Vinyl records outsell CDs for first time in decades

[Al M.]

Why not?

One can buy, say, a Topping D90SE DAC for around a grand:

Topping D90SE Review (Balanced DAC)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Topping D90SE flagship balanced USB DAC. It was sent to me by the company for testing and I believe costs US $899. The D90SE comes in the same clothes as current class of Topping products which is just fine with me: We have the usual inputs...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I'm curious: can you point to something that costs significantly more with better measured technical performance (in any way likely to be audible, or demonstrated as such)?

Oh boy. Now we're talking about measured performance vs sound. Schiit, after the measured performance of their Yggdrasil DAC was panned in Stereophile and the DAC was called "obsolete" by John Atkinson, put out a humorous full-page ad in that same magazine, see below, that reads (I reproduce the text outside of the ad so that nobody needs to try to read the smaller "fine print"):

Obsolete.

That’s what some have called Yggdrasil.

Why? Because Yggdrasil uses 20-bit D/A converters. But you know, pretty much everything we do is obsolete. Heck, a lot of our products use tubes. And we stubbornly cling to discrete design, Class A and AB topologies, and physical knobs, switches and potentiometers. And you know what, we’re 100 % cool with that.

(And if you really, really want a "non-obsolete", "32-bit" DAC, you can save $ 2,200 and get our $ 99 Modi 2 with the AK4490 converter.)

***

The little, cheap Modi 2 measures a whole lot better than the Yggdrasil, at least in a good number of parameters. The Yggdrasil sounds a whole lot better than the Modi 2. Schiit would agree.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I've had a foot deep in the pro world and the audiophile world for many decades so it's fun (and helps keep some perspective IMO) to see things from both sides.

+1

 

[Mike Lavigne]

In your extremely tweaked particular system according to your preference with a great expenditure of resources and plenty of listening time ( please consider this part of the sentence a jealous congratulation ... )

and according to your preference.

and every visitor to my room over the years has shared my preference. the Wadax compare visitor event was the first time some saw it closer. not to particular top pressings, but to the musical equation of good vinyl. they spoke of it as 'like' vinyl.

since then, of course, vinyl in my system has taken a step up comparatively, as has my tape.

 

[Tangram]

Totally agree. And that's exactly what I don't get. Playing an LP that used digital anything to make it just seems non-productive, futile, (and even stupid) to me.

My system is turntable-only for inputs. I prefer purchasing old analog records but there’s a lot of great new music that I enjoy so I purchase the vinyl copies of these digital recordings. Do they sound as good as the older, analog records? Usually no, but sometimes yes. Regardless, I can enjoy new music even though I don’t have any digital sources in my system.

But apparently to you, that makes me stupid.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Oh boy. Now we're talking about measured performance vs sound.

i think talking performance with a pro audio guy is a waste of time. they view gear as a tool to do a job, with a predictable result that will work on all sorts of media players, and satisfy the artist/producer. pro audio guys view audiophiles as over the edge and delusional, mostly with an all knowing smugness added.

how can i discuss dac performance with someone viewing a $1k dac as state of the art? what 'art' is being optimized? the art of accuracy? that's not my interest. not saying that dac might not be just fine. but this is 'What's Best Forum'.

end user performance values are related but based on different truths.

like comparing a mastering studio to a listening room. they have different goals.

OTOH....not all pro audio guys are created equal. no right or wrong to any of it.

 

[mtemur]

i think talking performance with a pro audio guy is a waste of time. they view gear as a tool to do a job, with a predictable result that will work on all sorts of media players, and satisfy the artist/producer. pro audio guys view audiophiles as over the edge and delusional, mostly with an all knowing smugness added.

how can i discuss dac performance with someone viewing a $1k dac as state of the art? what 'art' is being optimized? the art of accuracy? that's not my interest. not saying that dac might not be just fine. but this is 'What's Best Forum'.

end user performance values are related but based on different truths.

like comparing a mastering studio to a listening room. they have different goals.

