Can we actually discuss What is Best on this forum?

[microstrip]

You guys are talking about trade-offs and compromises. Strengths and weaknesses. That is why you can debate it.

They exist, we post on them. Surely when something is almost unobtainium and rare we are not able to talk and debate it.

The best audio gear has few to none. That is what distinguishes them from the rest. When your mind does not dwell on the sound of the gear and goes right to the music, you know something is right. When you find it difficult to describe the gear and only talk about the music and the listening experience, you know something is right.

Or you simply we are not analytical enough to do it or are not intersted in doing it anymore. I never tried to describe the sound of my car stereo, does it apply to being "the best"?

This is why I posted those few descriptions of the super tables. Read what the listeners are writing. Their words are very revealing.

Did you listen to the AF1P in your system?

 

[Argonaut]

This thread is aimed at those members who constantly badger and want to control what others are allowed to say or talk about. Most of it is for personal reasons and we all know exactly who they are. We can't have a real conversation about anything as long as they continue with their ignorance and malice.

 

[the sound of Tao]

You guys are talking about trade-offs and compromises. Strengths and weaknesses. That is why you can debate it.

The best audio gear has few to none. That is what distinguishes them from the rest. When your mind does not dwell on the sound of the gear and goes right to the music, you know something is right. When you find it difficult to describe the gear and only talk about the music and the listening experience, you know something is right.

This is why I posted those few descriptions of the super tables. Read what the listeners are writing. Their words are very revealing.

My own gear is modest and I don’t for an instance consider that any of the components I have are of themselves the best of their kind… I do believe that there is audio gear that are currently the best of their kind. I’d love to own that gear. The problem becomes mostly about validating that best.

I know how we’d approach it in training and assessment using validation process because in teaching we regularly work on assessment validation and the challenges to determining how you validate first what is sufficient and then how you determine what is a best example and for me this remains essentially the same process in assessing any design be it an architectural or in this case an industrial design.

You need to define what is being evaluated and work out how you then assess performance outcomes… so in terms of this what defines best, best at what specifically and what kind of assessment you are using to arrive at that best determination.

Subjective assessment is the dual balancing pole of objective assessment. Sure you can aim to be objective in the way you subjectively assess something but in terms of validated assessment objective usually means quantifiable and measurable and subjective refers to the experiential and qualifiable.

The best objective measurable performance is easier to validate as it is always about the parts (so familiarly in our context frequency response or measurable distortion) but as we have all long discussed there are also attached limits to how meaningful that can be.

With subjective assessment it can be holistic or about the parts and for me subjective whole assessment that includes subjective assessment of the whole and of recognised parts is better than either alone. Subjective assessment of parts alone without a summative whole reflection for me is simply less valuable and incomplete as subjective assessment. I’m quite happy to live with simple whole subjective assessment on its own.

So to say that something is the most natural sounding when replaying live acoustic instruments or that something presents the most realism are subjective holistic assessment involving synthesis of experience and that can be valid and can stand alone as evidence but only within the defined limits of that evidence. Increasing data points by having a greater number of respondents agreeing then adds range to the validity of that subjective assessment.

To break performance down into parts is needed in subjective analysis, to make a subjective call on the whole requires experiential subjective synthesis. That is the most essential way we experience things and involves being able to identify rightness.

I guess what I am pointing to is for me it’s fine to make any assessment in the end but each of itself does have strengths and weaknesses as approaches (or constraints). Without experiencing any of the things being referred to as best doesn’t preclude secondary evidencing and assumption that some people may be more right and others less likely so.

I have a bucket list of experiencing what may well be best just unfortunately don’t own any of it myself. I like it when people explain to us why they think that something is best and happy to form my own understanding out of that. No harm no foul in any claim to what’s best if it’s genuinely believed and authentic. In subjective terms we can all largely believe what we choose to believe. Though in some things I take comfort in the unknown but believe it’s better to have some beliefs than to have none.

 

[Steve williams]

Wow.
it’s been a while since I had some time to read a thread other than the few in which I participate every day
it took me almost an hour to read this thread.
I already see sides an opinions forming

I have a few thoughts

1. one man’s passion can be another man’s poison

2. the word “best” in the context of the opening post is a moving target IMHO

3.. out of all the 7 pages of posts one paragraph stood out for me and needs an answer

Again IMHO if by any reason WBF would find a strict convergence on unique products in each category as being the "best" it would be a poor signal - it would just mean that the number of active participants become so reduced that an unanimity was possible

It’s never going to happen on my watch. End of discussion

It has always been one of my premises has been to allow everyone to state their opinion and this leads to healthy discussion which promotes spirited debate. What makes WBF unique is that there might be the rare outburst but almost always things are friendly. Consequently so much information comes out of these threads that the forum has become a repository of information that now goes back 12 years

so in conclusion a very interesting topic. Let’s try to discuss things cordially and this will become a thread with legs. Arguing would only bring it down

 

[PeterA]

Yes, Peter, we understood. But in reality we found that you mainly wanted to explain us why your own choices are "the best".

