On Saturday, February 24, a few members of the San Diego, Los Angeles and Palm Springs audio communities conducted a blind shoot-out at the home of one of the members of the San Diego Music and Audio Guild. The five CD Players selected for evaluation were: 1) a Resolution Audio Opus 21 (modified by Great Northern Sound), 2) the dcs standalone player, 3) a Meridian 808 Signature, 4) a EMM Labs Signature configuration (CDSD/DCC2 combo), and 5) an APL NWO 2.5T (the 2.5T is a 2.5 featuring a redesigned tube output stage and other improvements).
The ground rules for the shoot-out specified that two randomly draw players would be compared head-to-head, and the winner would then be compared against the next randomly drawn player, until only one unit survived (the so-called King-of-the-Hill method). One of our most knowledgeable members would set up each of the two competing pairs behind a curtain, adjust for volume, etc. and would not participate in the voting. Alex Peychev was the only manufacturer present, and he agreed to express no opinion until the completion of the formal process, and he also did not participate in the voting. The five of us who did the voting did so by an immediate and simultaneous show of hands after each pairing after each selection. Two pieces of well-recorded classical music on Red Book CDs were chosen because they offered a range of instrumental and vocal sonic charactistics. And since each participant voted for each piece separately, there was a total of 10 votes up for grabs at each head-to-head audition. Finally, although we all took informal notes, there was no attempt at detailed analysis recorded -- just the raw vote tally.
And now for the results:
In pairing number 1, the dcs won handily over the modified Opus 21, 9 votes to 1.
In pairing number 2, the dcs again came out on top, this time against the Meridian 808, 9 votes to 1.
In pairing number 3, the Meitner Signature was preferred over the dcs, by a closer but consistent margin (we repeated some of the head-to-head tests at the requests of the participants). The vote was 6 to 4.
Finally, in pairing number 5, the APL 2.5T bested the Meitner, 7 votes to 3.
In the interest of configuration consistance, all these auditions involved the use of a power regenerator supplying power to each of the players and involved going through a pre-amp.
This concluded the blind portion of the shoot-out. All expressed the view that the comparisons had been fairly conducted, and that even though one of the comparisons was close, the rankings overall represented a true consensus of the group's feelings.
Thereafter, without the use blind listening, we tried certain variations at the request of various of the particiapans. These involved the Meitner and the APL units exclusively, and may be summarized as follows:
First, when the APL 2.5T was removed from the power regenerator and plugged into the wall, its performance improved significantly. (Alex attributed this to the fact that the 2.5T features a linear power supply). When the Meitner unit(which utilizes a switching power supply) was plugged into the wall, its sonics deteriorated, and so it was restored to the power regenerator.
Second, when we auditioned a limited number of SACDs, the performance on both units was even better, but the improvement on the APL was unanimously felt to be dramatic. The group concluded we had just experienced "an SACD blowout".
The above concludes the agreed-to results on the blind shoot-out. What follows is an overview of my own personal assessment of the qualitative differences I observed in the top three performers.
First of all the dcs and the Meitner are both clearly state of the art players. That the dcs scored as well as it did in its standalone implementation is in my opinion very significant. And for those of us who have auditioned prior implementations of the Meitner in previous shoot-outs, this unit is truly at the top of its game, and although it was close, had the edge on the dcs. Both the dcs and the Meitner showed all the traits one would expect on a Class A player -- excellent tonality, imaging, soundstaging, bass extension, transparency, resolution, delineation, etc.
But from my point of view, the APL 2.5T had all of the above, plus two deminsions that I feel make it truly unique. First of all, the life-like quality of the tonality across the spectrum was spot-on on all forms of instruments and voice. An second, and more difficult to describe, I had the uncany feeling that I was in the presence of real music -- lots or "air", spatial cues, etc. that simply add up to a sense of realism that I have never experienced before. When I closed my eyes, I truly felt that I was in the room with live music. What can I say.
Obviously, I invite others of the participants to express their views on-line.