OTOH....not all pro audio guys are created equal. no right or wrong to any of it.

Well said.

Besides other delusions like using balanced topology can justify using 6-7 meters long cables and the need for high quality in cabling, pro audio should find a way to overcome what oversampling does to impulse response or quit using it. Instead of doing that they will probably advocate oversampling or ask the question what’s wrong with oversampling.

 

[COF]

Oh boy. Now we're talking about measured performance vs sound.

Why "vs?" The only reason audio engineers/designers developed measurements was to aid in getting what we want sonically. They are intimately related in audio - corresponding measurements to audible consequences has largely been how audio has progressed. It doesn't mean it's simple and easy, and doesn't mean anyone has to seek any particular measured performance of course.

Personally I don't strictly chase neutrality. I have tube amps and play lots of vinyl. But if A sounds different that B, it's not going to be magic. It's a technical difference manifesting as a sonic difference.

Schiit, after the measured performance of their Yggdrasil DAC was panned in Stereophile and the DAC was called "obsolete" by John Atkinson, put out a humorous full-page ad in that same magazine, see below, that reads (I reproduce the text outside of the ad so that nobody needs to try to read the smaller "fine print"):

Obsolete.

That’s what some have called Yggdrasil.

Why? Because Yggdrasil uses 20-bit D/A converters. But you know, pretty much everything we do is obsolete. Heck, a lot of our products use tubes. And we stubbornly cling to discrete design, Class A and AB topologies, and physical knobs, switches and potentiometers. And you know what, we’re 100 % cool with that.

(And if you really, really want a "non-obsolete", "32-bit" DAC, you can save $ 2,200 and get our $ 99 Modi 2 with the AK4490 converter.)

***

The little, cheap Modi 2 measures a whole lot better than the Yggdrasil, at least in a good number of parameters. The Yggdrasil sounds a whole lot better than the Modi 2. Schiit would agree.


View attachment 108605

Ok...?

I often like how my vinyl records sound vs my digital source. Does that mean vinyl is automatically more "state of the art?" Not sure how this answered my question.

 

[Gregadd]

Accuracy/? Compared to what? Distortion to me means a deviation from the original event. Iagree if A differs from B that is distortion. What is A and B?

 

[COF]

i think talking performance with a pro audio guy is a waste of time. they view gear as a tool to do a job, with a predictable result that will work on all sorts of media players, and satisfy the artist/producer. pro audio guys view audiophiles as over the edge and delusional, mostly with an all knowing smugness added.

I'm not sure where the disparagement came from. I'm not just in pro sound, as I've said I'm a long time audiophile.

And I've already pointed out that I don't just view audio in some dryly technical pro sense: I prefer tube amps and vinyl at home, and I've been immersed in the audiophile world since the 80s - been to all the shows, most of the famous AV stores, heard nose-bleedingly expensive stuff, etc. I often defend subjective audio reviews on the more technically inclined forums and in fact did a little bit of reviewing myself years ago, and made many friends and acquaintences in the audio reviewing world, so hearing tons of stuff in reviewer systems. In fact I just recently came back from my pal's place listening to $65K Estelons hooked up to the latest Hegel monoblock amps, top end Nordost cabling etc. FWIW, since we like to discuss gear: I'm not in the rich-guy bracket, but within my means I've owned speakers from Thiel (including the 3.7s), Joseph Audio (currently have the Perspective Graphenes - Joseph often gets high praises at audio shows), MBL Radialstrahler, Audio Physic, Von Schweikert, Waveform and many others over the years.

That's not meant to impress anyone - but only point out that I'm well in the audiophile realm of things. I'm not listening through powered Genelec speakers at home

So I get that many audiophiles like to keep things strictly in the realm of "If I believe I heard it, then it's true." That's fine. I mostly use my ears. But I straddle the line, happy to hear purely subjective reports on technically plausible differences (e.g. between speakers, tube amps and solid state etc) but raising the bar for areas where I find the plausibility wanting - e.g. I am not apt to automatically accept someone heard differences with their gold plated cable-risers, and if someone is claiming some uber expensive DAC "raised the state of the art" I'd like to see more support other than manufacturer claims followed by an audiophile saying "I liked it better."

