Introduction and Listening Biases

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
INTRODUCTION

To better understand my reviews and the context in which I make my comments I want to explain my high-end audio philosophy, my listening biases and my music preferences. By so doing I hope that my reviews and my descriptions of what I hear will be more valuable to you. By enabling you to understand my preferences, and by helping you to calibrate what I like versus what you like, I hope to enable you to triangulate meaningfully on, and better comprehend, what I describe in my reviews.


PHILOSOPHY

I believe there are four primary, but not mutually exclusive, alternative objectives of high-end audio:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.​

I subscribe to the first and fourth objectives. I want my audio system to recreate as realistically and as believably as possible the sound of an original musical event. Several conclusions immediately follow from this particular philosophy.

1) I do not care how a piece of equipment measures.

2) I do not care about the theory behind the design of a component (Actually, I do care, but only because I find theory and component design very interesting. But, ultimately, I care only about the resulting sound. I avoid most theory and design threads because I am not dogmatic about particular theories or about particular designs, and because I believe that the implementation is far more important than the theory. This is why turntables of many different designs can all sound good).

3) I am open-minded about tweaks. I have a teenage background in amateur radio (the Federal Communications Commission issued license for which required me to pass a test in elementary electronics, grounding, antenna theory and Morse code) and I used to build Heathkits, so I am comfortable with basic electronics jargon and a soldering iron and a voltmeter. This slightly technical (and now, admittedly, stale) background makes me skeptical of a lot of tweaks, but I remain firmly in the subjectivist camp and I am open-minded about tweaks. If my ears tell me that my stereo system is better able to recreate the sound of an original musical event because I have plugged into an outlet in my listening room a thin twig of special woo-woo wood found only in a remote jungle in the Amazon and which has been carefully soaked in sound-good oil and then blessed by a decorated tribal chief with golden ears then I am all for it!


MUSICAL INTERESTS?

My main musical interest is female vocals with minimal acoustic instrument accompaniment. Examples include Sarah McLachlan singing while playing the piano on Fumbling Towards Ecstasy, Jennifer Warnes on Famous Blue Raincoat and Amanda McBroom on Growing Up in Hollywood Town. I also like male vocal recordings such as Bill Henderson’s rendition of “Send in the Clowns” and Jeff Buckley’s Grace.

I like a little bit of jazz such as Dave Brubeck’s Time Out, “For Duke” and Bill Evan’s “Waltz for Debby.” I like a little bit of classical including Mozart Jupiter Symphony 41 and Mussorgsky’s Night on Bald Mountain. I am a big fan of direct-to-disc recordings by Sheffield Lab and M&K RealTime.

I enjoy a lot of perfectly ordinary rock and pop songs (e.g., Bruce Springsteen, Fleetwood Mac, Whitney Houston, Michael Jackson, New Order, Phil Collins, Elton John, Jim Croce, Billy Joel, the Cranberries) and a lot of 1980s songs from “one-hit wonders.” My father worked in the record business for his entire career, and he took me to a lot of concerts when I was growing up. (He worked at Arista after Clive Davis left Columbia Records. Shortly after Arista released Whitney Houston’s first album he took my mother and me to hear Whitney Houston perform the debut album at The Bottom Line, a small club in the West Village of Manhattan. I wish I had a better aural recollection of Whitney Houston singing her entire album to only forty or fifty people!)

Since I love vocals it is no surprise that I like the midrange of MartinLogan electrostatic panels. If my primary interest were classical I definitely would not have gravitated to ESLs.


SOUND PREFERENCES

I listen for the believability of a solo vocalist with acoustic instrument accompaniment being present in my listening room and singing to me. I value most highly transparency, no artificial brightness, true-to-life corporeal and instrumental "body," true-to-life dynamics and true-to-life harmonic richness. I listen for a "natural" sound.

