Can we actually discuss What is Best on this forum?

[wil]

I am so envious of those who get to come over and listen, but that is besides the point.

You identified two major groups amongst those who come to yours for listening workshops;

-emotional listeners, who want to feel the music
-rational listeners, who want to hear Every Little Detail of the Recording

I also believe that these groups also identify who is into pure analogue and who prefers highly resolving digital.

These are simplistic and false dichotomies.

 

[Al M.]

These are simplistic and false dichotomies.

Agreed.

 

[wil]

There are Leica fans who prefer black and white pics and those are being shown in galeries. Even b/w digital leica has a gorgeous look, its pure art.
The reference in colour quality is still analog imaging. I know that Leica aims to replicate those analog colours of famous analog still films with every new digital sensor they bring up to life in their cameras. Analog ist still the reference for them, but with all digital sensors there is some loss in those qualities, no digital sensor has the ability to touch on those analog virtues. The same is with digital cinema, what is the majority today. Those projectors simply fail to reproduce film colours of yesterdays reference chemical films. The same quality isn't any longer available to the customer.

My problem with digital audio was (and maybe is) not the quest for more bits in the data stream but the audibility of the whole A/D-D/A electronic conversion process compared to real analog systems without those process. And the tone colors, that can't compete with real analog systems. It just sounds more true, less electronic enhanced and more lifelike to me to hear an analog system.

Btw, I stopped some 30 years ago to believe what others told me about real audio quality, because it prooved to be wrong. Wrong for the simple reason that those people want to sell something or wrong because they had a different taste. I think subjective experiences are strictly personal belongings and not transferable to others, because they have their own taste and subjectivity. I could compose a killer audio system for myself, but for nobody else. I enjoy reading about components but always see it with this subjectivity and limited background, we all share. Those, who think that is the best of what they have auditioned until now is the best of the world, don't know the rest.

In the right hands, that is, skilled and experienced hands, Digital photography and digital printing is far more natural and realistic than film-based color. The controls are much more refined. The problem is those fine controls can also be grossly mis-used by people who don’t know what they’re doing technically or just don’t have a good eye.

 

[Walter66]

I've read this much often. The magazine XY did a recommendation for a killer audio system for small budget. The problem and the truth about their advices was and still is, they do it for money and they only recommend actual products. Because thats the clients who advertise in their mags, the producers of those gear.

In the past, there were some german mags who did excessive technical tests with each component they auditioned. Those technical based tests are out of fashion today. Today we have mostly subjective listening tests with some minor technical parameters given to the reader.
We had a magazine in the 1980's here in germoney, called "Das Ohr". That was free of any advertisments and they came up with the concept of those subjective, listening based auditions. Most mags today have copied their style, but they are still full of ads. Thats one of the problems.

Get inspirations from others but make your own subjective experiences is the best advise. Believe nobody who speaks in the name of truth. There is no absolute truth in audio.

 

[Rensselaer]

There are Leica fans who prefer black and white pics and those are being shown in galeries. Even b/w digital leica has a gorgeous look, its pure art.
The reference in colour quality is still analog imaging. I know that Leica aims to replicate those analog colours of famous analog still films with every new digital sensor they bring up to life in their cameras. Analog ist still the reference for them, but with all digital sensors there is some loss in those qualities, no digital sensor has the ability to touch on those analog virtues. The same is with digital cinema, what is the majority today. Those projectors simply fail to reproduce film colours of yesterdays reference chemical films. The same quality isn't any longer available to the customer.

My problem with digital audio was (and maybe is) not the quest for more bits in the data stream but the audibility of the whole A/D-D/A electronic conversion process compared to real analog systems without those process. And the tone colors, that can't compete with real analog systems. It just sounds more true, less electronic enhanced and more lifelike to me to hear an analog system.

Ok Walter,

Put that way, I agree with you 100%. Perhaps I did get it wrong.

