't know but that's not made-up derision that was actually the CD marketing message: perfect sound forever. For a respected senior Stereophile reviewer to be saying not CD, LP, was - well it had to be taken seriously. And it was.

But it was the info on listening skills that really hit me. Does not take long reading comments to realize the extent of most guys listening skills ranges from "sounds good" all the way to "sounds better" which if that sounds like close to zero, yeah, then I write pretty clear after all. Compare that with some of the better reviewers like Harley or Fremer, guys who go to lengths describing tiny details of bits of aspects of sound to try and get across what they're hearing. Might seem like flowery prose. Sometimes might even be flowery prose. But it can also be the key that opens the door to your learning to recognize and appreciate aspects of sound you never imagined were even there.

Its a challenge because on the one hand you have the totally valid technical approach of something like say if the first reflection arrives within a window of three to six milliseconds the brain interprets it as being from the same source and so this interferes with our ability to localize the source. While on the other hand you have the totally valid listeners approach of the imaging is more solid with the speakers out from the walls. No right or wrong but its hard to argue you can really understand what is going on without understanding at least a fair amount about both approaches.

They're mostly wannabe engineers here, like that guy who runs this site:
http://www.machinadynamica.com/

millercarbon......I am curious. Your skills must go beyond those stated in your first post. Although now retired, I was a Radiologic Technologist for 25 years (medical) and then went into industrial radiography for another 20 simply because medical didn't pay as well. Beside knowing the X-ray circuit for the understanding of how the machines produce X-rays that type of question can, and is usually, asked on the National Registry exam.
Being familiar with a lot of stationary, portable equipment, and the use of isotopes I could never come close to building an X-ray tube from scratch. Just curious where your additional knowledge comes from?

Thanks to all for the replies!
Keith

I think you should go by your ears more than any technical sophistication.


Ultimately, your ears and personal pleasure and experience is what matters.


Having said that, learning and talking about technology is a lot of fun. Trying to figure out WHY things sound good or bad or a particular way is endlessly amusing. However, this is like arguing over the value of cobalt in an oil painting. Ultimately, the finished product, and how much pleasure it gives you hanging on your wall is more important.

Best,
E