By transparency I mean that with respect to having the sense that a live person is singing to me in my listening room there is nothing "between" me and the singer. I conceive of the recreation of a vocal performance which makes as easy as possible the suspension of disbelief. I want to feel that I hear no electronic adulteration, no artificial or unbelievable "carrier" riding on the signal. Transparency to me means listening to a vocal performance with no electronic neutral density filter of any kind between me and the singer.


COMPONENT PREFERENCES

I listen only to analog. I literally will not have a digital disc player connected to my new stereo. I do not like computers so I am not getting involved in streaming or in storage on a hard drive.

Once I know I am listening to digital I just cannot seem to relax and enjoy it and make an emotional connection to the music. (Yes, if you tell me I am listening to an LP and it is actually a well-recorded DSD I definitely will be fooled. There is no doubt about that. But if you play for me that same recording on vinyl I am sure I will prefer the vinyl (unless the record is scratched and noisy).)

For many years I had a VPI TNT Mk. IV with a Graham 2.2 tonearm and a Benz Micro Ruby II cartridge. I recently ordered a new Basis Audio turntable and a Superarm 9.

The new cartridge remains an open question. My main contenders are the Air Tight PC-1 Supreme, the new Air Tight Magnum Opus, the My Sonic Lab Ultra Eminent EX, the Koetsu Coralstone and the Koetsu Rosewood Signature Platinum. I like the Ortofon Anna but its .25 mv output is just too much to ask from the all-gain, all-tube Aesthetix Io.

I have recently made the decision to take the leap into reel-to-reel tape. I have purchased thus far just one tape from The Tape Project.

I tend to be fascinated by the various non-traditional (i.e., other than cones in boxes) technologies: electrostatic, ribbon, magnetic planar, MBL, horn, etc. Planar speakers in general (my first speaker was the Magnepan MG-IIIA) and electrostatic speakers in particular (such as the MartinLogans) have always interested me because I like what I consider to be their see-through transparency which makes it sound as though a solo vocalist is singing to me in my living room. I also like the oomph and impact (i.e, cone excursion impact) of dynamic driver speakers and subwoofers.

To my ears, horns, at their best, can reproduce jazz and classical music with greater instrumental body and weight, greater “jump factor,” and greater overall realism than any other speaker technology I have heard. There seems to be something about the way horns move air which allows a greater suspension of disbelief on instruments like saxophone, tuba, trumpet, etc. Those instruments sound more real and more “in-the-room being played by a live musician” than I have heard from any other type of speaker.

But I also have come to the conclusion that for some reason -- which I understand has to do with horn coloration or horn “cuppiness” -- I do not hear horns reproducing vocals with the singer-in-the-room transparency to which I am accustomed from electrostatic panels, from ribbon-based speakers and from the best dynamic driver systems.

No loudspeaker is perfect. Different speakers excel at reproducing realistically different things. Some speaker designs excel at reproducing realistically certain instruments but not voices, and other speaker designs excel at reproducing voices and other instruments.

While my desire for electrostatic midrange transparency and the openness of dipoles has caused me not to be terribly interested in full-range dynamic driver loudspeakers, I nonetheless like the cone excursion impact of dynamic drivers for low frequencies. This is why I have been drawn for the last 28 years to MartinLogan hybrids. I purchased MartinLogan Monolith II speakers in 1989. I upgraded to the Monolith IIIs in 1991. In 2001 I purchased Prodigys, which I still use today.

I have some seemingly unusual sensitivity to auditory brightness. Screeching brakes on buses and trucks give me literally an instant headache. I find unappealing any audio system, and any component thereof, which sounds edgy or artificially bright. I had a brief affair the weekend of T.H.E. Show 2015 with the amazingly realistic and dynamic MBL 101E Mk. II. But after listening to the MBL speaker for five hours that weekend, and for several hours at a friend’s house with tube electronics and vinyl, and after much research and discussion, I could not avoid the conclusion that the MBL tweeter simply is too hot for me.