I put analogue lovers in the emotional listeners group because I am a lover of analogue and when I hear a great analogue recording I just sit back, relax and enjoy the music. If I become aware of a detail (lack of bass extension, poor stereo effect, etc.,) it brings a different emotion to me, one of displeasure.

Those of whom I have read on this site that support digital as being as good as or better than analogue, also seem to be the same ones who argued on the Natural Sound thread that one needs to concentrate and listen for all the "details" of sound reproduction (treble extension, accuracy, bass extension, sound stage, etc., and compare that with other equipment listening in their memory (while listening) to determine if Natural Sound or not. They, I argued, belonged in the "rational listeners" group as they want to hear every detail.

It is for that reason that I suggested "emotional listeners" gravitate towards analogue, and "rational listeners", digital. As I said above, perhaps I got that wrong.

 

[Rensselaer]

Yes, I understand your position; it is continually repeated in each of your posts. Objective vs subjection, objective proof depends on consensus, we all hear differently, claims of the best are only satisfied upon examination of every instance of all components under consideration in the same system. etc.

Proponents of what's best must meet your criteria of objective proof although you cannot tell us what counts as objective proof. You cannot tell us why objective proof (whatever that is) is a requirement of being the best. Upon presentation you will assess if the objective proof is sufficient. Yes, I understand what you are saying.

In essence I think you are saying that despite a dictionary entry the question of what is best is a meaningless or nonsense question. A Platonic form that will ever allude those in the shadows, an archetype we cannot describe. It requires a perspective from outside the world of the mind that is impossible to take. In effect, you are saying there is no best, or, at bare minimum, we can not talk meaningfully about it. Your answer to the question in the thread title is 'no' or 'we really shouldn't.'

Sure, for semantics sake, one can argue that there can not be a "best" that is true now and forever, but surely your detractors must accept that between two high end phono stages tested side by side with a selection of the better cartridges and tonearms on a decent system, there can be a "best"? And, if there can be a "best" of two, there can be a "best" of three, four, or all currently in production? It is not an absolute, but only relative to that which is available and at this particular time.

 

[Rensselaer]

Frankly this is one of the sillier threads but gosh darn it all, you guys are (mostly) so serious about it. Peter, even though this should not have really been a topic you're shear earnestness about it is endearing, if not a bit off putting.

The whole point of "Best" in What's Best Forum is not about crowning a king in each device category. Micro, even though not a native English speaker has hit the right definition where "Best" here refers to general excellence and not an absolute winner for a device category.

1) It is not like there is a hifi olympics where all the top competitors lineup and are objectively quantified for the one gold medalist...even if it were the case it would be more like figure skating, somewhat objective but ultimately a lot of subjectivity in the final score.

The closest that can be done is the shootout where a wealthy individual or group of people bring 20 or so devices of known top quality to the battle. These shootouts rarely crown a definitive winner (for reasons outlined below) and would possibly only be true in that particular system anyway. So, no absolute winner and people's bias will cloud their judgement (just like back in Soviet times when the ice skating judges would give very suspicious looking scores for the skater of the opposing country and amazing scores for their own).


2) Psychoacoustic studies demonstrate that there is indeed a way to evaluate preference statistically. Geddes, Cheever, Lamm and others have developed psychoacoustic models that indicate a correlation between certain objective performance traits and listener preference. As Lamm has done, gear can be developed using those statisical results and this would then appeal to what the model says is the "best" sound for human listeners. I am actually an advocate of this approach as it is likely the best one currently available. HOWEVER, it has to be noted the correlations are not absolute. There is no correlation coefficient of 1 here that says do this and EVERYONE will find it the most preferrable. Often the correlation is at best about 0.8. This still leaves a lot of room for dissention from the prescribed model design. This means that even if Lamm's model was the best possible model, the correlation would likely still be far from 1 and therefore not everyone would agree that Lamm gear sounds the best. This can be applied ad nauseum because the statistical variability will always be there.

