It is - apparently - very difficult to establish any kind of "reference standard" (this is not meant to be taken in as "quality" here!) in a subject which is so highly individual and burden with taste, preference and emotion.
Some may even fear such a benchmark being established for whatever reason.
I thought it would be a good one, following the paths Harry Pearson laid out with his list of preferred test records in "the absolu!e sound" almost 3 decades ago.
To have some kind of common ground to return to and to compare things could bring a much better understanding of each other's sonic picture and set-up while communicating about the very sonics in virtual cyberspace.
What I missed however was a constructive counter-proposal.
Especially from the most opposing "critics".
But then constructiveness seems a rare bird anyway these days in "audiophile communication".
Often it is not the message which provokes opposition, but the mere personality of the messenger...;-) .....
I for one still think we missed just another chance to fortify and clarify a part of our communication regarding our passion.
Some may even fear such a benchmark being established for whatever reason.
I thought it would be a good one, following the paths Harry Pearson laid out with his list of preferred test records in "the absolu!e sound" almost 3 decades ago.
To have some kind of common ground to return to and to compare things could bring a much better understanding of each other's sonic picture and set-up while communicating about the very sonics in virtual cyberspace.
What I missed however was a constructive counter-proposal.
Especially from the most opposing "critics".
But then constructiveness seems a rare bird anyway these days in "audiophile communication".
Often it is not the message which provokes opposition, but the mere personality of the messenger...;-) .....
I for one still think we missed just another chance to fortify and clarify a part of our communication regarding our passion.