Out of Control

Gregm, I have three words for you, which will forever and a day relegate me to the level of the great unwashed tin-eared mid-fi legions: "double blind testing". I'm sorry, I am a sceptic. My point is that the power of suggestion is such that we, as humans, are apt to believe that something, anything in fact, that is very expensive has to be better. We may quibble and say that brand x is better than brand y, notwithstanding the fact that brand x is costlier, so long as brand y is also so expensive as to make it attainable only to a few. My question to you, in closing, is the following: do you actually know what goes into making those recordings? Put another way, do you honestly think that you can get mo' better music coming out of your lp or cd than is actually put there in the first place by the process of amplifying the signal? Isn't the whole notion of high end audio, at the listening end of the chain predicated on the belief that the recording process is so far ahead of what we have to play the recording with that we can still wring out improvements by heroic means on the listening end? I know, for some, everything in the chain is a signal processor, has a sound signature, from caps, to copper, to cables, to the chassis in which all of this stuff is put. If every minute detail was perceptible and as important as strato-high-end audiophiles say and want them to be, we are indeed the zenith of God's creatures. It has gotten to a level where some audiophiles can actually hear the sound of sub-atomic particles. Give me a break! I am, and shall remain, a sceptic. There is a difference between a good system and a not so good system. The rest is the trivial pursuit of keeping up with the Jones' of this audiophile world and the daily feeding of neurotic anxieties. More emphasis should be placed on listening to the music, understanding it in a technical, musicological and aesthetic way. Luckily, people are free to choose how they want to use their time and what they want to believe in. I simply have no time to spend on being duped. Making of minute differences in sound, that are barely, if that, perceptible is, to my mind at least, trivial. If you have to strain to hear a difference (a.k.a "improvement") when a component is changed in a good quality system, it probably just isn't there. The small, tiny, incremental improvements can add up to something of significance, I agree, but again, on close inspection, you realise that the sum of all of these is not the revolution that the audio press and ad people for high end manufacturers announce every month.

Pbb, answering your question: I agree. S/W is the first limitation in our (my) reproduction chain. In this respect, discussions are about "getting the best out of my (limited) s/w".
In "emphasis should be placed on listening to the music" - (rather than the machines): I couldn't agree more! Just that in playback we listen *through* machines...

Hence, discussion often centres around the means of reproducing music rather than the music itself. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that members of this site are machine junkies. On the contrary, most (all?) are like-minded with you: listening and enjoying music is our "drug"!

As to prices of equipment... all I can say is, I've listened to expensive equipment (badly tuned, maybe?) that performed less well -- to my ears -- than less expensive equipment. And vice-versa. Indeed, in our small niche market, the cost of producing AND MARKETING, say, a pre is quite high; components can be expensive as they get better, getting the circuit design right is time consuming and expensive, etc -- and reaching the end user (us) is VERY expensive.

Maybe the latter explains why in Europe, there is a trend towards buying direct from small garage constructors!

Cheers!

Gregm, and, oh, by the way, what are those HUGE differences you heard between the two components used as an example and how were those two (should I say four?)amplifiers auditioned? Where? When, concurrently, at one sitting, or on separate occasions? For how long a period? With what associated equipment? Using what source material? Were the levels equalized? Were you alone at the time? If not, who was with you? Another audiophile or a consultant, perhaps? Did you exchange any observations on the sound heard as you were auditioning? did you take notes? Did you buy either of these components? Sorry if this looks like the Great Inquisition, and you probably will never reply, but I do feel that my questions are valid. Does anyone else out there think that these questions are valid? I am not asking whether I have any right to ask them and certainly not whether Gregm (or any one else for that matter) has any obligation to reply to my questions. I am just interested in ascertaining what, if any, are the parameters of a valid audition. What the person has to say is not at issue. You can like or love a component or the opposite, but, like people, do you really know much about them until you have lived with them?
Regards.

Pbb, you state "do you really know much about them until you have lived with them?"

If you're going to start arguments here, PLEASE don't make it so easy to refute them using your own words.
This statement alone contradicts ALL of the antagonistic remarks that you made regarding differences in equipment and the need for double blind testing. As you've plainly made clear and acknowledged, some differences and how things react are quite subtle and can not be detected initially. It takes time to get to know someone or how something ( in this case, a piece of gear) actually works. While every person and audio component has "surface characteristics" that may be easy to ascertain, learning the intricate details takes time to become familiar with their multi-faceted personalities. Anybody that thinks that they can discern such differences and easily categorize them at the drop of a hat is either extremely well trained in that area or Superman.

As to your assertion that we should be enjoying the music for what it is and not fret so much about how it is reproduced, i agree to a point. Good music is enjoyable anywhere, much like good food and good company. It's just that sometimes any event can be made even better. Knowing how to do that and having the experience to heighten the experience can only improve things for all involved. Why settle for less when you have the means to do better and experience even greater amounts of pleasure ? Sean
>

do we need yet another thread on the supposed attributes of double blind testing? i say "no." i favor the rules at AA. you wanna' talk about dbx? then go outside. -cfb