Guidocorona, you have the right to your opinion and so do I. Your patronizing posting is noted -- my goal is "commendable" -- and your sarcasm is noted as well -- "magisterial knowledge on the subject". What was the "original intended topic" of this thread that we are supposed to return to? Was the topic not the shoot-out? Are you the thread police telling everyone what they can say and what they cannot say about the shoot-out? If I am mistaken there is a moderator. Let the moderator cut in if he or she thinks it is appropriate to do so. Your role, like mine, is to feel free to express our opinions as long as we are civil about it.
Fplanner2010, you also have the right to your opinion. But you do not speak for everyone here. You speak for yourself and no one else. I never denied that Alex does complete mods -- using the Esoteric transport. You are shadow boxing. And who said I was an "authority" on anything? All I said was I know a lot about how to maximize the performance of the EMM because I have done it -- which you do not "buy" and which you then contradict because you already know about it but you apparently don't want to see it discussed here because EVERYONE already knows about it all. And in your next breath you talk about me being condescending. As a number of EMM threads clearly show everyone does not know all about this.
I disagree with your statement that you've "all been doing" the mods I have done "for years". How do you know what I have been doing? I have only talked about a fraction of what I have done. And how do you know what all EMM owners have been doing "for years"? Are you a mind reader? Do YOU own an EMM? Have YOU "been doing" EMM mods for years? If so, have you added the Synergistic Research PowerCell 10SE to your system? And have you changed the fuse in your EMM to the Furutech T2A green from Japan? And have you installed MiGs under your EMM? And have you added Harmonix SYN-100 footers to the top of your EMM? You claim to have been doing all this for years along with everyone else so a straight answer to my question would be appreciated.
The contemptuous tone of your posting is noted. If you are tired of reading my postings then, with all due respect, go away and read something else. Who is forcing you to read my postings? You label my postings as "insulting" when they are not at all insulting. They challenge the set-up of the shoot-out in a very direct and pointed way, to be sure, but they do so in a polite and civil way. You choose to dismiss the content of my postings by simply brushing off their content. And you talk, once again, about my comments not being "good PR for EMM". Ahhh, there's nothing like a red herring. I don't work for EMM and I don't have to answer to you about what you think would or would not be good for EMM. EMM can speak for themselves like many other makers who speak out on these forums.
Who says "None of us really care about your claimed "mods""? Have you been on the phone with all the EMM owners who read this thread to find out who cares and who does not? It certainly sounds like it. If so, where did you get everyone's phone number from? If you have not actually talked with everyone then I imagine you must be a mind-reader. But you must have missed a few minds because you cannot be speaking for those who have already emailed me asking what mods I have done and where they can get hold of some of them. Or are you just trying to railroad me off this thread? Ahhh, I think the question contains the answer. Someone has to have the last word? I assume you mean that it should be you and Guidocorona.
The important thing here has been not only the content of my discussion but the fact that you are both trying to bypass that content as though it has no value for anyone. Instead you choose to attack the messenger -- an age-old tactic that has reared its little head here. What has also been revealed here is the clear bias of certain posters to this thread and the clear bias of the shoot-out. This discussion has revealed many interesting things.
Those who are interested in what I have done with my EMM and who don't want to get involved in this discussion -- which is not hard to understand -- can continue to email me even though it has been formally declared here that no one really cares. Of course, this presumptuous statement is untrue since it has been contradicted by the emails I have already received. If it were true that no one really cares it would be a sad commentary on those who actually own the EMM. Fortunately, it is not true. There are many out there who care, and who care a lot, because they care about having beautiful music in their home. That's the bottom line.
lets talk pizza. i don't like pizza with any sp[ice.
i make pizza myself. i use a dough i buy in a pizza place--whole wheat or the usual white-flour-based dough, freshly cut tomatoes and fresh chees. that's it.
so, here again, consensus means nothing, what is popular and favored by people based upon flavor is realyy a matter of taste.
when making pizza, egg plant parm, or chicken parm, no breading and no spices.
one new years several years ago i prepared three pizzas for a new year's eve dinner. one of the attendees thought it was the best pie she ever tasted.
that was her opinion.
my point, greatness applied to subjective phenomenon is in the eye, ear, or taste buds of a person.
as to the experiemental design that is another point.
shoot outs are irrelevant, audition in one's own system is relevant.
there is always some unknown component which may be of more interest than those which are known and compared.
there are many small companies which fabricate interesting products which are known to very few people.
