I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.

I smoke a ton of weed and I think @mahgister ​​​​@holmz do not smoke enough man. 

@music_is_life none is likely well below “not enough” 😎

Show me just one audio electronic manufacturer that doesn't use aftermarket cables to demo their gear.

Ok - let’s take the Benchmark ABH2.

On the back we find a pair of Neutrik SpeakOn connectors, like we find on many other pro audio pieces… amps and speakers.

Many other amps also use those and they are common item for hooking up amps and speakers.

If we reach a point where sound quality can be accurately predicted by measurement I’d have zero resistance or issue with it. My point is acknowledging we are not remotely close to doing that now.

@charles1dad 

I would tend to believe amplifier designers who are building the upper shelf equipment, over the general public.

Measurements tell me next to nothing in regard to how these audio components will sound,  so I must hear them. I totally understand if others judge and select differently with buying audio components.  Do what suits you the best. 

However, the upper shelf designers seem to make stuff that does not require cabels to serve as tone controls. So they seem to know how it will sound by looking at the graphs. Just because 99% cannot, does not mean that it is impossible.

I have a couple of tube amps, and tube preamps… and I know that they colour things.

@holmz

I don’t know who these "upper shelf designers" of amplifiers are that you’re referencing

Well @atmasphere himself opined in the thread, and you quoted him.
There is also the Purifi gear that a lot of manufacturers are using, and a few others that are pretty stunning (Benchmark, Pass, etc.).

I’m in no position to challenge or refute what you’ve experienced. I can just simply say that you and I have had different experiences and as a result, different outcomes that shape and form our respective opinions. I hope that you are able to obtain an amplifier made by one of the upper shelf designers that you cite above.

I am in not position to refute what Ralph said, not Bruno, nor Nelson.

I meant what I have written earlier, follow the pathway that suits you the best. My chosen pathway is to hear and do actual listening of audio products myself. If you are reassured by test measurements then continue with that method. For me it’s woefully inadequate.

Have you heard any of the Purifi based Class-D? The Benchmark, or Atmasphere amps?

I am seriously thinking about selling the VTLs, and the PrimaLuna. But I’ll slide a class-D in first to make sure.

I'd say the objectivists have a tall task in front of them.

It is even worse than ^that^, as the recordings have been coloured in a rainbow fashion by the recording engineers.

If we use the term “high fidelity”, then at least we can say that we do not want the playback system to be supplying further changes to the recording.

This may be what Olive referred to as, “the circle of confusion?”

Again I believe that you and I simply have different taste and preferences as to what sounds right.  Not unexpected in the realm of High End audio so neither you nor  I can be declared right or wrong,  just different.

@charles1dad I do not have the Benchmarks, but would like to try them… Or the new Atmasphere Class-D.

The old VTLs and PrimaLuna are both littered with the pleasant harmonics.

I did hear a Purifi based Class-D and it was sort of quiet sounding, which I attribute to less harmonic overtones from the amp and speakers. But it was not my speakers, and not in my room. It did seem very nice, and it also measures well.

I believe that this move would please you very much.  Go for it. If I were to make a change

I want to listen first, not just make a change.

I am pretty much done with belief.
(I am not an amp designer, and AFAIK neither are you.)

( Primarily to reduce box count but retain superb sound quality) it'd be either Aries Cerat Genus or the Viva Solista. Both are what I believe to be excellent SET integrated amplifiers. 

I would like to see some meaningful measurements on those amps, rather than go solely by belief.

 

I have bee very clear with my comments on this thread that I value the listening experience far more than a reliance on test acquired measurements. You seem to have taken a counter position (As you questioned some of my ’supportive stance of listening’ replies in this thread). Frankly I’m not sure what exactly is the point you’re trying to make. Your last post is strange. Anyway as I’ve previously stated, just do what works best for you.

Charles

I suppose to find top shelf amps we have:

1. Cost
2. Looks
3. Features
4. Measured performance

I am trying to figure out how those amps that I have not heard of might be evaluated objectively in a 4,3,2,1 fashion… rather than in a 1,2,3 fashion?

