WHY DO SOME AUDIOPHILES TRY TO TELL OTHERS WHAT THEY CAN OR CAN’T HEAR IN A SYSTEM?

@rodman99999

’ "Feynman was and will remain, my favorite lecturer.... He mentioned often (and: I took to heart) his favorite Rule of Life: "Never stop learning!" ’

For me, one of the greatest joys of living longer is having the opportunity, to whatever degree, and depending on my ability, to keep learning.

One thing I have learned is than any faith-based certainty can be, and often is, toxic in one way or another. And all are primitive. Recorded history dates back a mere 5000 years or. Who knows how many more years humans will continue to inhabit this planet?   What might be considered "primitive" to another form of sentient life in say, a million years from now?

@ps ...a 1 mil yrs. from now?
All bets off....IF humans survive our current idiocy we won't be what we are now except in some bipedal format....maybe...🤷‍♂️ 200 X current history is a time span we've zero clue about or experienced as a species.
As was noted by D. Adams, "For those of you on the galactic periphery, keep banging those rocks together..." 

Let's see...imho....of course.... ;)

Elon wants to go to Mars. Fine, let him pack for the picnic and go.
Not on my or your dime, no.
Go to the moon 1st and figure out how to do that in the neighborhood.
Learn how to get anywhere faster than we can now.
Establish 'bus service' to the moon, then Mars.

Re other life 'out there'....Galactic Lotto Tix, as outrageous as ours, have wins.
Try to be friendly, but 'they' might treat us like the neighbor with the junk in the yard and the car on cinder blocks.
An open hand may still be considered a clenched fist.

We're clueless. read all the memos.

Don't get cocky:

"We've got nukes!"

We can fry your entire atmosphere in seconds.

Game over, no reboot.
Lucky if there's a pause....

Yours, J

@dayglow wrote:

... If an Adcom amp with JBL’s propped up on milk crates playing poorly recorded Sabbath can shake the walls is the "Holy Grail" run with it. Thankfully some of us want to hear(experience) the subtle macro/micro nuances of well recorded Beethoven/Coltrane/Pavarotti and Pink Floyd that only a certain level of audio components can achieve.

Dichotomies like these are easy, convenient and potentially quite misleading even. I've heard my share of moderately to crazy expensive setups with über high-end brands, all the accessory trimmings + room treatment sounding utterly bland, incoherent and downright boring. Goes without saying, perhaps, because why wouldn't it - gear is only so much in itself, and implementation and integration is essential, right?

And yet implementation and integration is the one factor we don't "see" (unless we hear it in the flesh) and that we also can't take for granted in any setup context. The individual with the cheaper setup comprised of mostly 2nd hand and more or less vintage equipment likely won't get a lot of traction among audiophiles by the mere looks of it, whereas the ones with new and expensive stuff and cool/aesthetically pleasing listening rooms are automatically swooned over - with all that implies and the associative mechanism that follows.

For all we should know however the former can sound much better depending on how it's been dialed in and (also importantly) adheres to physics - despite being both older and much cheaper; that's the power of proper implementation and integration, not to mention the relative insignificance of price, looks, age or other. Indeed, in the right hands and configuration those (older) Adcom amps and JBL speakers can very good indeed, and they mayn't reflect a young bloke whose only incentive it is to blast away at room shaking SPL's or who doesn't know about setting up his gear properly (or who can't listen to classical/jazz/sophisticated rock music).

It's often leveled at those who sneer at expensive equipment that they're just jealous (and effectively perhaps some poor, uneducated saps), but conversely those who pride themselves of owning expensive "high-end" stuff (and can't help but let others know about it) won't even consider cheaper, let alone used and older gear, or when it's from another (pro) audio segment. One can only assume it's beneath them or that it doesn't trigger the right association/expectation, and while they may not openly admit it or share this view, their silence can also tell you a lot. 

I'm sure many don't have the experience of listening to well implemented and expensive, new high-end audio gear that they're nonetheless addressing negatively, but I'm just as sure many of those from the other "camp" haven't given a much cheaper, well implemented and differently configured setup of older, used gear from a likely pro-ish sector a proper, unbiased chance either. With a great source and solid amplification (made much more solid and efficiently harnessed when coupled actively), audiophiles would be baffled by the sheer potential of such a system as well. 

To my mind it's a very different discussion than what has a price bearing as a predominant marker. To a degree price may not irrelevant, until it is, and then it's really about what's advocated above. And, coming down to it it's only what can discerned in front of the setup itself. 