Sabai, as my gentle chiding and humor does not appear to be effective, let me spell it out to you.... Your Messianic/Obsessive/combative posts are being perceived to be OT and disruptive...
Yet, please feel free to continue until such time that your overvigorous posting is moderated to a screetching halt in the most Kafkian of ways by the unseen entities behind the Audiogonic corporate veil.
Sabai - After reading a few of the previous posts I went back to read your original post in this thread and it seems that you're taking this comparison far more seriously than you should be.
It seems that comparing multiple pieces of gear in a single system changing nothing but the component being compared is a more than fair way to do it.
It sounds like you would prefer that each CD player was somehow compared in a seperate system that was custom built to make that particular CD player sound it's absolute best. Not only would this require a different system for each player, but likely a slightly different system for each persons personal listening preference.
While your concept of a fair comparions would be ideal, it's so far beyond impractical as to make it impossible. Who's to say the exact point that each CD player has been maximized? Should we try different padding/carpet combinations to see what works the best?
Changing nothing but a single component is the only way to get an idea of the differences between the components being compared in a reasonable way, but is certainly not the end all for the best and greatest in every situation. This is evidenced by the fact that every vote was not unanimous. I doubt that even if each player was synergized to your likeing that a unanimous decision would ever be reached.
When I read the original post my only thought was that, as a novice audiophile, comparing "modified" equipment doesn't really provide me with any useful information, but that's my problem and nothing that should concern the group of people that took the time to do a comparsion, likely as a form of entertainment as much as anything else.
I missed it if anyone said that any of the players sound badly? I'm sorry that your personal preference, based on not being at the comparison, differs from the majority that were there.
Guidocorona, let me spell it out to YOU. I'm on to your game with APL and other posters in this thread. With a little help from my friends I traced all of you back in earlier threads to see how you operate. A nice little team of audio thugs you are. You don't like my "overvigorous posting"? Too bad for you. Who says you have to like everything you read here? If you don't like it go amuse yourself elsewhere. You don't own this thread. This thread belongs to everyone -- not to the thought police. Take your attempt at verbal intimidation somewhere else. I don't drink Kool-Aid -- so buzz off.
Tvad, who would want to vocalize their support for me here and get involved with the audio mafia? Those in the know are backing off, of course. I'm new to Audiogon but I am not new to this sort of thing. I'm glad I found out about all of you. Alex and the rest the gang can try to pull the wool over the eyes of those who have not caught on yet. Hasta la vista.
"I'm on to your game with APL and other posters in this thread. With a little help from my friends I traced all of you back in earlier threads ..."
Oh wow.... Yes, you and your imaginary friends have finally rooted our darkling digital conspiracy out.... Time to confess... Alex, I, and all our cryptocohorts are all agents of Philip Jose farmer's Ethicals out of The Dark Design, with a little help from black helicopters and a sprinkling of some good Trilaterals of old.
Our secret goal is to coopting Mr. Tennis into consuming vast amount of overspiced industrial pizzas, and to become the ultimate seeker of the ultra-detailed in 60 seconds triple-blind digital shootouts.
But do not tell MRT and TVAD... They are still under the pius delusion that I am a harmless if somewhat eccentric Esoteric, Roland, and vienna fan, and not a powerful mafioso Don, and prime co-conspirator of the last of the great Bogomil audio-maguses from the wilding Bulgarian Carpatians.
My last posting in reply to Guido was excised by the powers that be -- a hot potato -- so let's try this reply to Tvad. Yes Tvad, I am very thorough which is one of the things that has been sidestepped here -- until your comment. And I am not afraid in the least of the attacks against me that are allowed to appear on this thread. If the message is too thorough and to the point it may burn too hot and be deemed unacceptable here. So poster/minions sidestep the issues being presented, label the poster "overly fervent" or another dismissive epithet, and invite the poster to leave at which time the messenger becomes fair play for any and all verbal assaults -- jeered at, sneered at, laughed at, florid-prosed at -- anything to chase the swine away.