 

[COF]

how can i discuss dac performance with someone viewing a $1k dac as state of the art? what 'art' is being optimized? the art of accuracy? that's not my interest. not saying that dac might not be just fine. but this is 'What's Best Forum'.

That is a very good question!

Have you turned that question around on your own equipment evaluating paradigm?

How do you determine what is to be deemed advances in performance, or state of the art, if it just boils down to personal opinions and subjective impressions?

Look at all the differences of opinion among audiophiles using precisely this criteria - how it sounds to them. Take for instance MBL speakers. I've been privy to a number of well set up private MBL demos. First time I heard the 101s was at a TAS reviewer's place. Blew my mind. Next at shows, then demos at several dealers. I've demoed the Extremes in a dedicated room. Now, I personally find that MBLs can produce just about the most realistic sound I've ever heard. Subjectively, they sure sound like an advancement over most box-'n-cones speakers and strike me as close to state of the art. (It's why I owned MBLs at one point).

On the other hand, all sorts of audiophiles feel differently. They find the MBLs "too bright" "too metallic" "too diffuse" "fake" "artificial sounding." Personally I suspect some of this comes from having been conditioned to the sound of box speakers, so something decidedly different "doesn't sound quite right."

So...who decides? Whose ears are correct? There are audiophiles who laud Maggies as the best and others who can't stand them. Others laud Wilson as The Best, others think they sound awful. Others think Magico are out front, some find they sound "hi-fi" and not "natural," others think only full range horn systems can be considered state of the art, while many find they have unacceptable coloration. And on and on. I see no consensus, nor even a plausible route to consensus on a purely subjective paradigm like that.

If you happen to declare something "state of the art" on what grounds am I to accept your claim as true? Is it "I've heard a lot of gear and this is best?" Welcome to the club - tons of audiophiles can say the same, but may disagree with your assessment and find other gear "better." So where does that leave us in determining "What's Best?"

Wouldn't it be actually more accurate to name this forum "What I Like Best Forum?"

A more objective, measurement driven approach to audio gear is some level of solution to this problem (keeping in mind measurements aren't just in a vacuum - the point is they have been correlated to audible consequences). It DOES at least give grounds for objective assessment about claims. If some audio company claims a technical problem and solution, that can often be tested objectively. And, subjectively, if someone says "but I can still hear X is better than X" then that subjective claim can also be tested (with controls for sighted bias).

It at least offers some way out of the he-said-she-said realm of pure subjective impressions and opinions.

However, as I indicated earlier, that is NOT to say that a purely measurement oriented approach solves all the audiophile issues. In the end, the point for most audiophiles isn't simply that something hits some measured goal, but how much they enjoy listening to music on their system. The "objectivist" doesn't enjoy an objective value over the "subjectivist." The objectivist has just taken a certain route to trying to obtain the same goal.

Personally, however a speaker may measure, in the end I have to hear it for myself to determine "what it sounds like" to me. I'm not seeking technical accuracy as my ultimate goal.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I'm not sure where the disparagement came from. I'm not just in pro sound, as I've said I'm a long time audiophile.

as i said above "not all pro audio guys are created equal". i've been involved in a number of discussions on line and zoom type meetings where pro audio guys have the cynicism dial turned way up. i've also had pro audio guys come to my room with that same view, but leave in a different state of mind. if i can get them to listen to what i listen to, then we can align our truths. but if we stay in our silos, it's hard to find common ground.

i think both audiophiles and pro audio guys bring baggage into conversations, but it's only while listening together that those notions and conflicts can get torn down.