Basically while you favour listening, I need to sort through the bevy of choices to get to a small enough list, so that I can then search for what might be close by. Then I can listen.
If you have all those amps close by, then it does seem easier or you to just listen.
(Plus you seem to totally discount measurements… so #4 is off your list.)

Frankly I’m not sure what exactly is the point you’re trying to make.

The other point is that Ralph’s description of what matters seemed to be dismissed out of hand. The more I read that measurements don’t matter, the more it makes me want to question whether the expert opinions from amp designers have merit.
Hence I bring it up.

You keep mentioning divergent camps, and also the OP stated:

I don’t want to start a measurements vs listening war and I’d appreciate it if you guys don’t

But Ralph did point out where the measurements and the listening are at odds… and why they are at odds.

Can anybody provide some insight to why some people are stuck on audio measurements? Help me package that so I can at least understand what they are thinking without dismissing them completely as a bunch of mislead sheep

• In SS or Class-D amps one wants pretty stunning measurements.
  • Otherwise even 90-100 dB+ SINAD can sound distressing depending on the TYPE of distortion.
• In a tube amp, one could have a SINAD of say 60 and it would sound pretty likeable and musical if the lower order distortions are masking the higher order harmonics.

Basically we want no higher order harmonics, or if we “have to have them”, then we want to have them masked by lower order harmonics.
(And some IMD stuff related to feedback bandwidth gain product.)

If I got that wrong maybe @atmasphere can tidy up my understanding of it.

I go back to the 60s, thank you very much. I'm not sure where you are shopping but there is no incentive to have a disappointed customer unless you are selling speakers out the back of a white van. A good dealer will help you on your journey through the maze of possible choices. You probably need to shop at better stores if you think you are being lied to and being sold "snake oil".

We need ways to determine if a dealer, manufacturer or salesman’s claims are factual, semi factual or total B.S. that is wittingly or unwittingly fabricated.

We can try doing that in our houses post facto after purchase, or using some measurements a priori.

I like to do as much of that in an a priori fashion as possible.

And realistically the dealer, and more to the point… salesmen, have a low track record for trustworthiness. Whether it is used cars or stereo gear, if they were EE types, or automotive engineers or mechanics, then they would be making things, or fixing things… not selling things.

I like bartenders and baristas as much as the next fellow... maybe more so…
But striving actors and philosophy majors are always interesting to talk to.
However I would not be taking their advice on technical matters, nor on medicine, nor on world politics.

We seem to want to trust stereo salespeople perhaps more than they should be trusted.

I set the bar at whether they can speak to a graph, or explain in some technical way why piece is worthwhile, and when they resort to magic and synergy, I pretty much put the shields up and engage engines to leave.

@sns

@atmasphere If you read that post again, that was not a posit, rather a question? I can’t make that posit without having heard the components I speak of. You posit they’ll all sound the same, apparently, you trust the measurements over human sensory perception. This in a nutshell, speaks to difference between O and S, I need to listen, O’s don’t.

The point I believe that you might have missed is the fact that he is an amplifier designer and manufacturer.

I would be pretty disappointed if Ralph, Bruno, and/or a handfuls of other “engineers” were using tweaks and burning of incense to design gear.

I would reword your quote to be:

This in a nutshell, speaks to difference between us.

• I listen carefully to O that have a track record of quality gear as understanding the objective science.
• And I listen to S as story tellers, sometimes conveying the qualitative.

A good objectivist understands what tickles the toes of the pure subjectivist.
The reverse is almost never true.

Maybe a subjectivist could be in a middle ground of wearing the twin hats of objectivist, and liking the subjective experience. But I doubt it.

It seems more common that one either is not capable of understanding the technical nuance, or they just do not want to… and they like to hold up their hands and claim it is all unknowable.

At some point though it is true that no matter how glowing the prose is, it is hard to make believe that something is good, when it in fact, sounds bad.