These are the tactics used to rid the thread -- and not only this thread -- of "the unwanted posters", those who refuse to play the game. Since some of my postings are "officially unacceptable" here I am saving them and emailing them to those who PM me. Postings can be excluded from threads but the truth can never be hidden. Any attempt to do so will be in vain and will reflect badly on Audiogon in whose best interest it is to allow all posters to post. I have been receiving a lot of PMs about this. If inane postings, disrespectful postings and mocking postings are acceptable why are all thorough, clear and well-written postings not acceptable as well? I believe this is a very good question.
Surely those who are allowed to post here must have a comment or 2 -- or a spam or 2 -- for this newest entrant who will undoubtedly be summarily dismissed from this forum for stepping one someone's toes. Ouch !! Tvad, Aplhifi, Guidocorona and the MBL of all audio threads, the omni-directional Audiofeil -- certainly we can count on you, can't we? No time to waste -- it's time to ratchet up the volume on this fellow -- how dare he?
Has anyone heard the new EMM "X" yet? If so, do you have any comments? It sounds like the new "X" upgrade may be catapulting the EMM into "world class" territory. It may be a great option for owners of the EMM who are looking for reasonable ways to enter the very top echelon of CD players at a reasonable price. It would be very interesting to hear all the newest iterations of the top players in a shoot-out. Anyone up to it?
Pubul57, I have the PowerCell 10SE but have not had the "X" upgrade done. All I can say is that the PowerCell has made a huge difference in the sound of the EMM. Which just shows how great its potential is. If you have a good component and do not do it justice you may end up wrongly accusing it of falling short. It may just be that you fell short in understanding what it needs to sound its best.
I do use Running Springs with my EMM and other source equipment, figuring some line conditioning might make a difference - I ran out of things to buy - and a JPS Digital power cable thinking it might make a difference - since Art Dudley claimed this was the one time he could hear an obvious difference with a power cord and it wasn't that expensive (except when you think it just a power cord), and I have mass loaded my player with Herbies Tenderfeet on a 3" Solid Maple table, well just because - but I have to say that if a piece of equipment needs too much work and tweaks to get it sound great there is something poorly engineered with the equipment to start with - not that I am saying there is anything wrong with the design of the EMM CD player, nothing wrong with the way it sounds as far as I can tell (with or without the "tweaks" I've been willing to try, though I have not heard an APL which might make it "sound broken", but I doubt that.
Pubul57, I know what you mean about poor engineering. I was up against the same thing in the past with amplifiers, CD players and speakers. The EMM CDSA SE does not fall into this category in my system. With the SR PowerCell 10SE and good cabling and tweaks it sounds wonderful. The sound stage is wide and deep and it is never fatiguing. It is a 3D stage, not a holographic wrap-around one, nonetheless a very satisfying stage with lovely layering and a beautiful and natural tone that is truly a pleasure to listen to.
If my CDSA-SE sounded holograhpic, wrap-around, I would be afraid I was wired out of phase; though headphones or nitrous oxide might have that effect too (so I am told). I don't know where it ranks, or how good it is, but I prefer it to the ARC CD3 and Accustic Arts Transport/DAC combo, and I thought they sound mighty good too. Now I just wait for a universal cloud library with on-demand, hi-rez digital streaming into G8 wireless receiver/DAC - I think music servers are just a intermediate step before we get to that....
Pubul57, I believe you would end up holographic with the EMM CDSA SE if you get the "X" upgrade. Synergistic Research produces truly world-class products. With the addition of the SR PowerCell 10SE and Galileo speaker cells and interconnects cells the quality of the sound produced by your EMM would likely be elevated to an even higher level. It is just a matter of unlocking its potential.
What it all comes down to is that you have to listen to each CD player in a system that is designed for it. Most players need to be modded or upgraded and special components, cabling and tweaks have to be added to bring each player up to its full potential. No news here.
It is the same with speakers. Some high end speakers may sound awful until all the elements in the system are matched to produce the synergy they need to find their full potential. I have seen this with my Merlin TSM mmi speakers. Out of the box they sounded unremarkable. But once I got everything in my system matched to their potential they began producing the world-class sound I knew they were capable of producing. I might have concluded -- prematurely -- that there was something lacking with them -- the same with the EMM right out of the box -- when, in truth, it was only the synergy of the system that was holding them back. Now they produce world-class sound.