What does this mean? There can be no objective "best" but there can be "what most people prefer" gear based on statistical analysis of an empirical model. That will likely be the closest to a consensus to "best" one is likely to get.

What would be interesting would be to take gear designed with psychoacoustic parameters included in the design (like Lamm supposedly is) and gear designed with a different PA model to see if they converge or diverge in terms of listener preference.

I will just close that my own preference runs very much in the direction that Peter has gone, so generally I think that approach is more rather than less correct. I would not crown the absolute best speaker, amp, DAC, TT, phonostage etc. though. There are many that are mining similar if not exactly the same veins that deliver a similar sound profile to what DDK and Peter have espoused as "The Best". I have no doubt that DDK considers his TT the best and Lamm electronics the best. Probably Bionors as well... No one doubts they are great and occupy that upper echelon of a small pantheon of similarly superb gear but to crown them the best always comes back to the question of "to whom?"

Only tongue in cheek, not really in disagreement:

There are lies, damn lies and statistics!
How could 10,000 lemmings possibly be wrong?

 

[Rensselaer]

Al, how can you truly know my intent? I have explained it and we act the way we do. Why criticize an approach that differs from how you might have done it? The vital point is that I did it on my own and started this discussion. My methods are mine to choose



I think we more or less hear the same, but some of us focus on parts and bits and pieces, while others listen more holistically and for balance. Regardless of these differences and different contexts, I do strongly feel that somethings rise above the rest and have a sort of universal appeal for reasons I’ve already explained. These are the things that stand the test of time and are held up and revered






My speakers and two of my cartridges are vintage. My electronics are older versions of products still available and my turn tables made three years ago. The wires are no longer available but I don’t think I would consider them vintage. I do not think my system has a better system but rather a blend of all the new for a particular result.



That post is an example of different people discussing top turntables. I shared it to illustrate the different ways and which people describe what they hear and what is a value to them and it provides insight into the nature of the turntables and their quality.

I am not ignoring what other people have written. I have read it and think about it and consider it. I don’t happen to agree with all of it. This thread is not about me versus the world. I simply started a topic and I want to see what other people think about it. And I contribute how and when I decide. I’m not telling you or others what to say or how to think or when to respond.

This is not about me, this is about the nature of our discussions and the title of this thread.



I contend that the very best gear has fewer trade-offs which makes it more difficult to discuss its strengths and weaknesses and attributes. These are the products take get you right to the music and do not announce their presence in the system. Have you heard the Neuman cartridge, the one product I have nominated or claimed is the best of its type? It is exactly as I described, without the character that one hears from almost all other cartridges and has to make a decision about what given attributes fit a personal preference system balance. That cartridge is not like that. It just is and presents the music as it is retrieved from the grooves. Is a very unique product in my experience.

Peter, I highly applaud what you were trying to accomplish with this thread. I have seen one done right regarding an evaluation of MM cartridges where all currently available, and some no longer available new, were assembled and compared using various loads, tonearms, vertical tracking force etc., in order to allow each to be represented in its' best light. Then the reviewer put them in groups with a group of the "best", a group of great but not the best, and some that were not in the same league. I have been searching this forum (and others) for that as it certainly can't be found in magazines that purport to review fairly.

But hey, why take my word for it, read it for yourself here: a proper review, for the best MM cartridges

 

[Audire]

Perhaps instead of arguing whether the title …

The title is wrong. There’s not an absolute best cart in the entire world. This isn’t an argument, but common sense and a fact!

Confronting opinions (and inaccuracies) is part of what this forum is all about! It’s part and parcel of how we grow as Audiophiles.

Perhaps instead of arguing … [the] opinions of its members …

Part and parcel of this forum is the varying opinions of its members. If you haven’t noticed they don't all agree with one another. Why?

There are numerous variables at work when listening. Members have different hearing abilities, systems, enjoy different genres of music, and have different rooms. Some have cleaner electricity coming into their rooms, etc. etc. etc.