False. I named one cartridge which I will never own. I did not discuss my gear.

Don't you realize we tried to debate the ideas of some particular people, not the people? Surely the number of active participants following them in this forum is so small that sometimes they easily can get mixed.

Wrong. Madfloyd and others made it personal.

Did you realize that you ask a lot of questions but usually do not answer direct questions? And, yes, I fully agree with you we should stay polite.

I am the one who named a target, defined it, and described how I am achieving it. I answer the questions I want.

 

[Al M.]

I started the thread with a genuine interest in learning something. It is a serious topic and I raised it with respect. I did not discuss people but rather things. I gave examples to get the discussion started.

Peter, if you had a genuine interest in learning something, you would have acted differently.

Yet you did not even try to engage with the argument of subjectivity of perception in hearing, and/or of subjectivity of preference and personal emphasis of certain aspects in reproduction, which was brought forth in varied ways and from different angles by Ron Resnick, Madfloyd, Audire, Microstrip, Morricab, myself and others. All of us have made the arguments in good faith and in a genuine spirit.

Instead, it is close to what Microstrip said (to "your own choices" I would add: "components that are in the (vintage or related) path you chose"):

Yes, Peter, we understood. But in reality we found that you mainly wanted to explain us why your own choices are "the best".

The most obvious example for this is post #28, where you ignore anything that had been said before by others in this thread and instead emphasized "the best".

And yes, everything involves trade-offs. If the best audio gear didn't have weaknesses, it would sound like live music when it reproduces unamplified music. It does not. Yes, to some extent our gear might to us personally create a convincing illusion of the real thing (at least some of the time), but that is different.

 

[PeterA]

They exist, we post on them. Surely when something is almost unobtainium and rare we are not able to talk and debate it.

That is a different point than the one I made.

Or you simply we are not analytical enough to do it or are not intersted in doing it anymore. I never tried to describe the sound of my car stereo, does it apply to being "the best"?

No. I do not agree with those who insist we must hear every example known to render a conclusion.

Did you listen to the AF1P in your system?

No. I heard Rockitman’s but do not know if it is the “P”.

 

[Gregadd]

yes but Wilt and Shaq for that matter did not have the ability to do everything. They were huge and good at a few things Mike was the best at everything. Scoring and Defense and by far no was was more clutch than MJ. I am not diminishing Wilt or Shaq or Bill Russel or Oscar or Jerry West or any of the rest but there is Mike and now let's discuss the rest.
Mike also played with hand checking and loads of hard fouls not the silly thing they play today where no one plays D and everyone walks on the way to the rim and as long as they dunk it its cool.

you could foul MJ?

 

[Fishfood]

you could foul MJ?

You could. He couldn't however foul anyone, especially Byron Russell.

That said, athletes today are better, as is every generation so the comparisons are useless, although fun. But look at track and field. No one would say anyone from the 70s or 80s or 90s could compete today. It's the same in every sport but we hold onto our basketball, baseball and football heroes since there's no objective measurements. It's evolution.

 

[Joe Whip]

As someone who watched Wilt in the flesh, he would dominate in todays NBA. No one could stop him. Remember, when he played there were what, 12 teams. and it was a way more physical league. Today, with it so wide open, he would just dunk over everyone all game And make great passes the rest of the time. Remember, he lead the league in scoring a rebounding one year and in assists the next. Enough said.

 

[Ron Resnick]

MJ, MJ, MJ? I never knew Michael Jackson played basketball.

 

[Lagonda]

Peter, I can say undoubtedly that Audiophile Bill's gear and setup fits into the category you describe. The DaVa cart he uses seems unique across the range of carts I've listened to over the years (only the Lyra Parnassus comes close) in truly reproducing the tonality and richness of color I hear in live unamplified, the Thomas Mayer amps are the epitome of getting out of the way, and his bespoke horns do something so unique in my experience of spkrs, in truly removing the mechanics of musical reproduction.
When he played a mastertape of Terry Callier (late 60s recording, I believe), never has the illusion of the performer in the room been more perfect.
I've never quite recovered from that demo, so realistic and other-worldly at the same time was the experience. And it truly put my own personal system building efforts into perspective.

