firedog

If only non-classical labels would include the booklets, when there is one. It's really shameful that they don't. Shows how little they care about their customers. The cost and effort from them would be close to zero.

Sounds like some labels are ending streaming and download rights of some material. Don't understand why they do this, but whatever. It's the big issue with streaming - you never really have the tracks in your library. That's why I buy anything I really like, and make backups of the downloads. So a situation like this doesn't really effect me.

Envious. Glad you enjoyed it.

I prefer subjective reviews that include both measurements and comparisons. There are only a few places that do that, unfortunately. Reviews, to me, are mostly to create a list of things I'd like to hear/purchase and to eliminate others. (You can't hear everything). Both comparisons and measurements help with that and make it easier to decide what's on my audio "bucket list". There is a phenomenon of being familiar with a reviewer - his tastes and "ears". You can sort of figure out over time what he likes and how that compares to you. Then when you read a review you have some context and can pretty much tell if you will agree with the review. That's a subjective, but useful type of data for me.

I never tell people how much my system really costs. They all think the amounts are insane. If high end ever comes up in a different context I let them know its a very big amount if they are really curious. The ones who don't know audio don't have a clue how much high end hi-fi costs and are astounded if they find out. Even my friends who are what I would call rich, and could easily afford high end systems think what I have is crazy expensive and wouldn't buy something like mine. I also have a super expensive espresso making setup. They also think that's crazy. I agree that it's crazy. I find it curious that they don't seem to think that their super expensive watches or cars are also "crazy".

So if I understand correctly, this device gives you the benefit (assuming it exists) of having your streamer/DAC on a fiber optic home LAN, even though you don't have a Fiber based router/playback device?

It's the same phrase talking about 2 different things: Spector's "wall of sound" referred to his recording technique - large numbers of instruments, especially multiple use of the same instrument - say multiple guitars, multiple pianos, etc. - to create a "wall of sound" on his recordings. For the Dead, it refers to the massive amplification/speakers used at their concerts that was unprecedented at the time. Two different things, referred to with the same phrase.

It's my opinion. Based on evidence: how many say they don't need to test themselves and say their ears are all they need when the topic is brought up. Like the line in this post: "any dope can". Well, I assure you there are lots of dopes that can't hear the difference. Just there are lots of people who say they hear no difference between mp3 and uncompressed files. I guess they are all dopes. Let's turn it around: got any proof that most are willing to take the challenge? Pretty much every time I've brought it up, I get all the golden ears people telling me it's unnecessary.

And you keep putting words in my mouth. Testing your listening skills with a module like those done by Harman or Philips is a reliable objective indicator of your musical listening skills. It has nothing to do with “duping”. Maybe you don’t know what such tests are so you are rejecting them via various assumptions. As I said, most audiophiles will refuse to try such a test, because it’s easier for them to assume they have special listening skills. The test might reveal to them that they don’t, and at the very least that they need to work at improving their perceptive abilities.

All well and good. But you are saying that since we can't get perfect results, we shouldn't get any. I'd say audiophiles should test their listening skills and see if they actually have the golden ears they think they do. They should also do some unsighted listening. You can assume such a test is not valid (also an assumption), but it doesn't matter. I'm not talking about publishing a scientific paper. I'm talking about producing data that might have usefulness in the real world for audiophiles. In the real world, we constantly make decisions based on unscientific data - because that's what we have. In audiophilia, almost all the data is based on untested assumptions of listening skills and sighted listening. I think unsighted listening and skills testing would show many audiophiles that their assumptions about their golden ears MAY not be correct. It's a good thing to know. For instance, if I find out I can't hear jitter or distortion below a certain level, then maybe I don't need to get that expensive component that reduces jitter or distortion to extremely low levels. Or maybe I find out that I'm sensitive/insensitive to certain types of sounds and frequencies. That should also inform my choices. Even something simple like testing the highest frequencies you can hear could be revealing. Many people can't hear, or hear well, frequencies well below 20K. Some humility would go a long way in audiophile circles, where the vast majority are convinced that they excel in hearing ability and listening skills. They "know" they can hear all sorts of things that testing puts in doubt. There are plenty of examples out there of people being tested and NOT being able to hear/differentiate such things. Testing yourself and finding out that maybe you aren't so skilled is very useful. If nothing else, it should make you try and improve your skills. Finding out whether you can or can't hear the difference between components in unsighted listening is also useful. If you can, then that should make a difference in your shopping and buying decisions. If you can't, that should also. The truth is that most audiophiles don't want to know the truth. They'd rather go on with the comfortable assumption that they are supremely skilled. The industry depends on that to keep people constantly thinking they should get some supposedly superior component.

Actually, I have. I've done the Harman and Philips listening skills programs. Those test your ability to hear/perceive all sorts of musical recorded phenomena, and use feedback to help you improve your skills. I've also setup a DBT to compare several components. I found out two things: 1. I couldn't consistently hear stuff I thought was "obvious"; 2. Components didn't sound as different as I thought they did when doing typical sighted comparisons. it's one of the things that brought me to invest time in doing the Harman and Philips listening training. Those exercises actually improve skills so you can distinguish things you couldn't before, and they improve your ability to identify what you are hearing. In spite of that, improved listening skills didn't change the fact that sighted listening affects perception.

I think part of ML’s problem is with the term “shill” or its implication. It means he’s actually getting paid for his opinions, which I doubt is true. So I can understand why he would be sensitive about it. BTW, ML says he pays for any equipment he keeps, and doesn’t take pieces as “presents” from manufacturers. So if he owns something, he paid for it and has put his money where his mouth is.

How do you know that? Have you ever properly tested yourself to see if those “great״ differences are actually obvious? Sounds like you are just making assumptions. I think there may be cases where the differences aren’t that great, and that there are people who won’t hear them in unsighted listening. I can definitely imagine myself not being able to tell the difference or preferring the less expensive one. I’m not saying that’s true in every case, but I’ve heard inexpensive DACs that I think sound very good, and expensive DACs that didn’t seem to me special at all. And there are some inexpensive DACs with good objective measurements, and some expensive ones with terrible measurements. I’m not sure the more expensive ones would be preferred in an unsighted test. I have 3 DACs at home that are relatively inexpensive (one is cheap) and they are all very good - no obvious flaws. I’d have to see how they’d do in a properly conducted test to really know. I’m not buying anything now, so it isn’t relevant to me or important to properly test. Again, for some reason, almost all audiophiles assume they have golden ears. They’ve never actually tested themselves and many don’t, when tested - they can’t hear all sorts of things they are sure they can, like fairly significant levels of jitter and distortion that they are positive are audible. I did the Harman listening training once, and believe me that lots of audiophiles can’t pass even the low levels of the tests at first, before they train themselves. In other words, all those things you are sure are obviously audible and significant may not be when someone’s ability to hear them is actually checked. So either they aren’t actually there, or the person in question can’t hear them unsighted.

That's all fine. Let's deal with reality. Almost all the evaluations we have of hi-fi are done sighted. We know that such evaluations are biased, by definition. We have lots of examples - not just by "my friends" - of unsighted comparisons having different outcomes than sighted ones. Some of those have been done scientifically, some not. I'd like to see what some of the same evaluations in the hifi world would be if also done unsighted. It's probably the best alternative we can hope for in reality. I think it would be useful data to add in. You'd prefer to stay with only the clearly biased sighted evaluations, and get no other type of evaluation.