No one person has heard every single combination of every single system in every single room in the entire world. So, opinions differ - and they always will. What might sound the best to one person today won’t necessarily sound the best to every other listener, or even be the author’s favorite two years later … (MSB is the best, oh wait, WADAX now is, etc. What will it be in 5 years! ). And that’s ok. But it also helps to disprove the myth of the world‘s absolute best (insert component, etc).

… can actually describe what is best or not in absolute terms…

I don’t believe anyone here is stating that a member can’t describe what’s best to them in their system and room at any given time with a specific genre of music, etc. I know I’m not! But the fact is they haven’t heard everything. Therefore, any declaration of something as the “world’s best” is absolute fiction and an inaccurate statement.

This said, I have no problems with people describing what sounds the best to them in their system and room. I enjoy reading the why‘s of how they came to their conclusion. It’s one major reason why I treasure this forum. However, to declare something is the absolute best - bar none - simply isn’t the truth - and it goes towards discrediting the person who stated it. Being the best one has heard or is presently hearing is far different than being the world‘s best….

Why hasn't this group come to an unanimous definitive decision of what the absolute best system really is? Does it even exist? If you know this system, please do tell us and fully describe it??? Post some pics of it ….

I made a similar challenge in post #47. It has yet to be answered! Still waiting to see if anyone is brave enough to make such a declaration and then prove, support and defend it?

I would suggest that you skip past the writing of those who hear differently to you, and only read entries from those who seem to hear things the way you do.

Since you have been so inaccurate (i.e. not the best) in your other comments above, your suggestion isn’t worth considering. But in reality it defeats one of the reasons why this forum even exists - the different opinions of its members. Why did you fear this truth?

 

[exupgh12]

I honestly think there is no Absolute Truth in this hobby, therefore there can not be "the best component" or "the best system" - definitely there are better components and systems than others, but no absolute better as each one of us has different tastes and preference, listening environment and so on.

 

[Rensselaer]

Please read the URL I attached to post #268. It shows how one person, not a manufacturer trying to push his own products, did a very thorough job of evaluating all the moving magnet cartridges he could lay his hands on.

His attention and respect to possible variables is quite impressive. In the end he did not choose one cartridge as the best, but instead chose a group of cartridges that tested/sounded better than the rest irrespective of price or availability (some no longer manufactured), as the best. He then chose another group that he placed in a slightly lower position than the best, and a third group of the rest.

This process, of declaring “a group“ (of MM cartridges) as “the best” (of those he tested to the nth degree) gives the potential buyer a group from which to choose from that should ensure satisfaction and avoid disappointment.

By placing the very best examples into “a group” of “the best”, it stops all those more desirous of unhelpful pontifications (I suspect they think it makes them look intelligent) whether or not “anything“ can be “the best” .

So how about it? Would those of you out there with the experience and knowledge who would like to help those of us who haven’t kindly include how you personally assessed the qualities of such (even if owned several, many hours listening to each) and put them into “a group” of ”the best” you evaluated/heard from now on?

If selecting one, of two, there is no need for a group as you are selecting the best of two … (though be prepared for arguments from those intellectually challenged on this site looking to improve their self-esteem).

 

[Audire]

Please read the URL I attached to post #268. It shows how one person, not a manufacturer trying to push his own products, did a very thorough job of evaluating all the moving magnet cartridges he could lay his hands on.

His attention and respect to possible variables is quite impressive. In the end he did not choose one cartridge as the best, but instead chose a group of cartridges that tested/sounded better than the rest irrespective of price or availability (some no longer manufactured), as the best. He then chose another group that he placed in a slightly lower position than the best, and a third group of the rest.

This process, of declaring “a group“ (of MM cartridges) as “the best” (of those he tested to the nth degree) gives the potential buyer a group from which to choose from that should ensure satisfaction and avoid disappointment.

By placing the very best examples into “a group” of “the best”, it stops all those more desirous of unhelpful pontifications (I suspect they think it makes them look intelligent) whether or not “anything“ can be “the best” .

