Audio Science Review = Rebuttal and Further Thoughts

I am all for middle ground. It’s just some don’t like that, my way or the highway sort of thing. Not me. And:

NO audiophile needs to justify his purchase or engage in measurements or controlled testing. To each his own.

Yup! Exactly.

But:

But some claims fall in to the "controversial" category based on their dubious plausibility, pointed out by relevant experts (or even identifiable as dubious simply by applying critical thinking to the claim). Plenty of audiophile beliefs fall in to such categories. So if an audiophile wants to describe the sound of speakers, like I’ve said, I’m all ears. If he wants to say an expensive USB cable altered the sound over a cheaper functioning, properly spec’d USB cable, based on the claims made by the marketing, then I am justified in wanting stronger evidence than an anecdote.

Or, you can just ignore those posts. One should not ask people to only post selectively about their subjective findings only on stuff that you believe have merit. They should feel free to post about anything. Then, we, the readers, can sort through the maze of posts, and only read what catches our interests. No?

Or, you can just ignore those posts. One should not ask people to only post selectively about their subjective findings only on stuff that you believe have merit. They should feel free to post about anything. Then, we, the readers, can sort through the maze of posts, and only read what catches our interests. No?

Sure that could be someone's approach.

But it's not so simple as that.

After all, you've been in these threads making arguments.  You could have just skipped them, but you didn't.  Why?  Because you see some audiophiles making claims or arguments you disagree with, and you think it's worthwhile to present another viewpoint, presumably. 

It's the same for anything we post in audioforums.  You could see a post that says, say, that Thiel speakers require TONS of power and will ONLY sound good with super high wattage solid state amps.  But if you have reasons to think that claim is false or misleading - e.g. you've heard Thiels sound fantastic with tube amps - then naturally you may want to reply "Hold on, I haven't found that to be the case...here are the reasons why I think Thiel's don't necessarily require the amplification that person claimed."

This is how we hammer ideas around in forums, right?  Exchanging different points of view, giving support for our point of view, which can help someone get a bigger picture of an issue, to decide for themselves which avenues to pursue.

After all, you've been in these threads making arguments.  You could have just skipped them, but you didn't.  Why? 

That's true. And honestly, I shouldn't. 

prof

3,131 posts

10-20-2022 at 05:18pm 

Or, you can just ignore those posts. One should not ask people to only post selectively about their subjective findings only on stuff that you believe have merit. They should feel free to post about anything. Then, we, the readers, can sort through the maze of posts, and only read what catches our interests. No?

Sure that could be someone's approach.

But it's not so simple as that.

Yes. It's as simple as that. Meaning, I believe everyone should be free to share their experiences in a public forum, subjective or not, and let the readers be the judge. The reader(s) then can determine what interests them and what doesn't. Read & participate in threads of interest, ignore the threads with no interest. 

Agreed!

My problem is the absolute conviction/statements that cables that measure the same, sound the same. That tweaks that address vibration, acoustics and just plain static are worthless, These items especially if they are considered expensive and possibly too profitable to the manufacturer, are snake oil and bogus.

The transition from CD player to digital separates was difficult and I lost "some" money testing out transports, DACs and cabling. In that time, I rediscovered an old CD player that better than my more expensive 2005 EAR Acute which is now ensconced in my 2nd system. I sold the EAR. Eventually, two years later, I acquired fantastic digital separates and a cable which raised my digital playback to the level of my analog playback, still for much less money than my analog playback cost (table, arm, cartridge, vibration platform, SUT, phono-preamp, cabling, VPI and Kirmuss cleaning machines, etc). I’m happy as I have great R2R, DAT, 78 rpm, LP and CD playback sound.

I can share freely here, on What’s Best Forum, Audiocircle, etc. without qualifying every subjective statement I’ve made. I think that’s the point of not liking ASR.

I’ve read many Audiogon forums on CD transports and many posts state that the Cambridge CXC is adequate at $600. I tried one from Cambridge. I let it play for several days and tried it. Of course, I may have received a bad unit, but my neighbor had a boxed one ready for sale and let me compare it. Nope, it was just as mediocre, thin, flat sounding, limited dynamics. I sent mine back and I note that there are so many better CD players, new and recently discontinued, which sound superior just by improving the power caps. I tried a Marantz CD-1 and 5004 units after the caps were upgraded. A little dark sounding and lower in resolution but at least they were pleasant sounding compared to the Cambridge. A Denon DVD DBP 1611UD, just changing the power caps and putting a pigtail for and IEC power cord for a total cost of $200 results in a transport that is clean and clear with great resolution, depth and soundstage What it lacks is some body to the sound and deep bass; otherwise, in a warm, tubey system it should be a real winner.

This is where I provide my subjective experience to evaluating other’s opinion of the same unit and provide inexpensive better sounding alternatives. I don’t expect everyone to try out a $1500 digital cable as I did. It probably won’t have the great appeal for low end equipment users. On the Denon DVD transport which I tried, it was noticeably better but at 7.5 times the cost of the transport, not too practical or cost effective.