And you still decided to have the Chapel renovated instead of buying his speakers, shame on you Marc !

 

[Fishfood]

"Bob Cousy was being guarded by plumbers and Firemen" - JJ Reddick.

I got to see Wilt in person playing basketball and volleyball, and picking up UCLA sorority girls (that's a different thread). A complete freak but today's athletes would just run by him. It's just a fact of physiology. For his generation, he was among the best athletes in the world in any sport.

 

[Solypsa]

That said, athletes today are better,

Hmmm. Athletes are better? Or targets and means are better and higher? As it relates to audio I think this is an important topic. Especially since in some cases it seems to be in reverse for audio

 

[Fishfood]

Athletes are better?

No, athletes are better. We have better training, nutrition, and physiological care. The athletes focus on one sport (yes, sometimes to their detriment) from a young age, mastering that sport. Again, look at measurable things. Track and field. Baseball pitching speeds. Quarterback accuracy. 3 point shooting distance. I don't see how this is even debatable. Jerry West took offense to JJ Reddick's comments. If you dropped even a just decent pro like Reddick in West's era he'd be an alien. "Mr Martian, why are you dribbling with your left hand?", "Why are you shooting from so far away?".

 

[Solypsa]

No, athletes are better. We have better training, nutrition, and physiological care. The athletes focus on one sport (yes, sometimes to their detriment) from a young age, mastering that sport. Again, look at measurable things. Track and field. Baseball pitching speeds. Quarterback accuracy. 3 point shooting distance. I don't see how this is even debatable. Jerry West took offense to JJ Reddick's comments. If you dropped even a just decent pro like Reddick in West's era he'd be an alien. "Mr Martian, why are you dribbling with your left hand?", "Why are you shooting from so far away?".

Ok I see it, but I see it as training is better not evolution ( of the species ) or the being. Could be just semantics

 

[BruceD]

I like videos… not so much porn unless there are interesting costumes…

Well you realise the only difference between Art and Porn is the lighting

BD

 

[Solypsa]

From Etymoline

discuss (v.)​

late 14c., discussen, "to examine, investigate," from Latin discuss-, past participle stem of discutere "to dash to pieces, agitate, strike or shake apart," in Late Latin and Medieval Latin also "to discuss, examine, investigate," from dis- "apart" (see dis-) + quatere "to shake" (see quash)

Yes we should make bold statements according to our experience, and expect a certain backlash. Hopefully we all learn from it.

Now if you want to talk about who is the best chef *with chefs*...ime it's never a simple answer. But we are talking about tools here not time based artisans.

 

[Tango]

Yes, Peter, we understood. But in reality we found that you mainly wanted to explain us why your own choices are "the best".



Don't you realize we tried to debate the ideas of some particular people, not the people? Surely the number of active participants following them in this forum is so small that sometimes they easily can get mixed.

Did you realize that you ask a lot of questions but usually do not answer direct questions? And, yes, I fully agree with you we should stay polite.

To make this forum a civil room where we can socialize without grudges. It is best not criticize or talk about the poster but the content he posted. If the way he post has some character that lead a reader to perceive of the poster, just keep it to oneself no need to tell off. Just accept how the posters are. You dont like you dont read when you see that poster show up. No need to say what you think of the poster publicly in the forum to keep it civil. I made a mistake a few times too and I learned. How one writes something in forum reflect how he/she is. Readers can read those reflection themself. No need to express in the open how you personally interpret or judge the poster. It is not good for both parties. And certainly risking personal confrontation and losing civility.

Another thing, why is it mandatory that we must write "imho" every time we write something. What a person write already declares by itself that it is his damn own opinion. it is him who writes it therefore his opinion. If I write "This is the best in the world" isnt this already my opinion? Why do I have to follow up with "imho" or "given my personal preference" every time. The readers are so stupid not knowing what he said was his opinion and his opinion derived from his set of preference or belief? I am not enforcing my opinion to others to accept and I dont care if they accept it or not. But I sure will respect his opinion if someone say something like that and wouldnt try to debate with him to win him over or convince him otherwise. You can write if you agree or not agree of the content but dont step beyond the boundary of content and into the zone of the poster himself.

I apologize Micro. I use this space to say my general view. Your writing is somewhat a trigger but I am talking generally not directing my message to you.

 

[Gregadd]

Well you realise the only difference between Art and Porn is the lighting

BD

The more beautiful the girl...