And I've already pointed out that I don't just view audio in some dryly technical pro sense: I prefer tube amps and vinyl at home, and I've been immersed in the audiophile world since the 80s - been to all the shows, most of the famous AV stores, heard nose-bleedingly expensive stuff, etc. I often defend subjective audio reviews on the more technically inclined forums and in fact did a little bit of reviewing myself years ago, and made many friends and acquaintences in the audio reviewing world, so hearing tons of stuff in reviewer systems. In fact I just recently came back from my pal's place listening to $65K Estelons hooked up to the latest Hegel monoblock amps, top end Nordost cabling etc. FWIW, since we like to discuss gear: I'm not in the rich-guy bracket, but within my means I've owned speakers from Thiel (including the 3.7s), Joseph Audio (currently have the Perspective Graphenes - Joseph often gets high praises at audio shows), MBL Radialstrahler, Audio Physic, Von Schweikert, Waveform and many others over the years.

That's not meant to impress anyone - but only point out that I'm well in the audiophile realm of things. I'm not listening through powered Genelec speakers at home

ok, good.

So I get that many audiophiles like to keep things strictly in the realm of "If I believe I heard it, then it's true." That's fine. I mostly use my ears. But I straddle the line, happy to hear purely subjective reports on technically plausible differences (e.g. between speakers, tube amps and solid state etc) but raising the bar for areas where I find the plausibility wanting - e.g. I am not apt to automatically accept someone heard differences with their gold plated cable-risers, and if someone is claiming some uber expensive DAC "raised the state of the art" I'd like to see more support other than manufacturer claims followed by an audiophile saying "I liked it better."

i'm not anti anything. measurements can serve purposes. they can be important data points. helped me to sort out my room tuning. help to work out amp and speaker synergy options. make sure you have proper power grid and amp power headroom. but they are always beside the point when making choices.

if some here want to grind away on measurements, no worries. not a discussion i will be joining. mostly those threads die a quick death here.

in my system my 'truth' for years was my tape decks and tapes. they stayed as constants. one good way i could track my vinyl and digital progress.

here on this forum we are not demanding proof. there is no proof. proof is for a different forum. a different universe.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

That is a very good question!

Have you turned that question around on your own equipment evaluating paradigm?

How do you determine what is to be deemed advances in performance, or state of the art, if it just boils down to personal opinions and subjective impressions?

comparing gear? within formats? between formats? with various media?

yes, every day. for many years. i won't bore you with the details.

Look at all the differences of opinion among audiophiles using precisely this criteria - how it sounds to them. Take for instance MBL speakers. I've been privy to a number of well set up private MBL demos. First time I heard the 101s was at a TAS reviewer's place. Blew my mind. Next at shows, then demos at several dealers. I've demoed the Extremes in a dedicated room. Now, I personally find that MBLs can produce just about the most realistic sound I've ever heard. Subjectively, they sure sound like an advancement over most box-'n-cones speakers and strike me as close to state of the art. (It's why I owned MBLs at one point).

On the other hand, all sorts of audiophiles feel differently. They find the MBLs "too bright" "too metallic" "too diffuse" "fake" "artificial sounding." Personally I suspect some of this comes from having been conditioned to the sound of box speakers, so something decidedly different "doesn't sound quite right."

So...who decides? Whose ears are correct? There are audiophiles who laud Maggies as the best and others who can't stand them. Others laud Wilson as The Best, others think they sound awful. Others think Magico are out front, some find they sound "hi-fi" and not "natural," others think only full range horn systems can be considered state of the art, while many find they have unacceptable coloration. And on and on. I see no consensus, nor even a plausible route to consensus on a purely subjective paradigm like that.

If you happen to declare something "state of the art" on what grounds am I to accept your claim as true? Is it "I've heard a lot of gear and this is best?" Welcome to the club - tons of audiophiles can say the same, but may disagree with your assessment and find other gear "better." So where does that leave us in determining "What's Best?"

now you sound like the pro audio guy i recalled when i made my above comment you did not care for.