Hence I would not say “Trust our ears”, but I would say, “Verify with our ears.”

The difference is O knows what's best for me, S suggests.

That is a total straw man argument.
 

A better quote might be, “Os know why I like what like”.

 

«When we say clock inside the clock inside the clock inside the clock inside the clock, then we simply say that no event in the universe could be expressed as a sequence of simple events. It’s not possible. Because they are 3D geometric shapes, events are connected one inside another topologically, connections are undefined, you cannot make an equation. So if you want to convert it into a straight line, as events happening one after another, you will not be able to do so, because you are losing the topological information of the geometric structure. This is where we actually challenge the very foundation of the information theory existing for the last century.»

Thank God engineers are mostly using geometric shapes like triangular diode symbols, and circular summing junctions.
I pray that they continue with their craft independent of magic 🙏

The “beating of a dead horse”, is starting to resemble a Pegasus, or the winged horse that Rushdie mentioned in his “Satanic Versus” book.

Or the geometry is resembling something out of the “Three Body Problem” books, where a subatomic partial is unfolded in dimensionality.

They sound great in literary prose…

IT is really an earthquake paradigm change on brain reasearch... It will illuminate even hearing... I am interested by hearing theory.

Those fellow appear like quacks not quakes.

Here is a Fields medallist, Alain Connes and a nobel prize Penrose coupled with this Indian scientist who cumulate already many prizes who is 37 years old now, already first author of many books, with ten to come soon, are they  look like a quacks assembly, save perhaps  for someone who type non sense here?

Do you think Penrose lost many days of his life discussing with a quack?

Call me a "quack" it will be less damaging for your brain reputation here...

When people talk about the geometry of music it sound more like they might be describing an LSD experience.

So much so, that I could not get through the video.

I would certainly take measurements over a geometry analogy.

By the way do you smoke too much marijuana yourself ? It seems you confuse the messenger, me, with the message, them....

I do not, but I feel like I need to do a Chech-n-Chong skit, with the subject going to clocks inside of clocks inside of clocks.

And before posting an opinion take the time necessary to understand a difficult matter....

Sorry to say so.....

All people talking about the " geometry of music" are not idiots in audio forum...

The one fellow has “Chopra Foundation” on his slides… Chopra has been a darling of the unscientific for a while. Usually wild eyed ranting, that would get many admired to an asylum for observation. 

All people talking about the " geometry of music" are not idiots in audio forum...

I can be an idiot posting in audio forum, yes, you are right, but Anirban Bandyopadhyay is not one.... Dont confuse thing... By the way do you smoke too much marijuana yourself ? It seems you confuse the messenger, me, with the message, them....

But those people that you revere are not posting their clocks in clocks stories in an audio forum thread about “whether measurements have merit.”
You are their personal messenger, from my perspective.

I dont want to insult your intelligence, but confusing these scientists with Timothy Leary is not a good point if you want to criticize my articles and videos postings , nor Penrose, neither Connes or Anirban Bandyopadhyay are LSD users...

Be wise call me a quack but do not confuse serious science you dont understand with your impression of me..it is not to your advantage...

I think honesty, and calling things as we see them, is worthwhile.
But maybe I am not intelligent enough to understand the topic.
However I am intelligent enough to hear a phrase like “seeing geometry” and think… Oh yeah, that sounds like an acid trip, which also sounds like what meditation practitioners also come up with.

And I did not listen to the 2 hour talk. The Indian fellow’s non-sense on clocks within clocks was more than enough.

How does all ^that crap^ relate to whether we like measurements or subjective methods for choosing gear?

If someone says:

• I listen to how it sounds.
• I like the measurements to have a nice SNR.

Then I can abide either as a basis for choosing a piece of gear.

When we launch into God, prime number sounds, and that fact that a spiral galaxy looks a bit like a record with a tone arm, then I pretty much think we need some thorazine.

