Out of Control

Pbb, I find your last post interesting in light of your previous ones (yes, I did go back and read them). You have some good suggestions. But, I am at a loss as to how all of this applies to the "...decent standards in judging a component's performance through the use of human hearing" you mention in a previous post. Your original commentary was clearly opposed to very expensive equipment on the grounds that the differences couldn't possibly justify the cost: "Hearing an irrationally priced piece of equipment is tantamount to going to the Gypsy woman to get your fortune read, even if you don't believe in it, it plays on your mind." But your thoughts in this last post don't seem to support this view. In fact, if I followed your advice I could conceivably find that that "irrationally priced" piece of equipment is indeed the best and worth every cent. So, I am still wondering how you came to your conclusions. Did you use these methods to audition equipment and find that very expensive equipment just wasn't that much better? What equipment have you reviewed?

You also suggest double-blind testing: "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." How does this fit into your method? The point I was trying to make in my original post was that you shouldn't suggest double-blind testing as a refutation of someone's views if you don't plan to use, or have ever used, it yourself.

I was truly interested in the "decent standards" you hinted at. Your reference to double-blind testing led me to believe that you at least had some idea of what they should be. I'll use your own words to apologize if I seem a bit harsh, "Sorry if this looks like the Great Inquisition...."

Gallaine, your approach to my blurbs on this site is way too Jesuit for me. I have contradicted myself in the past, and certainly will in the future. In this case, though, I think I have been pretty consistent. What I have a hard time with is what appears, to me at least, as a free for all. Any thing that is exaggerated becomes insignificant. I don't wish to bore anyone with discourse on defining what the word "HUGE" means in the context of audio systems. In my book that should be reserved for something like the difference between a Pioneer 35w receiver of '70s vintage feeding a pair of Dynaco A-25 speakers and, just for sake of argument, a Musical Fidelity amp driving Pro Acs. That two similarly rated, high power, high current amplifiers, of recent design could exhibit "HUGE" differences is beyond my comprehension. That they have some kind of signature that can be heard on some passages, of some music, while driving a certain pair of speakers, I agree; more than that leaves me somewhat perplexed. Now how much someone is willing to pay for any such subtle improvement, I am not prepared to say. I know how much I am willing to pay. I also know that I won't pine for that last little bit of improvement, real or imagined, that I may be missing by not having the flavour of the week component. There's another thread asking whether audiophiles lie to themselves at times. I think it is more prevalent than we care to admit. Let's not take a very incremental improvement as a revolution and, worse yet, any change between one component and another, as an improvement. If someone can't provide me with a somewhat logical explanation as to why is stuff sounds better, I simply lose interest. Isn't my fault, I'm Cartesian, I guess. Does not mean it doesn't exist, just means my ear/brain processor don't get it. Call it my loss, your gain and let's leave it at that. Goodnight.

I agree with your assessment that "HUGE" is used too often to describe subtle changes. Though, in fairness, since I haven't actually auditioned many of the components that garner such "praise" I can't be 100% certain. However, I still believe that a willingness to pay for these "HUGE" differences is a personal decision. In addition, I don't think that such decisions should be ridiculed. Are there children starving in Somalia? Yes. Is there vast unemployment in parts of Africa? Yes. Could that $75,000 for a pair of speakers be used to lend a helping hand instead? Yes. But it is not up to me to decide whether or not someone else's money should go to such worthy causes. And that at least was the crux of my disagreement with your statements concerning exorbitant prices for components. Value isn't always determined by cost alone - and in fact can be subjective rather than objective. There is gross excess in this country. But just what is considered excess is often relative not fixed.

I will admit that I confused your call for more rigid standards in reviewing components as a defense that the perceived differences between inexpensive and astronomically priced components are not justifiable in so far as price is concerned. I now understand, I think, that your argument was for better reviewing methods in determining the magnitude of the differences - more objectivity as opposed to subjective measurements. I'll agree to that.

My major issue with these types of discussions is the certainty with which people argue a point without having actually auditioned the equipment; this is especially true for discussions involving expensive cables. A healthy dose of skepticism is good. But skepiticism without the facts to back it up or at least the willingness to investigate the facts is no better than blind faith (as I have stated before). What is often brought forth by skeptics as a trump card is double-blind testing. The problem is that most of us have never actually conducted a proper double-blind test, or any scientific test for that matter. It is my belief, again, as I have stated before, that you had better be willing to provide detailed results if you use that trump card.

Your call for more rigid reviewing methods to quantify actual differences with an eye toward saner pricing is admirable; I might even go so far as to say necessary. But your own reviewing methods don't seem to incorporate this idea. My point has been that you seem to be a skeptic with no plan to implement your own suggestions. I'm not trying to be personal, just honest.

hey pbb, you really are an audiophile. most sound like lawyers, argue and argue and come up with the same result. but you at least say it how you feel it..have a good christmas, and may we have peace out of control....

Sonrisa, your Christmas wishes may have been directed to Pbb but I'll wish you a Merry Christmas just the same. I plan on enjoying the music of this season and I hope you do to.