Wouldn't it be actually more accurate to name this forum "What I Like Best Forum?"

A more objective, measurement driven approach to audio gear is some level of solution to this problem (keeping in mind measurements aren't just in a vacuum - the point is they have been correlated to audible consequences). It DOES at least give grounds for objective assessment about claims. If some audio company claims a technical problem and solution, that can often be tested objectively. And, subjectively, if someone says "but I can still hear X is better than X" then that subjective claim can also be tested (with controls for sighted bias).

It at least offers some way out of the he-said-she-said realm of pure subjective impressions and opinions.

However, as I indicated earlier, that is NOT to say that a purely measurement oriented approach solves all the audiophile issues. In the end, the point for most audiophiles isn't simply that something hits some measured goal, but how much they enjoy listening to music on their system. The "objectivist" doesn't enjoy an objective value over the "subjectivist." The objectivist has just taken a certain route to trying to obtain the same goal.

Personally, however a speaker may measure, in the end I have to hear it for myself to determine "what it sounds like" to me. I'm not seeking technical accuracy as my ultimate goal.

objectivity is a state of mind we need to exercise on the way to trusting our ears. boxes do need to be checked off to a degree. it's part of the process of decision making. but the art of music is best judged when consuming the experience of music. we have to get out of our minds, and into our senses. so we do have some common ground, but maybe not too much.

and audiophiles come in many different flavors. some do want those measurements, some like the sounds more, not so much the music. it's a hobby and we are not all the same. there is no 'wrong' way.

 

[COF]

if some here want to grind away on measurements, no worries. not a discussion i will be joining. mostly those threads die a quick death here.

Sure, I get that.

Frankly, in terms of most audiophile forums demanding rigorous objective evidence from each other is mostly untenable. Few audiophiles are technical experts to begin with, and few of us are doing science when we buy our gear. This is why I think there's still a huge place for audiophiles just shootin' the sh*t in terms of exchanging subjective notes on audio gear. I do it all the time.

On the other hand, that nonetheless does leave the problem I cited about "who determines the state of the art." It's reasonable to acknowledge both points.

now you sound like the pro audio guy i recalled when i made my above comment you did not care for.

Well, if you cherry pick out of the larger picture I've painted. I mean, I could cherry pick some of your comments and disparage them as the view of the Classic Golden Ear. But how would such ad hominem serve any substantive discussion?

As I said: I have a foot in both worlds, try to see the points in each, rather than being stuck in a single dogmatic paradigm. Is that a bad thing?

But the point is: Was I asking reasonable questions or not? Would you agree there is a problem in determining "What's Best" (title of this forum!) and claims of "state of the art" in a purely subjective paradigm, where it's just opinion vs opinion? (Where even "experienced" opinions will disagree).

It's fine if you don't really care about this problem, but it's reasonable for me to point it out I think.

objectivity is a state of mind we need to exercise on the way to trusting our ears. boxes do need to be checked off to a degree. it's part of the process of decision making. but the art of music is best judged when consuming the experience of music. so we do have some common ground, but maybe not too much.

Yes, I've acknowledged common ground.

One of the problems of polarization is seeing something in what someone says that we disagree with, and being triggered to automatically put that person in a box to "other them" and presume they think all sorts of things they don't really think.

I'm not saying you've done this, but it's certainly been a problem in trying to discuss these issues on various forums, which is unfortunate. Personally, on the more subjective oriented forums I'm often assumed as some dogmatic objectivist because I dare raise the specter of measurements or problems of bias. On the Objective-leaning forums I'm often seen as an interloping subjectivist because I listen to non-neutral stuff and defend the relevance of subjective impressions. Many people have a hard time seeing outside of their own box and considering the nuance of another view that doesn't toe every line strictly. It's good to be able to disagree without ad hominem. Thanks.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Sure, I get that.