As the OP stated:

I don't want to start a measurements vs listening war and I'd appreciate it if you guys don't, but I bought a Rogue Sphinx V3 as some of you may remember and have been enjoying it quite a bit. So, I head over to AVS and read Amir's review and he just rips it apart. But that's OK, measurements are measurements, that is not what bugs me. I learned in the early 70s that distortion numbers, etc, may not be that important to me. Then I read that he didn't even bother listening to the darn thing. That is what really bugs me. If something measures so poorly, wouldn't you want to correlate the measurements with what you hear? Do people still buy gear on measurements alone? I learned that can be a big mistake. I just don't get it, never have. Can anybody provide some insight to why some people are stuck on audio measurements?

But it is solely about measurements versus subjective.

So maybe it is because we cannot describe feelings and impressions and emotions as easily as we can express things with numbers… maybe that is why we use objective analysis?

At this point we have moved to beating a dead horse using AI and machine learning.
We should be at the glue stage soon.

What surprize me is that you act like children and propose me "thorazine" or something else not "amazing" at all...

You can claim it is an ad hominem attack on you, but it I was referring to the person in the video

You confuse the message and the messenger in a bout of rejection without even thinking about what is proposed by 3 geniuses who think about sound and music in a new way...

And an appeal to authority does not make you a fellow Nobel laureate.

But it is a bizarre twist on the OP’s question.

In another thread, perhaps this thread, @prof clearly differentiates between subjective preferences and subjective impressions.  We are beating a dead horse, because we are ignoring the initial premise of the thread in some unusual, I would say bizarre special pleading that in the framework of the discussion is totally meaningless. It is self indulgent to even bring it up, and is brought up purely to advance a personal belief while ignoring relevance to the topic.

As has been stated too many times in this thread, and others just in the last few weeks. Almost no one doubt personal preference is not a thing and is not important. But as @prof eloquently stated, and I have in less eloquent fashion, that is not at all what we are ultimately discussing. We are discussing whether your personal impressions represent REAL changes in the sound that is being reproduced or are purely the result of the inconsistent nature of the brain to reach the same conclusion based on poor memory, and any number of other inputs including mood, visual inputs, other sensory inputs, etc. that are involved in processing the current environment and reaching an answer. As the weightings of those inputs are so variable over time, and memory so inexact, it is near impossible to reach objective conclusions based on subjective impressions. Hence why the insistence that subjective impressions can only be treated as objective conclusions, if, and only if, you make all attempts to isolate the inputs available in making the subjective impression. The so called blind testing's goal is to remove a variable from the outcome, namely our most critical sensory input, vision. This should be obvious to anyone who tries to compare to items. I won't insult you by saying we need to remove the variable of touch, and I hope you are not smelling or tasting your audio equipment, but the smell of a tube amplifier (from heat effects) if only evident while listening to it, could also impact a test.

I am sure someone will now post multiple paragraphs and multiple posts of unrelated self indulgent material that not only is unrelated but has no value in answering the question above, but I can only control my own actions.

^ Well put @deludedaudiophile ^

I am glad you see a relevance.

Let’s agree that I am probably just not smart enough to catch it or appreciate it.

 

By the way it is comical but also tragic to see grown men acting like children in a schoolyard, and instead of giving arguments, giving a gift approval point to someone they approve because he just insult or denigrate someone else instead of answering or discussing ...Inmates act like that too...Sheeps, children or mature, are sheeps...They feel better in a group where thinking is replaced by gestures...Before we were men, long time ago, we were apes without thinking smiles nor language...

Many people speak exactly like that all around the world right now, the gestures are only a propaganda sign conditioned system, they all obey it...

The conditioning by facebook tweeter, etc, instead of stimulating thinking, put people in the gestures labelling zoo....

 

It is life... 😁😊

But we could agree on what makes a denigrating post and then track whether posts are becoming more or less civil over time.

So much like the topic of the thread, that could be measured.

Right now we have feelings and magic.

• Feelings and emotions for the music.
• Feelings and emotion for the arguments and posts.
• And the magic of earth and cosmic vibrations.
• Versus trhe magic of strings and wood wind vibrations.