So how about it? Would those of you out there with the experience and knowledge who would like to help those of us who haven’t kindly include how you personally assessed the qualities of such (even if owned several, many hours listening to each) and put them into “a group” of ”the best” you evaluated/heard from now on?

If selecting one, of two, there is no need for a group as you are selecting the best of two … (though be prepared for arguments from those intellectually challenged on this site looking to improve their self-esteem).

Your example describes the best “one” has heard, not the absolute best in the entire world (i.e. "World's Best Cartridge?"). The author plainly states, “I will try to share/explain with you what are my experiences.” He didn’t say someone else’s experience would be identical! But he did write, “If you ask me which one is the best I can tell you that this will be a very hard “ call “ an almost impossible to decide, I think that I can make a difference between the very good ones and the stellar ones where IMHO the next cartridges belongs to this group.”

Your example indicates the listener selected “many bests” (that he has heard in his system and in his personal room) and not the absolute best in the entire universe. He also stated he hadn’t heard everything, as he’s still testing.

It‘s great to discuss what people think is the best (there is great value in that), but that is far different than declaring something the absolute best in the entire world for the reasons given in post #269.

 

[Rensselaer]

Your example describes the best “one” has heard, not the absolute best in the entire world (i.e. "World's Best Cartridge?"). The author plainly states, “I will try to share/explain with you what are my experiences.” He didn’t say someone else’s experience would be identical!

Your example indicates the listener selected “many bests” (that he has heard in his system and in his personal room) and not the absolute best in the entire universe. He also stated he hadn’t heard everything.

It‘s great to discuss what people think is the best (there is great value in that), but that is far different than declaring something the absolute best in the entire world for the reasons given in post #269.

Do your minders know you are on the computer again?

 

[Audire]

Do your minders know you are on the computer again?

Yes, they let me out to pee. Sorry you’re getting soaked with a monsoon of reason, common sense, and an ability to read your own illustration.

 

[Elliot G.]

Elliot, you've never been so right about a high-end audio subject than you are right here. Seriously though, I've noticed that you've been making some rather admirable statements here and in other threads of late that have not gone unappreciated.

I thnk this 3 min youtube video says just barely enough about Michael Jordan's talents and his being the undeniable GOAT. Oh, and that free throw he takes in this video during a game with his eyes closed, he made the basket just as he done so at other times. In fact, just before this shot, MJ said to opposing player Mutumbo(sp), "Hey, Mutumbo, watch this". Just to piss Mutumbo off.

What an entertainer above all else.

I suggest going to full-screen and adding some volume for best effects. And you might wanna' put your seatbelt on.

As someone that early in my life loved the game, played the game in school junior/high/college and even went to basketball camp and I played the game I would not call my self a player watching MJ was truly a special treat. I grew up in NY. I watched MJ torment and destroy teams, taunt them and kill them. He as IMO the most competitive man that ever lived ( while I am alive). He was a destroyer. A incredible hard worker, hated with burning hot passion to loose and in his internal drive to be the best and prove it. He talked trash and backed it up. Going to a Bulls game was waiting till the 4th quarter and then expecting and getting your heart ripped out in the last 4-5 minutes when it was Michael time. He scored at will, he was a great defender and the best finisher I ever saw.
The word is describe him is assassin. He loved to embarrass and destroy.

 

[Audire]

As someone that early in my life loved the game, played the game in school junior/high/college and even went to basketball camp and I played the game I would not call my self a player watching MJ was truly a special treat. I grew up in NY. I watched MJ torment and destroy teams, taunt them and kill them. He as IMO the most competitive man that ever lived ( while I am alive). He was a destroyer. A incredible hard worker, hated with burning hot passion to loose and in his internal drive to be the best and prove it. He talked trash and backed it up. Going to a Bulls game was waiting till the 4th quarter and then expecting and getting your heart ripped out in the last 4-5 minutes when it was Michael time. He scored at will, he was a great defender and the best finisher I ever saw.
The word is describe him is assassin. He loved to embarrass and destroy.