Frankly, in terms of most audiophile forums demanding rigorous objective evidence from each other is mostly untenable. Few audiophiles are technical experts to begin with, and few of us are doing science when we buy our gear. This is why I think there's still a huge place for audiophiles just shootin' the sh*t in terms of exchanging subjective notes on audio gear. I do it all the time.

On the other hand, that nonetheless does leave the problem I cited about "who determines the state of the art." It's reasonable to acknowledge both points.

my audiophile experience has been about optimizing each part of my system. starting with the room. so it's a serious subject for me. i've had to navigate this for myself. find my own SOTA choices. other's find theirs. lots of opinions. sometimes it's all preferences, sometimes more about maybe the best. but never proof.

Well, if you cherry pick out of the larger picture I've painted. I mean, I could cherry pick some of your comments and disparage them as the view of the Classic Golden Ear. But how would such ad hominem serve any substantive discussion?

As I said: I have a foot in both worlds, try to see the points in each, rather than being stuck in a single dogmatic paradigm. Is that a bad thing?

it's up to you. are you trying to convince someone? or just sharing the hobby fun you are having?

But the point is: Was I asking reasonable questions or not? Would you agree there is a problem in determining "What's Best" (title of this forum!) and claims of "state of the art" in a purely subjective paradigm, where it's just opinion vs opinion? (Where even "experienced" opinions will disagree).

It's fine if you don't really care about this problem, but it's reasonable for me to point it out I think.

there is no problem to fix. there are plenty of discussions about what is state of the art.

yet, it is important to try and be inclusive to alternative views. lots of serious audiophiles do also play engineers on TV and can talk that talk. they just keep that part of their views under the radar mostly. for a balanced forum some of that is good. we need techie answer guys. and it's common for there to be discussions about psycho acoustic issues. biases and all that.

the only problem occurs when someone tries to obviously fix audiophile subjectivity. if your question is disputing the validity of listening impressions, you are grouped with the ASR rabble. and tuned out.

Yes, I've acknowledged common ground.

One of the problems of polarization is seeing something in what someone says that we disagree with, and being triggered to automatically put that person in a box to "other them" and presume they think all sorts of things they don't really think.

I'm not saying you've done this, but it's certainly been a problem in trying to discuss these issues on various forums, which is unfortunate. Personally, on the more subjective oriented forums I'm often assumed as some dogmatic objectivist because I dare raise the specter of measurements or problems of bias. On the Objective-leaning forums I'm often seen as an interloping subjectivist because I listen to non-neutral stuff and defend the relevance of subjective impressions. Many people have a hard time seeing outside of their own box and considering the nuance of another view that doesn't toe every line strictly. It's good to be able to disagree without ad hominem. Thanks.

it's all about signal to noise. objectivity is forum noise (primarily ignored), a little bit is fine.

 

[microstrip]

and every visitor to my room over the years has shared my preference. the Wadax compare visitor event was the first time some saw it closer. not to particular top pressings, but to the musical equation of good vinyl. they spoke of it as 'like' vinyl.

Surely. IMO this unanimity just confirms my thoughts on your system penchant - I think you do not select visitors!

since then, of course, vinyl in my system has taken a step up comparatively, as has my tape.

It is something I find confusing - if your analog had stopped evolving ten years ago the current digital would be "better" than analog?

 

[marty]

(And if you really, really want a "non-obsolete", "32-bit" DAC, you can save $ 2,200 and get our $ 99 Modi 2 with the AK4490 converter.)

Don't knock that Modi DAC! It's fantastic. I use it regularly to watch TV so I don't have to run my Horizon tubes. Nobody needs a 50K DAC to watch re-runs of Seinfeld!

