Out of Control

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

Great! I've been invited out of the analog forum, now I can't even mention trying to set decent standards in judging a component's performance through the use of human hearing. Damn you audiophiles are difficult. I just don't have the time to go through all the submissions on Audiogon to see where the prevailing winds blow. I must have touched a nerve or something or maybe my lack of political correctness in the audiophile milieu is costing me. I have the greatest respect for the inherent right of all audiophiles to opine free of any constraints which methodology would impose. There I said it. Geez, I'm going to make sure I don't talk about science and measurements and other passé stuff that takes all the fun out of audio equipment. I'm not aging gracefully, I guess. Maybe I should set up a chapter of frustrated ex-Audio readers anonymous.

pbb: here's a site where you might find refuge. no political correctness nor graceful aging required:

http://www.audioannex.com/

-cfb