The High End and Glubglub

Good response, Plato. Unfortunately, it doesn't go far enough, as designers are influenced by this type of irrational thinking as well. For at least a decade, single-ended amps were universally dismissed in America while the Japanese sat over there enjoying them. So for a decade, perhaps many people missed an experience they would later come to love, while living with designs which simply didn't push their fun buttons. Now the North American market has an embarrasment of riches, and new designs - both of sensitive speakers with an easy load and the delicate and delicious amps to drive them: a Paradigm Shift. It is not an issue if it only concerns convincing others of your findings when you are a simple consumer, it is an issue when this attitude prevents advancement of the art, and deprives consumers of what may be better choices, at least for them. In this case, you would never get the chance to hear something which might have appealed to you. An interesting thought: just how did the single-ended craze start over here? And you are right with respect to double-blind tests, as many of the things various items do are too subtle to be recognized immediately.

It certainly is a laughable mess, Plato, and add to that the new "Copy Protected" CDs, which sound absolutely horrible in my system. Rsbeck, I'm not sure precisely what you're saying, but just in case, I am not pushing single-ended amps, which I do not own, but which, however, I have heard and liked. We are bound by love of music, I submit that if the internet is to have any role/meaning in the present or future, it's in its potential for grass-roots movements, to give the consumer a chance to be heard and answered. If a consumer isn't aware of possibilities due to prejudice dressed up as science - as the above cute quote demonstrates - then the music isn't being served, and THAT is important. This hobby/consumer niche is fun because it has so many aspects: science, engineering, music, philosophy, beliefs...that's why it gets such a hold on us: we can apply concepts to the physical world and hear the results, which sometimes end up in magic: and it's those moments we chase and try to understand. Good old philosophy, an important aspect of a human life. I would like to see this "magic" identified - if it can be -and incorporated into a new understanding/knowledge of component design. As for passion, interesting ideas/results come from changing the angle of our thought, and this requires some shaking up: like a chemistry experiment, where you throw in a new ingredient and stand back to see what happens. That's the purpose of a forum, isn't it? You never know when a future or present designer is listening and getting new ideas. Mitch Cotter's invention of the 3-point suspension belt-drive was the result of such thinking, as well as the Quad 57s, Class-A amps, MC cartridges, and so on. Perspective, maybe, but this is still serious stuff: as they say, "If something's worth doing, it's worth doing it right." But mainly, I just liked that passage, and want to see where it leads.

Let's bear in mind that while scepticism is healthy and necessary, the sceptic in the quotation above is an irrational and biased sceptic, and this is not healthy. In the '70s there was a "movement" for pure measurement, which placed such things as intermodulation distortions and such-like at the forefront, thus making the arrogant claim that all that could be identified in the reproduction of music had been identified in labs, end of story. This was a "movement," led by a group of fanatics, which came from somewhere, i.e. the scientific/engineering community, and which negatively affected music reproduction for more than a decade. These were not recognized as fanatics at the time because they were "scientific". It was a "movement" founded in grass roots which said that such measurements did not explain the whole story, thus leading to today's much more liberal approach in which it is recognized that many components which "measure" badly are in fact incredibly musical, while others that measure very well in fact are musical disasters. Eventually this more liberal approach will lead to the identification of the phenomena which are responsible for the good sound, and we will then be able to design them more reliably into future equipment: advancement of the art. So today, measurements are taken with a grain of salt by the entire industry. Does this mean that there are no more problems now and so no more room for improvement? There are many professional reviewers trying to focus our attention on aspects of music reproduction for which they have no precise language, but which they consider important, a Factor X. We should kick this ball around, try to identify Factor X.

What you say is true about people identifying with movements, but we do not live in a vacuum, and movements surround us all the time and at every level: they are just so pervasive we do not see them. Science is a movement which started with Bacon, Galileo & co., but it can be taken too far. Capitalism is a movement, as is democracy and so on...it is the human condition. But new movements bring with them new ideas. Was not the American revival of the Greek idea of democracy called The Great Experiment? Russian Communism was also a movement and an experiment. Our hobby itself is a movement. No getting away from it, as you say, the human condition. In audio we are living in all sorts of movements, and the measurement camp is still very much alive, and does pervade it at various levels and in various ways. It's not all so innocent, as we are often persuaded by our peers and the media into bad decisions, which we then justify in various ways, while being musically unfulfilled (this has economic consequences as well). Movements are necessary, and affect philosophy, how we choose equipment, and design. They also teach us what is possible: one of the first "audiophile" experiences is the discovery that two-channel stereo creates an "image". New movements may, no make that "will", reveal things we do not yet know which will improve future designs for our musical edification. Empirical science was such a movement. Narrowness of thought reduces choice.

Good one!