MJ was one excellent great player. Others still consider Kobe Bryant and LeBron James. IMO, all three are legends in their own time.

Did you see when Philadelphia Sixers star Allen Iverson outscored MJ? Even when one may consider someone (something) as the best they may still be bested (i.e. we haven’t seen every player yet to play the game, etc.).

Hopefully more of what we subjectively consider the best is yet to come. That’s one reason why we still watch BB and Audiophiles still try to improve their systems.

 

[Rensselaer]

Peter, you started out this thread by noting that on it "Everything seems to need qualification", "no one seems to want to proclaim an absolute." You say that on this forum there is "an unwillingness to proclaim the superiority of those rare and coveted products that rise above the rest." Do you really wonder why that is? Do you feel any responsibility?

You go on to claim that there is a "known reference against which we... judge ...(sic that) what comes closest to the sound of the real thing". I agree, but others do not (whether they do or don't they will certainly take a side for the arguments' sake).

Remember how they argued with your capitalising "Natural" on your Natural Sound thread because (sic) by capitalising the N in Natural you were implying that only your sound defines "natural", and by extension all equipment which sounds different from yours can not sound "natural".

You started this thread by asking if we could discuss "What is Best, on this forum". As before, you are just throwing meat to the wolves and they respond as predicted.

I tried in my feeble way to interject a possible solution; I added the URL to a great study someone did on all the MM cartridges they could get hold of, who tested each and every one with different head shells, VTA, tracking force, impedance, tonearms, the works and then divided them by performance into groups of the best, of good, and the rest. By putting them into "groups", potential buyers looking for the best are able to use "the group" of best to short list for audition so that they can then pick which of that group of best is most suited "best" for their system/room/budget etc. Very useful.

It didn't work. After doing so Joe attacked me with the claim that the reviewer of all those MM cartridges did not select "The absolute best in the entire universe". Got me Joe, he didn't.

Can we stop arguing over semantics and instead redirect the threads into "qualified" but actually helpful insight?

 

[stehno]

I honestly think there is no Absolute Truth in this hobby,

Sure there are absolute truths that stand in and of themselves in high-end audio whether we believe them or not. For example.

- Every last playback system consumes electrical energy and generates vibrations.

- Even though electrical and mechanical energies are requirements, both energies can potentially generate unwanted energies.

- Not sufficiently addressing unwanted energies can compromise what we hear in the room.

- High-end audio is actually a combined effort between two primary sectors. The fidelity of electrical signal processing perhaps starting all the way back at the utility company and ending at the speaker drivers and the fidelity of the mechanical signal starting at the speaker drivers then interfacing with a given room's acoustics inclduing any room acoustic anomalies.

- The electrical signal inputs will be converted to mechanical signal outputs at the speaker drivers and ultimately converted to acoustic signal outputs as the speakers interface with the room's acoustics.

- A counterfeit is never identical to the original.

- Every component requires an electrical connection to its adjacent component all the way to the speaker drivers.

- Distortions (inferiorities) of various types exist and some will sonically impact our playback presentations.

- Some distortion types will more severely impact soncis than other types.

- A resulting high-end audio playback presentation is essentially a 1-way street implying that energy whether electrical or mechanical is traveling in one direction - provided such energies travels are not trapped or impeded.

- Energy's first order of behavior is to travel.

- When an energy's ability to travel is trapped or impeded, it will begin to release its energy within the confined spaced and impact other areas.

- Even though the electrical signal processing sector MAY influence the downstream outcome of the speaker / room interface, the downstream speaker / room interface cannot influence the upstream electrical signal processing - with the exception of unwanted energies.

- There exists superior as well as inferior materials, designs, principles, philosophies, methods, etc and combinations thereof.