I recently compared a lot of well-known high end speakers in very expensive systems at Adelphi in Singapore. I took a lot of time in the listening rooms to note the attributes of many of the world's best speakers. The Merlins are among the very best. Although I don't have floor-standers -- I have the latest iteration of the Merlin monitors in a small listening room at home -- they could easily fill a medium-sized room with beautiful sound driven by my Marantz PM-15 (the original 1994 model).
Likewise, with a player like the EMM that has such great potential it is only a matter of looking for the solution to the problem of synergy to find it. The fact that the solution is undoubtedly there has been driven home to me by the enormous improvement in sound from my own EMM by adding the SR PowerCell, some excellent cables and tweaks (a high-end fuse, SR MiGs, etc.). I have not done the "X" upgrade and do not have cabling that can be called "fully-loomed high end". Yet even at this stage my EMM produces beautifully layered 3D sound. It may not be "holographic wrap-around" yet but it is wonderfully satisfying to listen to from morning till night -- full of fine detail, natural tone and just the right warmth.
Jafox, I expected a jibe from someone on this thread -- and here it comes right on schedule. Whenever the EMM is mentioned here in a good light the knives are sharpened and the attack begins. We see have seen this time and again on this forum -- it is as predictable as clockwork -- and, with all due respect, it is about time that the moderators took notice.
Did I say something so offensive as to provoke this mockingly negative response? Quote me. Did I say "3D synergy and it's best"? If you would kindly re-read what I actually said you will see that I said " ... my EMM produces beautifully layered 3D sound. It may not be holographic wrap-around yet but it is wonderfully satisfying ... " Is there something wrong with reporting the sonic qualities of one's sound system?
If someone owns the EMM and it sounds good, is talking about it honestly, accurately and politely verboten on this thread? Does a comment like yours not deserve a direct response that points out both its inaccurate content and its tone that lacks respect for the poster? I believe it does. All posters should show respect for one another though we may hold differing opinions. Otherwise we will all be on the low ground and I don't believe that is appropriate for this sort of discussion -- nor is it necessary.
Jafox, I note that in an earlier posting on this thread you characterized the EMM used in the shoot-out (not the EMM CDSA SE that I own) as " ... a dimensionally flat component ... ". Would you care to elaborate on this? Are you implying that the EMM in the shoot-out was incapable of producing anything other than a flat 2-dimensional sound or are you saying that it produced nothing more than this in the shoot-out, ergo it was incapable of producing anything more? In that earlier posting, upon re-reading, your comments seem to be quite defensive.
If you happen to find yourself in my part of the world one day I invite you to listen to my EMM CDSA SE. You will immediately recognize that the sound is anything but flat and 2-dimensional. It is 3D and layered with a wide and deep sound stage. It is irrelevant if you or anyone else on this thread don’t “buy it" because this is an opinion that has no basis in fact. You have not heard my system. I am not asking anyone to buy anything. I am only reporting what my ears hear. Anyone with good hearing who listens to my system hears this lovely 3D sound stage immediately. I had an audiophile friend over the other day who was very impressed with it. If you or anyone else contributing to this thread were to hear it you would hear the same thing. Then, this would no longer be a matter of argument or conjecture or speculation -- or the subject of jibes.
After reading posts in this thread it becomes obvious why the the blind should never be in a shoot out. Bullets start flying all over the place with no direction or purpose.
popularity does not signify importance when a purchasing decision is concerned ?
it is totally superfluous and as a result over 200 posts have ensued.
sometimes it is a good idea to censor one's thoughts.
this hobby requires much trial and error and learning occurs from one's own experience, more so than from the opinions of others.
if you live far from an audio store or a friend's stereo system and all you have to read is magazines which accept adds, i don't believe you reduce your risk of satisfaction from a purchase.
so to audiophiles are governed by unconscious motivation to prefer one product or another.
so, use your wits and accept the risks when assembling a stereo system or buying a component.