It's harder to get the image and tonality of a singer correct to the ear than make a lasagna taste decent.

Who's ear....?

Thus my earlier point.  

If it makes a difference to your ear you are the judge. I just sent some infigo cables to a customer and he is extremely happy.  That’s what matters your ear no one else’s ear. 

@phusis   Thx for the reply. Synergy has always been the key with building a fine sounding HEA system. The focus should be on synergistic systems at all performance levels not just mocking expensive components that are mismatched. I assume you understand all components have a performance ceiling, even with everything fined tuned...room acoustics/power conditioning/vibration control and proper set up. Newer modern equipment will almost always outperform even refurbished highly regarded vintage or pro/studio gear. Nostalgia and cost might be the only reason to take this path not that most think were above this gear it just does not garner any performance advantage. Lastly validation from other Audiophiles should not be a concern/need within this hobby we all have different standards.

@dayglow that’s one of the advantages I have. Synergy. Infigo dac streamer cabling. 

@calvinj    Great thread!  My final statement is the more time/effort/knowledge and money put towards this hobby the better the results. It's that simple!

@dayglow we research the hell out of things before we buy them.  My system came about because I got a home demo where it blew my other amp out the water. Started with that and kept building. 

@dayglow wrote:

Thx for the reply. Synergy has always been the key with building a fine sounding HEA system. The focus should be on synergistic systems at all performance levels not just mocking expensive components that are mismatched.

True, but I sought to address that newer and expensive components within the more "accepted" hifi-segments and dogmas here are more readily given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to assumed performance envelope and overall popularity. I merely pointed out that such gear can also sound bland/off, and that integration and implementation - even within this realm of equipment and price range - can't be taken for granted. 

I assume you understand all components have a performance ceiling, even with everything fined tuned...room acoustics/power conditioning/vibration control and proper set up.

Yes, but it's not necessarily tied to price, segment or age. 

Newer modern equipment will almost always outperform even refurbished highly regarded vintage or pro/studio gear.

I disagree, with a few a provisos; when it comes to digital source equipment, new technology can be a significant contributor and in some iterations will see a performance gain that leaves older DAC's wanting in resolution and transparency. With amps however I find they can be up to ~30 years (or even more) and still sound great compared to new dittos. Speakers - that is, drivers and their design as well as age - can be older still and sound fantastic. A great design and implementation is great no matter how old (whereas wear can be a factor), and older horn designs here tend to be more readily based on physics (i.e.: without the same degree of size restrictions as contemporary designs). Old, passive crossover parts usually need replacement, but run actively the drivers can be brought to life in ways passive can't equal. Pro/studio gear can sound fantastic and leave nothing to be desired vs. "hifi" ditto (not to mention that it's liberating seeing this segment of gear being void of trends and fashion) - sometimes even to the contrary. 

Nostalgia and cost might be the only reason to take this path not that most think were above this gear it just does not garner any performance advantage.

Again, that's the easy, convenient stance; why bother buying used and older gear when you can afford buying new and expensive? That's pretty much it and not much else from this kind of thinking, but in reality though it leaves out a heck of a lot to be explored if the rationale if actually based in sound.

Lastly validation from other Audiophiles should not be a concern/need within this hobby we all have different standards.

We do, but it's not really about validation, is it? It's about challenging ways of thinking that, from what I can assess, is not without its share of dogma and conjecture, not to mention a lack of an open-minded approach. 

WHY DO SOME feel the need to SHOUT when they  START THEIR THREADS?

Arrogance

@ps stay on message please. 

"What is a rhetorical question?

A rhetorical question is an inquiry that ends in a question mark but is asked for effect rather than to elicit an answer. It’s often used in persuasive writing but is also common in everyday conversation.

Depending on the context of the rhetorical question, its purpose may be to emphasize a point, prompt the audience to consider a topic, or lend intrigue to an argument. The answer to a rhetorical question is usually very obvious or the opposite, meaning it can’t be easily discerned."

This, Calvin, is my message to you: Your "message" clearly appears to be completely rhetorical, and as such simply not productive, and silly.  Furthermore, why do feel compelled to SHOUT?

@ps stay on message.  If you don’t like my questions and how I ask them there are hundreds of threads for you.  Stay on message is my opinion. Your is I shouldn’t capitalize my words. It’s America ! 

@ps stay on message.  The same people that tell people what they can and can’t hear. Are the same people that tell people how to ASK THEIR QUESTIONS!