Thank you for such a nice reply!
I'm also not here to convince you of anything. I truly believe we should all approach this hobby in the way that suits us and allows us to find our bliss. I mean to simply present my view and how I look at justifying my beliefs and purchases.
Hi Matt,
I respect everyone's opinion. Unfortunately it is the Anti-Ear crowd that attacks those with ears with a vengeance and viciousness. I've had to block quite a few of them from my channel (I'm not saying you are like them - I'm just having a polite conversation with you).
I'd just like to point out, that while take your response in good cheer, it could be seen as poisoning the well somewhat to start with declaring some crowd "anti-ear" insofar as it means to demean others as "not having MY hearing abilities."
It would be like me using the term the "anti-science crowd" or something like that. Most of us have more nuanced views.
When it comes to weighing who has more credibility, knowledge, and a clue, I'm going with John Swenson who worked for over 40 years as a professional Ethernet engineer for Broadcom and Cisco,
I can understand why you would find Swenson compelling.
and not ASR which openly advocates NOT using your ears to decide what you like and bans people from their site who actually choose to use their ears.
It depends what you mean by that. If you mean that Amir would recommend seeking speakers that tend to measure in a certain way, I'd say that's true to a degree. Though he also listens and reports on listening impressions in his reviews.
Also, some people seem to think that ASR isn't about listening or trusting one's "ears." They certainly advocate listening, but also recognize the validity of tests (and research based) using blind testing, when one is really trying to get reliable knowledge. It's really in blind testing that you are REALLY "using JUST your ears," and not your eyes as well (or that is, your knowledge of which gear you are listening to). That's really when the rubber hits the road, but few audiophiles are willing to truly put JUST their ears to such tests. (I've done it fairly often).
I'm not going to be one of those people who has his ASR buddies over and says while listening to my system "I know it sounds like crap, but MAN you should see how great it measures!"
I don't recognize that as a realistic characterization of ASR folks or...audio gear in general. So for instance, take gear that measures fantastic in terms of low distortion, like Benchmark preamps/amps/DACs. Perhaps you would listen to such a system and not like it. But that wouldn't mean it "sounds like crap" as many other audiophiles would think it sounds amazing.
This is not aimed at you and respect your differing opinion. But I again would suggest people use their own ears and not allow others to tell them what sounds good and what doesn't.
I'm sympathetic to that and in fact I wouldn't go telling anyone what they ought to do. In fact over on ASR I often explain why, for speakers, I find the measurements only "so" helpful and I will ultimately go with what I perceive in sighted speaker auditions. I have preferred a number of speakers that do not measure like, for instance, a Revel speaker (Revel epitomizing the type of measurements seen as most desirable on that forum, at least by some members).
However I think where you and I would part is that I would not rely strictly on what I think I can hear when it comes to determining more controversial claims in audio, or what many cite as technically dubious claims. Like...super expensive servers sounding better, expensive USB/digital cables etc. Completely relying on what one believes to hear can lead to imagined differences, which isn't as helpful if you really care about understanding what is going on.
I would never be so arrogant to tell someone what they can and can't hear.
In some cases there really isn't any arrogance in telling someone what they can and can not hear. Human hearing, like sight, has limits. You can't see X-rays, whether you thought you could or not. You can not, in all likelihood, hear up to 30kHz, whether you thought you could or not. In fact if you get your hearing tested, that's a type of blind test. If the test shows your hearing drops off like a rock at 14kHz, then you can protest all day long but your test shows you can't demonstrate you can hear any higher than that. And it would be right for the audiologist to tell you "sorry, you can't hear beyond 14kHz.
Similarly, there really is all sorts of research regarding the limitation of our hearing in terms of dynamic range, distortion thresholds, masking effects etc. If two cables measure distortion below the known hearing threshold and you still claim to hear a difference, there is every reason to presume you really aren't hearing a difference and are imaging it. Of course, you could demonstrate otherwise by submitting to a blind test, but again...most audiophiles who "Trust Their Ears" won't bother with that.
I challenge anyone who says they can't hear a digital difference to actually tell us what their system is. It's amazing when I've got them to finally admit to it in the past how incredibly low-resolution it is.
I honestly think the whole " you need a super high resolution system to hear X changes" tends to be a red herring. The first thing is that claims about, for instance, cables changing the sound are made by all sorts of audiophiles, from those with low priced systems up to sky-high priced. That is consistent with both the idea cables make significant differences OR with the idea many people can imagine these differences. And the sonic differences often claimed for cables are significant enough they would show up on any decent speaker system (even cheap types).
I work in post production sound. I have to have very acute hearing to do my job. I'm literally doing things like matching the "air tones" of a room - literally just the slight barely noticeable rush of air a microphone captures in an empty room. And I'm juggling sometimes 40 tracks of sound or more at a time, so I have to be able to hear when I'm making slight changes to even one of those tracks. And yet I have been able to do this on a whole range of systems, many of which I have no doubt you would judge "low resolution."
As for my own experience with equipment, I used to do reviews for a while and have been in the audiophile game for a long time, having owned speakers such as MBL, Thiel 3.7s, various Audio Physic, Von Schwiekert, Waveform and many, many others. Right now I have (among my speakers) Joseph Audio Perspective2 speakers, which are very "high res."
My main amps are CJ Premier 12 monoblocks, though sometimes I use a Bryston 4B3 (borrowed). I use a Benchmark LA4 preamp (among the most transparent you can buy), a CJ Premier 16LS2 tube preamp, Benchmark DAC 2L, Transrotor Fat Bob S turntable/Benz Micro Ebony L cartridge etc.
I also have used all sorts of cables in my system, because I know other audiophiles who can lend me some when I need it. So for instance for a while I've had a pair of XLR cables that cost a little under 5 grand. I didn't need them anymore because I bought some basic Audioblast cables (which I believe use Mogami cabling) for about 50 bucks. I detected NO sonic difference when I replaced the expensive cables, as cable theory predicts. I hear every iota of detail still. I've also sold speakers I own to another audiophile who put around $50,000 of cabling - much of it the highest end Nordost.
There wasn't anything I heard on those speakers with that cabling that I didn't hear at home with standard Belden cabling.
Now, the inclination might be to say "well, I guess you must have poor hearing abilities, not like ours." But, if we wanted to talk challenges, I would challenge anyone here to try doing my job - if your ears don't perform picking up the most minute defects in sound, you are out of a job!
But that's the thing: If we stick to a purely subjective paradigm, in which the audiophile's ears are Always Right, then none of these issues can ever be settled. If I use exactly the same method you use and don't hear a difference, that can never be taken as counter evidence because you can always say "Well, so what? I hear a difference so that's that."
It's unfalsifiable.
This is why I don't mind REALLY putting my ears to a test when I want to know what is going on. I thought I heard a difference between two music servers, even though I knew it shouldn't be the case. But when a friend helped me do a blinded shoot out, where I couldn't know which was which and ONLY had my ears to rely on, well the "difference" vanished. I find that not only sobering in terms of accepting the liabilities of uncontrolled listening, I also find it enlightening and helpful. YMMV. No one else has to engage in such tests who don't want to.
This is not a flame war - just stating my personal experience and again I respect yours. I know you "prefer to wait for better evidence than audiophile anecdotes before I spend time and money on such a purchase", but I think you misunderstood my post if you think I was in any way trying to sell you anything.
Have a great night and thanks for sharing your opinion - differing opinions and hearing is what makes this hobby so great.
Have a great night right back! And thanks. Sorry for blabbering on...
Cheers.