"If you happen to find yourself in my part of the world one day I invite you to listen to my EMM CDSA SE. You will immediately recognize that the sound is anything but flat and 2-dimensional. It is 3D and layered with a wide and deep sound stage." - Sabai
I find it interesting that you didn't think that the blind comparison among 5 CD players interchanged in the same system was an acceptable method, yet you suggest that listening to your system will reveal the way a single component within the system sounds.
It seems that interchanging a single component (i.e. the blind shootout) would provide a better indication of the relative sound quality of multiple components than listening to a system and assuming that the wonderful sound was someone directly related to a single component.
If I've learned one thing on this forum, it's that a system is more than the sum of individual components.
Not sure Sabai said that, only that you would find the EMM capable of world class 3D layering. Frankly, I would take any of the 5, and enjoy any of them without too much worry about the shoot-out worthiness.
Jafox, sorry to have to correct you again. If you re-read my earlier posting closely you will see that the you have misquoted me. Your quote is not a quote from my posting. I never said "... world class 3D layering ..." anywhere in my posting. My remark refers to my Merlin TSM mmi speakers NOT to my EMM. I say that " ... it was only the synergy of the system that was holding them back. Now they produce world-class sound." Kindly take note that "them" clearly refers to my speakers NOT to my EMM.
"If you happen to find yourself in my part of the world one day I invite you to listen to my EMM CDSA SE. You will immediately recognize that the sound is anything but flat and 2-dimensional. It is 3D and layered with a wide and deep sound stage." Certainly sounds like you are talking about the EMM; though I agree with you about Merlins.
Mceljo, what I am saying is that if, for example, you hear the EMM in a blind shoot-out and the sound is 2-dimensional and it is dismissed as not being capable of sounding 3-dimensional, but in another system it produces 3-dimensional sound then one must question the set-up in the blind shoot-out which obviously fell short vis a vis the EMM.
Pubul57, you mentioned in an earlier posting " ... if a piece of equipment needs too much work and tweaks to get it [to] sound great there is something poorly engineered with the equipment to start with ... ". What does too much work mean? If you did a lot of work and finally ended up with the sound you were looking for would you not be happy about it? I certainly would be no matter how much work it took. I would not complain that it took too much work to get there. The engineering may just need some help. That's all. How can the engineering be that bad if you end up with the sound you are looking for? I would call it bad if you DON'T end up with the sound you are looking for.
Pubul57, My comment about 3D sound refers to my EMM and my Merlins speakers -- as you have noted in your latest posting. On none of my postings did I say or imply that the EMM was capable of " ... world class 3D layering ...". That is a misquote. What I said was that some posters have said they "don't buy" my observation that the EMM is capable of 3D sound. It is capable of 3D sound. Not world class 3D, nonetheless 3D.
"Mceljo, what I am saying is that if, for example, you hear the EMM in a blind shoot-out and the sound is 2-dimensional and it is dismissed as not being capable of sounding 3-dimensional, but in another system it produces 3-dimensional sound then one must question the set-up in the blind shoot-out which obviously fell short vis a vis the EMM." - Sabai
That makes some sense to me. The description of a component in a comparison shouldn't be considered an absolute as it's really intended to be a judgment relative to the other components in that system used for the test. It's possible that the same comparison using a different system would result in the same findings or each one could have different results.
Seems to be the case with my CDSA-SE and VSMS:) And certainly as much so as with the ARC CD3 MKII and Accustic Arts combo I previously owned. As good as APL? Who knows. Not something I worry about very much - they are all world-class digital sources.
the results are so specific to the experiment that they cannot be extrapolated to another stereo system and should not be used as a basis for purchasing.
in addition, there probably are numerous experimental design errors which would render the conclusins unreliable and perhaps invalid.
leave these type of situations to those who are educated and trained to do them properly.
Mrtennis - Is it possible that shootouts are more valid in the, for lack of a better description, MidFi than it is for HiFi? It seems that as the system gets more refined and revealing the "signautre" of any individual component becomes more obvious within a particular system.
If a system is revealing enough that changing speaker cables and/or interconnects makes a significant difference then any shootout using that system would be suspect because each component was not optimized in the system.