I have always preferred tube electronics because I find that there is a wonderful synergy with tubes on electrostatic panels. I have never heard solid-state amplifiers drive electrostatic panels and sound rich and natural and liquid the way tubes sound to me. I hear the greater dynamics and leading-edge transients and detail of solid-state amplification, but it always sounds a bit dry to me, especially on electrostatic panels. In addition I believe that MartinLogans like a lot of power (and I believe that Magnepans need a lot of power). So high power tube amplifiers have always been the correct answer for me. I have used the VTL MB-750s for about 18 years.

I heard the Aesthetix Io all-tube, dedicated phono preamplifier at one of Jim White’s first dealers, and I was hooked immediately. I hear from the Io richness and bloom and detail and decay and liquidness that I appreciated from day one and from which I have never tired. Jim White is upgrading my Io to Eclipse status with two outboard power supplies.

I resent expensive cables. I know that different cables sound different. But I think the whole expensive cable thing is a morass. I believe that a network which contains a resistor, an inductor and a capacitor (a basic R-L-C circuit, which is also known as a tuned circuit) is a simple tone control. However, pursuant to my view that I go only by the sound, I have used for many years Transparent XL-V speaker cables and Opus MM5 interconnects.


AUDIOPHILE DISCUSSIONS

As stated above there are four primary alternative objectives of high-end audio.

I believe that many debates and conflicting opinions about format preferences and equipment preferences and sound preferences arise from audiophiles holding different views on the objective of high-end audio, and from starting the debate with those different objectives not firmly and explicitly in mind.

I also believe that much other consternation arises simply from the well-known incomparability of interpersonal utility (e.g., there is no objective, principled way to prove that you like chocolate ice cream more than I like vanilla ice cream).

Finally, each of us is going to apply a different monetary value to a given improvement in sound. (And this assumes we can even agree there was an improvement in sound. One audiophile's "welcome increase in detail" is another audiophile's "edgy and fatiguing.”)


DISCLAIMER

In every professional industry of which I am aware a failure to disclose a payment from a party to an ostensibly impartial reviewer who is reviewing for publication a product in which the payor has a financial interest is a clear and direct conflict of interest, and constitutes a breach of commonly accepted business ethics and professional responsibility. If I ever have some financial interest of any kind in any component I review I will scrupulously disclose and describe in detail such interest. I presently have no financial interest in any product or in any company involved in any aspect of high-end audio.

Please do not hesitate to ask me any questions about any of the foregoing.
 
Last edited:

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
You are killing me Ron with your mentions of Bill Henderson’s rendition of “Send in the Clowns” as I can't find the darn thing in any format but LP! :) Love to get a copy on digital but it is one of the few I have run into that simply is not available that way.

Fortunately I have plenty of Sarah McLachlan albums and there was a time that most of my listening was to her albums. I tend to think as of late she has lost her way but for a long time, she could do no wrong.
 

RayDunzl

New Member
Jun 26, 2014
289
2
0
Tampa
You are killing me Ron with your mentions of Bill Henderson’s rendition of “Send in the Clowns” as I can't find the darn thing in any format but LP! :) Love to get a copy on digital but it is one of the few I have run into that simply is not available that way.

This?

81GwhDsbz6L._SL1500_.jpg
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Thanks Ray. The listings on Amazon did not have the track list for that album so couldn't find it. Alas, it is listing for $31 so have to find a cheaper source.
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
You are killing me Ron with your mentions of Bill Henderson’s rendition of “Send in the Clowns” as I can't find the darn thing in any format but LP! :) Love to get a copy on digital but it is one of the few I have run into that simply is not available that way.

Fortunately I have plenty of Sarah McLachlan albums and there was a time that most of my listening was to her albums. I tend to think as of late she has lost her way but for a long time, she could do no wrong.

Sorry Amir! I have never seen it anywhere but Mike Hobson's reissue on LP as a 33 rpm/45 rpm single. Maybe someone with a very good turntable set-up and an A to D converter can transfer it for you?

I like mainly Fumbling Towards Ecstasy. I have not liked her more recent albums.
 