 

[tima]

i was exposed to Bartok Orchestral early in that process, and i had a hard time getting into it compared to the Romance pieces, but then i did, later. started with the 'easy' string quartets of Mozart and Beethoven, then eventually Bartok and Shostakovich. now i pursue all the modern really complex stuff

Beethoven later quartets can take you to the last half of the 20th C.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Beethoven later quartets can take you to the last half of the 20th C.

agree, graduated from early to middle to late. then it all opened up to me. now the late Beethoven Quartet''s are my most played pressings.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Surely. IMO this unanimity just confirms my thoughts on your system penchant -

ok.

I think you do not select visitors!

my door is open.

It is something I find confusing - if your analog had stopped evolving ten years ago the current digital would be "better" than analog?

certainly the general delta would be smaller. but the best pressings still a big step up. analog being more media dependent than gear dependent. the best pressings and performances rule.

 

[COF]

there is no problem to fix. there are plenty of discussions about what is state of the art.

I'm sure there are. It seemed you were fairly confident in saying "no" to the idea that state of the art digital can be had for around the price of a Topping DAC. The issues was how anyone can justify one claim over another. How does The State Of The Art move forward in any way anyone can agree upon? I would think that'd be an interesting question. If that doesn't strike you as any problem...well...ok

the only problem occurs when someone tries to obviously fix audiophile subjectivity. if your question is disputing the validity of listening impressions, you are grouped with the ASR rabble. and tuned out.

I agree that one can go overboard in questioning the validity of listening impressions. As I've said, I argue for the validity of listening impressions all the time.

However, if merely voicing skepticism of a particular manufacturer or audiophile's claim...and daring to give reasons based on technical grounds or any appeal to science...if that's enough to be "tuned out" then that suggests a close-minded dogmatism.

I've been reading and enjoying this forum for many years. I hope you don't mind if I go a bit further in to this general subject of how conversations are carried out on audio forums....

I try to be open minded to being wrong on anything.

For instance: I like tube rolling. There are some (e.g. some on ASR, not all on ASR) who are skeptical that tube rolling is likely to alter the sound of an amp (that it's probably usually due to expectation biases). Well, I sure seem to hear differences between tubes. I haven't (and can't) blind test this, but I go on rolling tubes and enjoying the differences I hear anyway.

So how do I respond to the skeptics at ASR?

Here's what I don't say:

You clearly don't have experience with tube amplification (usually...they do). You must not have a resolving enough system to hear these differences. Or you must not have hearing as good as mine, if you dismiss these differences.

Here's what I do say:

I understand why you want better evidence than my say-so in hearing differences. I acknowledge that expectation bias is always possible. Unfortunately I don't have the type of evidence you want - I don't have measurements, nor is it plausible for me to pull of blind tests for tube swapping in my system. So I'm not making claims you need to take as true. But for myself, I find the subjective experience quite compelling, and I'll go on enjoying tube rolling, and I'll enjoy swapping tips, tricks and results with others who are in to tube rolling.

So I can happily do the subjective talk thing, without being inconsistent with the existence of reasons for skepticism.

What I usually encounter among the purely subjective audiophiles, is refusal to even admit they might be wrong. Everything is so staked upon the reliability of their perception as the ultimate barometer of sonic reality. I could be wrong about this, but I'd bet that when I proposed that state of the art digital sound can be had for the price of a Topping DAC, that likely didn't put a dent in your confidence in saying "no." Why? Because you've heard better. You *know* you have. Any link to stellar Topping measurements won't have you re-evaluating your belief. Am I not right?

These type of conversations can melt down not necessarily due to "dogmatic engineers/objectivists" but also to a dogmatic subjectivism that bridles at being challenged. Very often to even suggest an audiophile's claim may be due to his imagination (in other words, standard issue human bias) is often taken as some personal affront. It's dismissive and presumptive of the skeptic to dare raise that doubt. "How can you presume to tell anyone they didn't really hear something when you weren't there!?? Unless you've tried it for yourself, you can't have a valid opinion!"

I'm sure you recognize that type of response. (I've seen it a million times).

And then emotions grow, ad hominems are tossed back. There's dogmatism on both sides unfortunately. Humans being human, and all that....