My system, for example, likely isn't revealing enough to note a distinct difference with interconnects between the SACD player and receiver making it more likely that a shootout done with my system might provide useful information for other systems of a similar level. Sort of a macro comparison vs. a micro comparison.
i would not be influenced to buy a product based upon a shoot out--audio or otherwise.
my ears, brain, preferences, etc. are unique.
this is true for every human being.
while it may be fun to do it, there is no substitute for listening.
shoot outs are not valid, period, with such a small sample size,. certain variables must be controlled and the experimental design and analysis must be very rigorous and conform to the methodology of statistical analysis. otherwise, the information so obtained is anecdotal, at best.
regarding resolution of one's stereo syetm. there is some basis for asserting that differences between components may not be detected if the stereo system is not sufficiently resolving. however, there may be interactions between the electrical characteristics and preamp, which may be noticed even in a so-called mid fi system.
MRT, sounds like no 3rd-party review of any kind can be valid or serve any purpose, given how "different" we all are, and absent truly terrible performance in those things that can be measured that we think correlate to "good sound", there is nothing intelligible to be said about the sound of equipment and 98% of Audiogon, Stereophile, TAS, 6moons, etc. is a waste of time since most of it is observational commentary and opinion. I get the logic of that argument, yet somehow it seems an overstatement and not quite true. I find tremendous value in the observations of others, though I know that there may or may not be 100% correlation between the views of others and my own.
it's not that suggestions are useless, it's just that the risk of following the advice does not lessen the risk that a purchase based upon those suggestions will necessarily be reduced.
one is taking a chance since there is no substitute for auditioning a component in one's system before buying.
suggestions based upon the experience of others are opinions which are probably true and probably false. the probabilities are unknown and are we better off making use of suggestions and buying a component than compiling a list of components , given certain constraints, and buying one of them ?
there is no way to predict in advance that randomness or the experience od others will lead to a more favorable outcome for a buyer.
i will admit that it is fun to exchange ideas on all varities of topics is interesting and a satisfactory use of time,.
still, the effectiveness of reviews, opinions from others, listening at dealers has not been evaluated.
i would be curious to test the outcomes of purchases based upon diifferent criteria, although i realize the impracticality of such a project.
it is what it is. one is free to pursue whatever is in his/her interest.
I'm not sure we disagree at the core, but perhaps in the degree of uncertainty involved in the process. Ultimately, you are right, the final arbiter is your ears, your music, your room, but there remains something to be learned from the crowd, as long as we do accept anything on blind faith.
Magnumpi205, if you read my postings carefully you will see the purpose. They have not elicited this discussion for no reason.
Mceljo, I have never stated or implied that "listening to [my] system will reveal the way a single component within the system sounds ...". What I said was that listening to my system will make it obvious that the EMM is quite capable of producing 3D sound. It obviously does not accomplish this without wiring and speakers and an amplifier -- plus some tweaks. I agree completely with you that "... a system is more than the sum of individual components." That is exactly my point in this thread. In the right system the EMM is capable of a reaching a much higher level than it apparently did in the blind shoot-out.
Mceljo, I also agree completely with your comments that "The description of a component in a comparison shouldn't be considered an absolute as it's really intended to be a judgment relative to the other components in that system used for the test. It's possible that the same comparison using a different system would result in the same findings or each one could have different results."
Mrtennis, I agree completely with your comments "the results are so specific to the experiment that they cannot be extrapolated to another stereo system and should not be used as a basis for purchasing ... in addition, there probably are numerous experimental design errors which would render the conclusions unreliable and perhaps invalid ... If a system is revealing enough that changing speaker cables and/or interconnects makes a significant difference then any shootout using that system would be suspect because each component was not optimized in the system ... shoot outs are not valid, period, with such a small sample size,. certain variables must be controlled and the experimental design and analysis must be very rigorous and conform to the methodology of statistical analysis. otherwise, the information so obtained is anecdotal, at best."
Pubul57, I agree completely with your comments "... the final arbiter is your ears, your music, your room, but there remains something to be learned from the crowd, as long as we do not accept anything on blind faith."
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