Last edited:

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA

audioguy

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,794
73
1,635
Near Atlanta, GA but not too near!
Good thing you don't like classical. Since the mic positions are almost always above the orchestra, your number (1) would not be possible [at least for any symphony hall I am familiar with :D]

And by the way, I will sell you some of
thin twig of special woo-woo wood found only in a remote jungle in the Amazon and which has been carefully soaked in sound-good oil and then blessed by a decorated tribal chief with golden ears
for $17,500. It only comes by the nano-inch!
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
To better understand my reviews and the context in which I make my comments I want to explain my high-end audio philosophy, my listening biases and my music preferences. By so doing I hope that my reviews and my descriptions of what I hear will be more valuable to you. By enabling you to understand my preferences, and by helping you to calibrate what I like versus what you like, I hope to enable you to triangulate meaningfully on, and better comprehend, what I describe in my reviews.


PHILOSOPHY

I believe there are three primary alternative objectives of high-end audio:

1) recreate an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape, and

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile.​

I subscribe to the first philosophy. I want my audio system to recreate as realistically and as believably as possible an original musical event. Several conclusions immediately follow from this particular philosophy.

Given that the recording is all of the information your reproduction system has to work with, that the recording is, from you reproduction system's perspective, the only event, how do you differentiate between #1 and #2?

Tim
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,678
4,467
963
Greater Boston
Good thing you don't like classical. Since the mic positions are almost always above the orchestra, your number (1) would not be possible

Given that the recording is all of the information your reproduction system has to work with, that the recording is, from you reproduction system's perspective, the only event, how do you differentiate between #1 and #2?

Tim

It is indeed positively, absolutely impossible to

"1) recreate an original musical event," (Ron's words).

What one can, in fact should (my opinion), strive for is to recreate the illusion of an original musical event to the point of believablilty. What 'believable' means will obviously vary from listener to listener, according to each individual's perception. Hence so many different approaches to high-end systems.

As for the difference between # 1 and # 2 let's take the following example. If the mastering engineer has turned the bass up way too much, or the bass sounds unusually anemic -- perhaps in both cases because his studio monitors and/or the acoustic response in his control room are flawed in this frequency range --, I can simply compensate with the volume setting on my subwoofer. Is the result further removed from "2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape"? Of course, and I could care less. Does it come closer to "1) recreate [the illusion of] an original musical event"? Of course.
 

Purite Audio

banned
May 28, 2013
417
1
0
www.puriteaudio.co.uk
It is indeed positively, absolutely impossible to

"1) recreate an original musical event," (Ron's words).

What one can, in fact should (my opinion), strive for is to recreate the illusion of an original musical event to the point of believablilty. What 'believable' means will obviously vary from listener to listener, according to each individual's perception. Hence so many different approaches to high-end systems.

As for the difference between # 1 and # 2 let's take the following example. If the mastering engineer has turned the bass up way too much, or the bass sounds unusually anemic -- perhaps in both cases because his studio monitors and/or the acoustic response in his control room are flawed in this frequency range --, I can simply compensate with the volume setting on my subwoofer. Is the result further removed from "2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape"? Of course, and I could care less. Does it come closer to "1) recreate [the illusion of] an original musical event"? Of course.
I agree you can only hope to reproduce the reproduction of the concert, although it is reported that multi channel systems, playing multi channel recordings can recreate the original acoustic of the venue.
That is something I look forward to trying.
Keith.
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
It is indeed positively, absolutely impossible to

"1) recreate an original musical event," (Ron's words).

What one can, in fact should (my opinion), strive for is to recreate the illusion of an original musical event to the point of believablilty. What 'believable' means will obviously vary from listener to listener, according to each individual's perception. Hence so many different approaches to high-end systems.

Al, this point is extremely well-taken. You are correct, and I wrote too quickly. Thank you for correcting me.

I could amend objective 1) to "create the illusion of an original musical event" or "recreate the sound of an original musical event." I think I prefer the latter.
 
