Agree or disagree with the following statement.

Statement:

"If you have never listened to any particular
component, you can't have an opinion on how it
sounds."

You can always have an opinion, but it you haven't heard
the specific component in question, your opinion is just
that...an opinion. Not very valid in my book.

To add to the above, even if you've heard the gear, all
individual rooms, systems, ears and taste in music are
different. Also most listening biases are different too. So
the only way to be sure is to listen to the piece of gear in
your system and room, with your music and ears...

Posting in these forums are fun and entertaining, but
bottom line if asking "what
speaker/amp/preamp/etc. you should buy is a crapshoot at
best without actually hearing it in your own environment.

02-19-15: Effischer
Being rather partial to my money and not enamored of do-overs, I insist on an audition before buying. That said, much can be inferred from specifications, and they are the tools I use to determine what to audition.

+1. As I've said in more than a few threads here in the past, the main usefulness of specs and measurements is in identifying and **ruling out** candidates that would be poor matches with other components in the system (e.g., impedance incompatibilities, mismatches of gains, sensitivities, power capability, etc.), or with the listener's requirements (e.g., peak volume capability, physical characteristics, perhaps deep bass extension, etc). But not in selecting among candidates which make that cut, where listening is essential.

By doing that preliminary screening based on specs and measurements, the randomness of the selection process is decreased considerably, together with the likelihood of expensive mistakes.

A second major usefulness of specs and measurements is in diagnosing problems or sonic issues that may arise or become apparent in a system that has already been assembled.

It is also sometimes possible, btw, to rule out candidates from consideration on the basis that some of their specs are simply TOO GOOD. A classic example being THD numbers that are near-infinitesimal fractions of 1%, which is often indicative of heavy-handed application of feedback, resulting in TIM distortion and excessive amounts of the most objectionable kinds of harmonic distortion. Or specs that are so good that they may be indicative of misplaced design priorities, and compromises in other aspects of the design.

As evidence of these usefulnesses of specs and measurements, I couldn't begin to count the number of threads here in which I and many others have found it useful and necessary to refer to the measurements John Atkinson provides in Stereophile.

Regards,
-- Al

Just to clarify, the underlying debate is that some people claim that they can look at a spec sheet, and determine how a component will sound, without listening to it. Not that specs can't be of good use in making a selection, just that they can be used as the sole purpose for judging sound quality. For me personally, I can't do that. I have to listen or I can't say how it will sound. Others claim they can, so I'm thinking maybe some people have the ability, or they can somehow learn to read a spec sheet in a way that tells the whole story.

Thanks for the clarification, ZD. I know that in most situations I for one would not be able to predict with any kind of precision or certainty how a component will sound, based on specs and measurements. And I would feel highly confident that the same holds true for the vast majority of other experienced audiophiles.

Best regards,
-- Al

Totally agree with Al on this one, and for those that rely heavily on specs,
here's some for you,

. : ... :. . :: . .. . . .
. . :.. .. :.. . ....
..:. ... ..:.. .: .... .
. :. ... :... ..:.. ..
. ... .: .. ... .: . .

IMHO, the above will tell you just as much as a spec sheet with regard to how a component will sound assuming there is no measurement that raises a red flag.