i hear you, believe me. I mean, who wouldn’t want to save the expense it takes to get things right? Trouble is, and I’ve mentioned in another thread, that there are almost no shortcuts in this crazy hobby of ours. Very little substitutes for the effort of trying as many things as possible, just one change at a time, in the system we know best, in the familiarity of our specific listening spaces.
The wonderful byproduct of the effort, however, are the listening skills we pick up along the way by default - the repetition of a certain track, perhaps, that enables us to make comparisons to a completely different track with the same instrument and parsing out the unique qualities of the space each recording was made in. It is a journey many have made, and all of us have dreaded, at one point or another, only to have discovered it was not so bad after all, when we could actually hear a certain cable let us down, or another pick us back up. With critical listening, it is not possible to fool oneself - the experienced listeners will know what exactly this means. Critical listening breeds no bias, just the need to know what brings more realism. There can be no bargaining with self-honesty, and may I say, the narcissist can never be truly self honest - the trick is not to have vested interest in anything other than discovering a better way forward, mistakes and reputation be damned.
The critical listener is not afraid to discover, regardless of bias, because learning is the goal, not the byproduct. What works better is the only truth they care about.
It takes time and money, unfortunately, because no one can replace what we hear for ourselves. And admittedly, very few can afford to demo with the range and variety it takes to know.
And I’ve found that’s what discussions and forums found on audiogon, among so many others, are for. It takes a whole other amount of effort to weed out the ones whom we believe listen the way we do, based on similar equipment being talked about we might also have had familiarity with, collating the comments, and making as good a critical guess as we can.
And there are those out there who have heard a lot whom one can read and ask, regarding their experiences.
jjss49, as example, is a member who has heard tons, whose sense of sound I trust.
My concern are those with vast amounts of experience, who choose not to share what they know, for fear of being smirked at by the likes of the electrical half-measurers, the ones who think they know more because the measurements say so, and cause discomfort to those who can really advise on what different equipment sounds what way in the specific contexts of the system chains they are in, and the specific listening spaces the sound is heard.
Connecting with and learning from these individuals with experience are the few shortcuts I know to attaining realistic sound without spending huge amounts of money.
Some reviewers are good listeners too, but I’ve also found them to be somewhat less reliable than ordinary peeps, who are not under any pressure to get a review done, or tell any audience what narratives want to be heard.
And then there are some reviewers who cannot be trusted at all : )
Our wonderful journey of resonant air brought to us by the world of electromagnetism is such an amazing combination of the art and science of understanding listening, as fredrik said, it’s silly to fixate on just one or the other, when we can have both.
In the absence of greater knowledge regarding the electromagnetic world, our thinking ears and electrical measurements are the best tools we have to bring us closer to reality. Let’s just hone each one to its highest level of development, rather than cripple the journey with just one tool.
In friendship - kevin.