Last edited:

audioguy

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,794
73
1,635
Near Atlanta, GA but not too near!
I agree you can only hope to reproduce the reproduction of the concert, although it is reported that multi channel systems, playing multi channel recordings can MORE CLOSELY recreate the ILLUSION OF the original acoustic of the venue.
That is something I look forward to trying.
Keith.

I would add "more closely". IMO, there is not a system on the planet at any cost with no limitations on the number of speakers that can recreate anything that comes even remotely close to the acoustics of the original event. I would then add "the illusion" of the original event.
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,346
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
Given that the recording is all of the information your reproduction system has to work with, that the recording is, from you reproduction system's perspective, the only event, how do you differentiate between #1 and #2?

Tim

That is a very fair and very critical question!

When an audiophile plays a recording of a concert which took place before he was born the audiophile cannot design his stereo to sound like that original musical event because he did not hear that original musical event. Even if he were actually, physically at the original musical event -- at the concert the recording of which he is now replaying on his stereo -- we still do not have a definitive target sound for the original musical event because we have to ask which original musical event? The musical event as heard by the audiophile sitting at the rear of the orchestra section? The musical event as heard by the audiophile sitting up in the balcony? The musical event as heard by the audiophile sitting in the front of the orchestra section? Each of these listening locations in the concert hall will sound different and will reflect a slightly different sound experience (a slightly different original musical event).

In practice we create an artificial construct of what live music sounds like when we listen to it in person -- of what live singers sound like and of what instruments being played live sound like. By listening numerous times to live music we synthesize a composite of what live voices and live instruments sound like. The more times we listen to live music the more data points we will have and the more accurate and informed will be our personal synthesized composite of the sound of live music. Achieving in our listening rooms the sound of live singers and live instruments as compared to the benchmark of this synthesized composite -- this informed extrapolation -- is the objective, the target, for audiophiles who seek to use their audio systems to recreate the sound of an original musical event.

Can adherents to the high-end audio objective of recreating the sound of an original musical event actually recreate the sound of an original music event? No - they can only use their audio systems and their experientially-derived synthesized composite of the sounds of live music to recreate their best, most informed extrapolation of the sound of an original music event.
 
Last edited:

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,678
4,467
963
Greater Boston
Al, this point is extremely well taken. You are correct, and I wrote too quickly. Thank you for correcting me.

I could amend objective 1) to "create the illusion of an original musical event" or "recreate the sound of an original musical event." I think I prefer the latter.

Ron, you are welcome. I enjoyed your OP very much.

As to rephrasing objective 1), I already had thought, before I saw your post, that replacing the term 'illusion' with the term 'impression' might be better. Or perhaps 'resemblance' might be a more suitable term as well.
 
Last edited:

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
It seems to me that (1) is not possible. However, pointing out that it is impossible to recreate the live event is, to my mind, a truism and not very useful. In fact, I think that it is possible to create a good enough illusion or impression of a live event and this is very much in the spirit of (1). But it is only possible if the recording is compatible with (1) and we pursue (2)

OR

we do some pretty radical manipulation of the recording that involves a good amount of luck because we don't have access to the individual tracks or instruments. Armed with a full suite of DSP effects we could, to some extent, add or remove 'ambience', correct imbalances, modify dynamic compression, even synthesise elements that are missing. This would have to be done on a track-by-track or album-by-album basis. In this day and age, it would be possible to save our settings and invoke them automatically when the track was played. So I actually think it would be a practical proposition. But would we want to do it? I think not.

In contrast, armed with an array of audiophile cables, amplifiers of various kinds, speakers of various types etc. we could do a lot less manipulation: merely applying various types of distortion, a selection of various phase and timing errors and EQ curves. The effort would be so great, that even if we thought we had made an improvement for certain tracks using this 'method', we would tend to stick with one system and restrict our listening to certain types of music and recordings because the system would sound wrong with all other types of recording.