- There's no guarantee that we're always measuring the right things, that we're always measuring correctly, and there's no guarantee that even if we were measuring the right things we're always sufficiently understanding any such findings.

- Not everybody can be right or correct.

- If there exists superior and inferior means, then there also exists the ability to be more right and more wrong than others.

- Human beings are competitive by nature and it's nonsensical to think or espouse such comtetitive spirits cease when it comes to high-end audio.

- Since our collective responses in high-end audio forums summarily prove that we're rather diverse regarding most every aspect of high-end audio including our ability to discern / interpret what we hear, a consensus proves nothing whatsoever.

- A belief held or practice executed a certain way over many years is not proof that the belief or practice was ever correct.

- Positive results from the implementation of a product employing an inferior design, principle, material, execution, and/or method is not proof that the product is genuinely superior. Rather, it only proves it's genuinely less inferior than its competition.

- The amount of money spent on an endeavor proves little or nothing. At least from a performance perspective.

- Every last recording is inferior to the original performance.

- Every last playback presentation is inferior to the music info embedded in a given recording.

- Every last wire, component, speaker, and system is less than perfect.

- Extreme results can only occur by extreme efforts. Never by token or half-assed efforts. Unless of course the planets happen to be in perfect alignment.

- Years of experience is no guarantee one is more right/correct than another.

- Nobody is completely objective. Especially those who pretend to be.

- Unknowns always exist.

Just to list a few. So even though high-end audio may well be as subjective a hobby as it gets, there still remains a remnant of absolute truths we can hang our hats on. And presumably it's imperative that we recognize and understand some of these absolute truths if one is to take performance seriously.

therefore there can not be "the best component" or "the best system"

Hardly. Such "best" items can and do exist in perhaps every sector of life whether or not anybody (including the original designer) possesses the ability to recognize them as such.

- definitely there are better components and systems than others, but no absolute better as each one of us has different tastes and preference, listening environment and so on.

Indeed, each of us can and do possess different tastes and preferences, different levels of understanding and abilities to discern / interpret what we hear. But by no means does that negate any such absolutes of what we could, should, or ought to hear.

 

[Audire]

Peter, you started out this thread by noting that on it "Everything seems to need qualification", "no one seems to want to proclaim an absolute." You say that on this forum there is "an unwillingness to proclaim the superiority of those rare and coveted products that rise above the rest." Do you really wonder why that is? Do you feel any responsibility?

You go on to claim that there is a "known reference against which we... judge ...(sic that) what comes closest to the sound of the real thing". I agree, but others do not (whether they do or don't they will certainly take a side for the arguments' sake).

Remember how they argued with your capitalising "Natural" on your Natural Sound thread because (sic) by capitalising the N in Natural you were implying that only your sound defines "natural", and by extension all equipment which sounds different from yours can not sound "natural".

You started this thread by asking if we could discuss "What is Best, on this forum". As before, you are just throwing meat to the wolves and they respond as predicted.

I tried in my feeble way to interject a possible solution; I added the URL to a great study someone did on all the MM cartridges they could get hold of, who tested each and every one with different head shells, VTA, tracking force, impedance, tonearms, the works and then divided them by performance into groups of the best, of good, and the rest. By putting them into "groups", potential buyers looking for the best are able to use "the group" of best to short list for audition so that they can then pick which of that group of best is most suited "best" for their system/room/budget etc. Very useful.

It didn't work. After doing so Joe attacked me with the claim that the reviewer of all those MM cartridges did not select "The absolute best in the entire universe". Got me Joe, he didn't.

Can we stop arguing over semantics and instead redirect the threads into "qualified" but actually helpful insight?

Semantics matter. As Michelle Konstantinovsky states,

These days, you're likely to hear someone accuse a debate partner of "just arguing semantics," which, if you think about it, means their debate partner is "just arguing about meaning," which you would think is, like, the point of arguing in the first place? But in our modern vernacular, the phrase has somehow become shorthand to insinuate the speaker has argued something trivial or unimportant. At its core, that's not what "semantics" is meant to represent at all. Semantics

Stating that a cart is the world’s best as an objective fact, and not a subjective opinion, is not just a matter of semantics, but clearly an error.

