This thread says absolutely NOTHING!!!

As someone whose work straddles the quantitative and the instinctual I understand and sympathize with the desire to measure & verify and also going with one's gut.

I enjoy digging into the numbers but I also don't get too hung up on them. Hi-Fi for me is all about enjoying the music. My system is a means to the end.

I have to admit I was warned on an earlier post that it weakens your argument when you feel compelled to relate to another subject. I concede. But, the larger point is that the wine industry does involve individuals certified as "experts" and the audio industry does not. An attempt was made in the 70’s via The Society of Audio Consultants. It was an objective series of questions to see if you could pass Hifi 101. I passed, but it didn’t make me a better listener -- or communicator. The wine industry also extends some degree of credibility and respect for those who are at the pinnacle of subjective interpretation. Audio industry experts get mixed reviews -- to put it kindly.

Scientists and engineers are my heros. Clubbing something over the head and dragging it home for dinner would take alot of time away from my musical enjoyment. I prefer to pluck something off a shelf, toss it in a cart, pay for it with a piece of plastic, stuff it in a grocery bag and drive it home. None of this would have worked without science. You also keep airplanes from falling out of the sky and developed the laser technology to zap the cancer out of my prostate.

But, we may be spending more time tossing the "why’s" back and forth across the net when we could be allocating more time discussing the "whats." So, WHAT just happened? Describe it? How did it make you feel about your system? The musician(s)? The recording? The experience? And, how about the cost vs performance? Was it worth the money? Would you recommend it based on what you heard?

The "why" conversation goes something like this: Did something change? WHY or WHY NOT? Could it be measured? Or, perhaps, the listening session was rejected entirely due to the implausiblity of the premise?

So, the question becomes: if the WHAT is there and the music is more alive and engaging due to a change in the system, then WHY should we agonize over our ability, or inability, to attach the correct scientific theory or measurements to the phenomonon? Why can’t we just celebrate our new audio discovery and share our comments with others, without retribution?

@waytoomuchstuff Some of us gravitate toward the mess that is art. Some of us gravitate toward the precision that is science. Are you compelled to precisely figure things out? Or is it okay to get enough info to be able to intellectually/emotionally fill in the cracks? To make 2+2 equal 2000?

@edcyn

Excellent points. I like your train of thought.

These are personal questions, so I’ll do my best keep my comments relative to the subject.

I played guitar and keyboard, and wasn’t very good at either one. I developed a fond admiration for those who could actually play well and was awed by their talent. I took music appreciation in college and learned to grasp the complexity of classical music. It did change how I viewed other genres as well. So, music as "art" has been part of me for a very long time.

I was a bit "geeky" and wanted know how things worked. I did well in college physics classes and thought seriously about becoming a math/science teacher. After a few unexpected turns I opened a hifi store, and later found a way to earn a speaker patent on what I designed and built. So, I am "compelled to figure things out."

I also understand that my knowledge base is incomplete. I stand with a engineer/reviewer of decades past who was quite comfortable taking the position that he could not explain in engineering terms what he was hearing. So, that may best describe me. I’ll do my best to try to analyze what I hear in scientific terms. But, if I can’t figure it out, it in no way invalidates my listening experience.