Can we actually discuss What is Best on this forum?
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
The argument would then shift to whom are the top N contributors, which is “subjective.” And such contributors don’t even have the same exact systems, once again revealing this is subjective.
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.'
Not that anyone bought into your lots phony outrage over natural sound and other crap but if you lot had any sense you’d keep this crap among yourselves!
DAVID
Thank you for the souvenir you are giving me Al. Was I criticizing you judging you labelling you by any means. You get so SEXY when you are aroused.
I think we can objectively define which contributor should define what’s best
1. should be a young pair of ears, objectively below 50
2. Should live in a city where there are lots of live concerts to create a reference
3. Should live in a city where there are lots of airports to allow travel to listen to systems
4. Should not be defending his own system
5. Should not be selling what he recommends
6. Should have a blog
7. Greater than 15000 posts
8. Greater than 8000 likes
Last edited:
Also needs to have both letters (only lower case) and numbers in his login name.
Hehe basically just you Ked
what’s the minimum that they should have logged listening to that best component in a system they know very well… and listening to the same video over and over again doesn’t count to clocking up more hours, just sayin
Last edited:
Of course we can discuss what is best. Can we reach a reasonable consensus based on expertise and experience? That is another matter.
Who is the best basketball player of all time?
Bill Russell
Michael Jordan
LeBron James?
They never played each other. They all played different positions in a team sport.
I don't think that issue will ever be solved.
Are you going on measurements. How it sounds. How much it costs. Personal taste. Michael Fremer declined to rate a product as best simply because he had not heard all the contenders. Who has been exposed to more contenders for best product than he?
Who is the best basketball player of all time?
Bill Russell
Michael Jordan
LeBron James?
They never played each other. They all played different positions in a team sport.
I don't think that issue will ever be solved.
Are you going on measurements. How it sounds. How much it costs. Personal taste. Michael Fremer declined to rate a product as best simply because he had not heard all the contenders. Who has been exposed to more contenders for best product than he?
Off course we can discuss whats bests best on this forum .
But what cant be forced is going to believe you , lol.
It can be done with threats and sanctions but then we re entering north korea territory.
But what cant be forced is going to believe you , lol.
It can be done with threats and sanctions but then we re entering north korea territory.
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?"
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?"
No one can define this...period. The best that can be done is to have a list of reasonable candidates...and even that won't be agreed upon most likely. It's like saying what is the greatest rock album or greatest symphony or composer... You will get some convergence but every list will shuffle things up a bit.
Oh, we are saved !
which leads to:
9. Should not be a Fremen
Being so closely tied to the Kwisatz Haderach may disqualify you. Have you taken the gom jabbar test?
I always thought this forum, What's Best, was gonna be more discussion from more guys about What's Best in their systems, not one or two guys who consider they are What's Best, and the rest of us arguing about whether they're right or wrong, and squabbling about stuff we'll never ever easily hear.
I ve suggested an elite vip seperate members club on this forum.
Where general dumb music lovers are not allowed to enter.
I don’t feel anyone who isn’t familiar with pretty much the entire works of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin, Dvo?ák, Mahler, Mozart, Rachmaninov, Shostakovich, Sibelius and Tchaikovsky (just for starters) or doesn’t have access to most of the albums recorded by John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers, Lee Morgan, Kenny Drew, Paul Chambers, Philly Joe Jones, Thelonious Monk, Grachan Moncur III, Curtis Fuller, Herbie Hancock, Jackie McLean, Bob Cranshaw, Tony Williams, Osvaldo "Chihuahua" Martinez, Wayne Shorter, Ron Carter, Dexter Gordon, Elvin Jones, Freddie Hubbard, Thelonious Monk, Idrees Sulieman, George Taitt, Chet Baker, Pharaoh Sanders, Danny Quebec West, Billy Smith and Sahib Shihab, Gene Ramey, McCoy Tyner, Joe Henderson, Ron Carter and Elvin Jones, Andrew Hill, Horace Silver, Eric Dolphy, Bobby Hutcherson, Richard Davis, Tony Williams, Grant Green, Reggie Workman, Billy Higgins, Freddie Hubbard, Charlie Parker, Charles Mingus, Dizzy Gillespie, Chet Baker, Bill Evans, Dave Brubeck, Sonny Rollins, Ornette Coleman, Django Reinhardt, Keith Jarrett, Chick Corea, Stan Getz, Max Roach, Ray Charles, Art Tatum, Bud Powell, Pat Metheny, Coleman Hawkins, Cannonball Adderley, Jimmy Smith and Ron Carter (apologies to the many I have missed out) should be allowed to leave their systems until they have heard enough and have enough musical knowledge to judge anything about sound. There are more… but that’d just be being picky
Last edited:
No, but I once melded myself with a loudspeaker to become God Emperor of Hifi. Does that mean I can be sole arbiter of the "Best"??
"Many machines on Ix"
Tima you have tickled me pink with that one. Easily in my top ten, panned by the pundits, ad astra alea iacta sunt.
Kindest regards,G.
Tima you have tickled me pink with that one. Easily in my top ten, panned by the pundits, ad astra alea iacta sunt.
Kindest regards,G.
Whenever we take a position on anything, we should ask ourselves "how certain am I?". The honest answer is that it's never 100% (more information necessary) - only ideological/religious positions come with 100% certainty. And so I would never claim, or expect anybody else to claim, with absolute certainty, something is "best". I would, however, be happy to put forward my opinion for discussion with the expectation that that discussion would then nudge my certainty on the topic in one direction or another.
Similar threads
