Summarizing

OK, summarizing the last few posts and comments…

I am of the opinion that:

1. It is a disservice to audiophiles and the equipment/systems to lump everything into more or less two categories: good and pretty good but that this is the state of affairs for 99% of the reporting by both laypeople and reviewers.

2. That simple numerical ranking, and Stereophile’s grading system, are very slightly better [much better than the Golden Ear-type approaches] but still fails because of A. taking into account the cost [a $3K class A component is not as good as a $100K class A component [even though there is a significant percentage in our hobby who INSIST this mythical component MUST exist, somewhere, somehow and they keep looking and buying a heckuva lot of $3K components] and B. not describing why it belongs in the class they have assigned it to [yeah, they refer us to the orig review but those reviews do not put the sound in context, see #3].

3. That comparative analysis that compares components to each other is the only approach that makes any sense – not on the basis of This is better than That [which would drive away the advertisers who are paying for the review] – but at a more detailed level that is completely agnostic about what is ‘better’.

In the Audiophile’s Guide to the Galaxy, we do exactly this at a level that the layperson can grok [rereading Stranger in a Strange Land. Last read it when I was 12 (from this same paperback!)]. Emotion, Impressive, Natural/Organic… where Magical/Spiritual really just means that there are some depth to the component and that it will take time to understand and that the listener will be given the opportunity to ‘greatly enhance’ their appreciation of music.

Beyond the layperson-accessible approach, we audiophiles can use terms like ‘detail’, or more precisely, micro-, midi- and macro- detail, with which we can compare and describe components using such references as the Wilson speakers, Levinson amps, etc. and beyond (helps to use components most people have heard – but the beauty of it is – this is NOT a requirement! Humans are great at figuring out where things go in their special ‘buy list’ without having to live with each and every object in the list, if GIVEN ENOUGH COMPARATIVE DATA to work with). This approach would eventually sketch out the world of audio components: both the compared and compared-to become more well-defined through this technique. There is no inherently better and worse here – though an audiophile who is at all familiar with their own preferences, and that of the average listener, will KNOW which is best for them (and the average guy and gal).

This exposes the way components actually sound to the light of day – let the chips fall where they may. I will post some real-world examples in the next few posts.

[before I get to that… Yes, we do plan on reviving Spintricity at some point. Right now the High End Audio channel on Mattters is doing somewhat better than Spintricity did [except for show reports :-)] and about the same as Dagogo [on average]. There are also channels for the laypeople like Home Audio and even Home Theater for those that like technology for the eyes as well as the ears].