PS: No one attacked you. But I - and many others - do disagree with you. And thus I stated my subjective opinion against yours.

 

[Audire]

Sure there are absolute truths that stand in and of themselves in high-end audio whether we believe them or not. For example.

- Every last playback system consumes electrical energy and generates vibrations.

- Even though electrical and mechanical energies are requirements, both energies can potentially generate unwanted energies.

- Not sufficiently addressing unwanted energies can compromise what we hear in the room.

- High-end audio is actually a combined effort between two primary sectors. The fidelity of electrical signal processing perhaps starting all the way back at the utility company and ending at the speaker drivers and the fidelity of the mechanical signal starting at the speaker drivers then interfacing with a given room's acoustics inclduing any room acoustic anomalies.

- The electrical signal inputs will be converted to mechanical signal outputs at the speaker drivers and ultimately converted to acoustic signal outputs as the speakers interface with the room's acoustics.

- A counterfeit is never identical to the original.

- Every component requires an electrical connection to its adjacent component all the way to the speaker drivers.

- Distortions (inferiorities) of various types exist and some will sonically impact our playback presentations.

- Some distortion types will more severely impact soncis than other types.

- A resulting high-end audio playback presentation is essentially a 1-way street implying that energy whether electrical or mechanical is traveling in one direction - provided such energies travels are not trapped or impeded.

- Energy's first order of behavior is to travel.

- When an energy's ability to travel is trapped or impeded, it will begin to release its energy within the confined spaced and impact other areas.

- Even though the electrical signal processing sector MAY influence the downstream outcome of the speaker / room interface, the downstream speaker / room interface cannot influence the upstream electrical signal processing - with the exception of unwanted energies.

- There exists superior as well as inferior materials, designs, principles, philosophies, methods, etc and combinations thereof.

- There's no guarantee that we're always measuring the right things, that we're always measuring correctly, and there's no guarantee that even if we were measuring the right things we're always sufficiently understanding any such findings.

- Not everybody can be right or correct.

- If there exists superior and inferior means, then there also exists the ability to be more right and more wrong than others.

- Human beings are competitive by nature and it's nonsensical to think or espouse such comtetitive spirits cease when it comes to high-end audio.

- Since our collective responses in high-end audio forums summarily prove that we're rather diverse regarding most every aspect of high-end audio including our ability to discern / interpret what we hear, a consensus proves nothing whatsoever.

- A belief held or practice executed a certain way over many years is not proof that the belief or practice was ever correct.

- Positive results from the implementation of a product employing an inferior design, principle, material, execution, and/or method is not proof that the product is genuinely superior. Rather, it only proves it's genuinely less inferior than its competition.

- The amount of money spent on an endeavor proves little or nothing. At least from a performance perspective.

- Every last recording is inferior to the original performance.

- Every last playback presentation is inferior to the music info embedded in a given recording.

- Every last wire, component, speaker, and system is less than perfect.

- Extreme results can only occur by extreme efforts. Never by token or half-assed efforts. Unless of course the planets happen to be in perfect alignment.

- Years of experience is no guarantee one is more right/correct than another.

- Nobody is completely objective. Especially those who pretend to be.

- Unknowns always exist.

Just to list a few. So even though high-end audio may well be as subjective a hobby as it gets, there still remains a remnant of absolute truths we can hang our hats on. And presumably it's imperative that we recognize and understand some of these absolute truths if one is to take performance seriously.

You stated, “Sure there are absolute truths that stand in and of themselves in high-end audio whether we believe them or not.”

Then you gave a partial laundry list of alleged absolutes in the audio industry. Among them are (1) “A belief held or practice executed a certain way over many years is not proof that the belief or practice was ever correct” and (2) “unknowns always exist.”

So, you disproved your own intended point.