Ron, I just finished packing up my warm clothes and am headed to the Annual Gala. Robert Harley likes MQA so you have to question his hearing and expertise.
I was there too, along with my Orange County audiophile posse!
I have been happy to remain blissfully ignorant of MQA. I literally don't even know what the acronym stands for.
But I disagree very strongly with your logic that if somebody hears something I do not then by that fact alone his hearing and his expertise are wholly suspect?
I don't find quick A/B listening to be helpful for evaluation purposes. My brain just doesn't work that way. Let me have thoroughly broken-in demo gear for two weeks. That has been how I chose my current gear, some of which I have had now for many years.
Magazine reviews are not helpful for choosing gear. but can be interesting anyway. Trends in design emerge from the reviews of similar categories of gear. I look at the photos before reading the article and try to guess the price. Even after so many years in this hobby, the actual price can be a surprise (and not in a good way). Having established the price, I can then anticipate the reviewer's general level of hyperbole. On the occasion that the reviewer is genuinely insightful, I will follow along with their music selections via Roon/Qobuz. I have found some interesting music that way.
I need to have a piece of equipment for some time in order to get to know it. Some people like to have a switch (like Dave Wilson had in his living room) to flip back-and-forth between two pieces of gear. That might be interesting but I cannot honestly get to know basic characteristics of a piece of gear from spending an hour with it.
When I work on a review I take notes while listening, but no single session's worth of listening notes is adequate to an account of the piece under evaluation. I look across several month's worth of notes to find common sonic characteristics and reactions. My evaluation is not based on A/B listening although I always try for some comparison with a piece of gear I have on hand. A review is not about picking winners, a review should be expository -- describing what I've learned about it in my system after months of listening.
I think magazine reviews are input data points for a reader learning if he might be interested in exploring further. They can be helpful for choosing gear but imo should not be a sole source for decision making.
I wonder if reviewers, and audiphile don't get caught in a bubble. Sort of the, what is current, relevant, saturating the market through inovation, execution and advertising dollars
I think magazine reviews are input data points for a reader learning if he might be interested in exploring further. They can be helpful for choosing gear but imo should not be a sole source for decision making.
User/owner impressions are helpful as well. There are individuals who have gained experience by doing, by building a system through experimentation and/or who design/build equipment for themselves or for the market and who remain mostly non-dogmatic. All of my initial interest in the gear I own began with posts from such users.
I wonder if reviewers, and audiphile don't get caught in a bubble. Sort of the, what is current, relevant, saturating the market through inovation and execution.
Maybe some do, there is constant emphasis on latest offerings. I've happily reviewed pieces of gear that are over 5-10 years in production.
Advertisers need to keep their newest gear at the forefront and the media obliges them. There is a lot of churn in the industry. Some manufacturers lay out a product cycle where the initial offering will not be the final offering - for example ARC's Ref 2, Ref 2SE, Ref 3, Ref 3SE, etc. Some audiophiles need to have the latest and greatest to stay relevant on forums.
It is often said by many audiophiles that "everything makes a difference." Beyond different cables and different components making a difference, these folks mean that everything makes a difference: -- the metallurgy of the duplex outlet wall cover plate -- a block of wood or other material on...
I always try back and forth the changes I made and tweaks I used. They clearly make a difference because there are some tweaks I want to get rid of but couldn't manage to do it yet.
I was there too, along with my Orange County audiophile posse!
I have been happy to remain blissfully ignorant of MQA. I literally don't even know what the acronym stands for.
But I disagree very strongly with your logic that if somebody hears something I do not then by that fact alone his hearing and his expertise are wholly suspect?
www.whatsbestforum.com
