'you don't have to be a food critic, movie critic or wine critic, for example, to be able to tell that you like something. noone can tell another what is best for that person, with the exception of a doctor or lawyer. we are dealing with aesthetics, not rocket science.'
Personally, i agree with this statement by mrtennis. However, i have recently come to understand and believe there is a group of audiophiles who subscribe to the A. Holt theory that an 'absolute sound' is the standard equipment should aspire to, a sound that comes as close as possible to live music. This belief is the fundamental behind such absolute statements like, 'This is the best amp (speaker, CDP, etc) under $2000.' or (opens can of worms)' Analog is superior to Digital'. Indeed, until i discovered these absolutists, as i like to call them, i could never understand what drove someone to make what appeared to me, such an arrogant statement. I now believe that audiophiles are divided into two groups, the subjectivists and the absolutists. Unfortunately, every single dealer in my area falls into the absolutist camp; thereby rendering what i like or don't like secondary to their 'more expert' opinion on what sounds best. Of course, as a subjectivist, this bewilders me and makes that dealer of no use to me. Worse, it's actually torture listening to them pontificate on the various attributes of all equipment ever manufactured. i now stay far away from these audio shops.
But back to mrtennis for a second. As a reviewer, i wonder, how does he recommend a component for sound quaility, percieved by him subjectively, if he believes this:
'no one can predict what a component will do in another stereo system based upon what it may do at a dealers stereo system'
he should have added 'or at a reviewers home' to that statement i think.
There are lots of good reviewers around; I like Art Dudley a lot personally. But i would personally feel a lot more comfortable listening to a component at a dealer (or anywhere for that matter) than taking a reviewers opinion as a worthy substitute for my own ears, no offense to reiewers intended.
and again, by Mrtennis:
'an audio dealer is a conflict of interest waiting to happen.'
Harsh mrtennis, and not nessessarily accurate. A very good dealer can provide a very valuable service, possibly even commesurate to the profit margins from the 70's perpetuated still as representing good value. In order to do that, they must abandon this 'do as i say' mentality (absolutist) and adopt a relationship with the consumer that underpins a more subjective approach. But then again, the dealer is working with the vagaries and insecurites of obsessed audiophiles; he can't switch out amps and speakers all day long in what is almost always a hopeless attempt to provide a long term satisfied listener. Maybe you're right, it's useless! Just imagine a conversation like this: Phone rings, dealer answers: 'Hello mr dealer, listen, that amp you sold me last week, i was listening to this diana krall recording, and on track 6 there was some sibilance, an 's' sounded like 'sss'; it was unlistenable! Can i bring this rotten amp back and try something else?'' Maybe dealers deserve that high profit margin, having to deal with the likes of us!