I think it is a lot easier to pursue (2) and mentally to make a decision to 'live with' whatever the recording gives us. I also think that when people think they are doing (1) they are often doing (2) or (3). Either that, or it usually works out that if we do (2) well, the recording reveals unexpected bonuses that we could never have thought of, that outweigh an absence of 'live' sound. If we think we can improve on the majority of recordings with our genius for mixing-and-matching 'idiosyncratic' off-the-shelf equipment, we may be deluding ourselves!
 
Last edited:

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,434
13,467
2,710
London
Agreed, we can't really recreate. What we can do is best create and illusion of reality. Tone, soundstage, ambience, dynamics, transients, all go towards creating that feeling, or illusion of being at the concert hall, the balance of those elements changes system to system, but some systems seem more real, and some seem more fake
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
That is a very fair and very critical question!

When an audiophile plays a recording of a concert which took place before he was born the audiophile cannot design his stereo to sound like that original musical event because he did not hear that original musical event. Even if he were actually, physically at the original musical event -- at the concert the recording of which he is now replaying on his stereo -- we still do not have a definitive target sound for the original musical event because we have to ask which original musical event? The musical event as heard by the audiophile sitting at the rear of the orchestra section? The musical event as heard by the audiophile sitting up in the balcony? The musical event as heard by the audiophile sitting in the front of the orchestra section? Each of these listening locations in the concert hall will sound different and will reflect a slightly different sound experience (a slightly different original musical event).

In practice we create an artificial construct of what live music sounds like when we listen to it in person -- of what live singers sound like and of what instruments being played live sound like. By listening numerous times to live music we synthesize a composite of what live voices and live instruments sound like. The more times we listen to live music the more data points we will have and the more accurate and informed will be our personal synthesized composite of the sound of live music. Achieving in our listening rooms the sound of live singers and live instruments as compared to the benchmark of this synthesized composite -- this informed extrapolation -- is the objective, the target, for audiophiles who seek to use their audio systems to recreate the sound of an original musical event.

Can adherents to the high-end audio objective of recreating the sound of an original musical event actually recreate the sound of an original music event? No - they can only use their audio systems and their experientially-derived synthesized composite of the sounds of live music to recreate their best, most informed extrapolation of the sound of an original music event.

Good answer, Ron, but I think once you've taken all that accumulated experience, combined it into an impression and filtered it through all possible bias, what you have is just a preference. So I think your choices are (relatively) accurate reproduction or preference. Both are good choices. Both are capable of producing an illusion our perceptions can work with. Where we run into trouble is when we begin to fool ourselves into believing that our preference is actually closer to an "original event" that actually doesn't exist.

Tim
 

rbbert

Well-Known Member
Dec 12, 2010
3,820
239
1,000
Reno, NV
Agreed, we can't really recreate. What we can do is best create and illusion of reality. Tone, soundstage, ambience, dynamics, transients, all go towards creating that feeling, or illusion of being at the concert hall, the balance of those elements changes system to system, but some systems seem more real, and some seem more fake
What leads to disagreements and arguments is the clear fact that each of us has a different preference for the "balance of those elements", and of course each of us is convinced that our preference is the correct one.
 

Groucho

New Member
Aug 18, 2012
680
3
0
UK
What leads to disagreements and arguments is the clear fact that each of us has a different preference for the "balance of those elements", and of course each of us is convinced that our preference is the correct one.

I am not so sure. I think that most of us have some preference for the characteristics of the sound, but we are also wedded intellectually and philosophically to aspects of the equipment - sad though that may be.
 

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,434
13,467
2,710
London
Good answer, Ron, but I think once you've taken all that accumulated experience, combined it into an impression and filtered it through all possible bias, what you have is just a preference. So I think your choices are (relatively) accurate reproduction or preference. Both are good choices. Both are capable of producing an illusion our perceptions can work with. Where we run into trouble is when we begin to fool ourselves into believing that our preference is actually closer to an "original event" that actually doesn't exist.

Tim

Based on concert experience, 'preference' will differ.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing