Audiophiles on Audiogon.

@aewarren 

Show me a device that measures sound quality and I will certainly get one. Until that time I will use my ears.

Yes, none of the device in the market is available to provide a comprehensive assessment for SQ.  This is a far-cry goal that I wish can be achieved some day.  I was specifically referring to "cable" if you read my post carefully.  Here is one example.  

In the end of post, he said

"...Ask manufacturers to demonstrate what the benefits they advertise. They say they lower noise? Ask them to show before and after measurements..."

I have not come across any cable manufacturer provides tech. measurements for their products so far even upon request.  In the listening test section, he also mentioned:

"...I could not detect a difference between the two in this limited testing. Mind you, there was more air when listening to the Wind. But then my wife who was in the kitchen informed me that the dogs had left the patio door open and whether I was OK if she closed it. Once she did, the air factor disappeared.

@yoyoyaya 

Interesting to compare. Camera performance can be objectively measured and everyone seems to a accept the results. Camera sensors have reached an asymptote in performance with only small gains generation to generation now. In photography everyone wants the best technical performance and then adjusts the final result to taste in software.

The one similarity to hifi audio is that hifi has also reached a technical plateau. The response to that is much different.

This is why I used to have Bose 901's.

The one similarity to hifi audio is that hifi has also reached a technical plateau. The response to that is much different.

It is also because acoustic integrate optic channels in the brain not the reverse...Acoustic channels in the brain are older , more useful in the sea with smell than vision...

And measured performances are more simple to measure and evaluate in human optic perception and production than in sound/music perception...

And learning acoustic is more complex than learning photography ...Photography like painting is more related and more tributary to chemicals and simple tools than to a complex language linked to complex tools and to the body control itself...

And it is true that some imagine erroneously they can assess quality of audio system by specs sheets and in any uncontrolled room... we can effectively evaluate a camera WITHOUT taking photos...But we cannot evaluate a sound system or an instrument without tuning them and listening them...Listening is an art in itself that must be learned ...

Also when we see something we are related to his external appearence, when we hear a resonant object source we enter into his intimate qualities , we are able to detect it at distance and without seeing it...

It is probably the reason why some of the first human population in dense forest for example begin to develop more intensely the use of whistling and singing to keep beast at a distance and keep an ongoing communication between them by voices or talking drums...Language come from music for me...And sound like fire is a powerful weapon...With sound you can organize large hunt of large animals by large synbchronized groups...

Language at his origin is a gesture of ALL THE BODY not only from the throat...Language is related to music and come from it... When language detach more from music he localize itself more around the throat, and became more a linguistic tool than a musical body gesture...

I dont pretend to be right... For sure....But this is a main research trend...

We now have a pot and people to stir it. One guy’s opinion posted by another guy.