@jcoehler .  Noted.  And, thank you.

I'm so glad I'm a retired peddler and not a meteorologist.  I could not have predicted the s---storm this has created.  I'm just happy that I don't have an oscillating fan in the room.

I have to admit I was warned on an earlier post that it weakens your argument when you feel compelled to relate to another subject. I concede. But, the larger point is that the wine industry does involve individuals certified as "experts" and the audio industry does not. An attempt was made in the 70’s via The Society of Audio Consultants. It was an objective series of questions to see if you could pass Hifi 101. I passed, but it didn’t make me a better listener -- or communicator. The wine industry also extends some degree of credibility and respect for those who are at the pinnacle of subjective interpretation. Audio industry experts get mixed reviews -- to put it kindly.

Scientists and engineers are my heros. Clubbing something over the head and dragging it home for dinner would take alot of time away from my musical enjoyment. I prefer to pluck something off a shelf, toss it in a cart, pay for it with a piece of plastic, stuff it in a grocery bag and drive it home. None of this would have worked without science. You also keep airplanes from falling out of the sky and developed the laser technology to zap the cancer out of my prostate.

But, we may be spending more time tossing the "why’s" back and forth across the net when we could be allocating more time discussing the "whats." So, WHAT just happened? Describe it? How did it make you feel about your system? The musician(s)? The recording? The experience? And, how about the cost vs performance? Was it worth the money? Would you recommend it based on what you heard?

The "why" conversation goes something like this: Did something change? WHY or WHY NOT? Could it be measured? Or, perhaps, the listening session was rejected entirely due to the implausiblity of the premise?

So, the question becomes: if the WHAT is there and the music is more alive and engaging due to a change in the system, then WHY should we agonize over our ability, or inability, to attach the correct scientific theory or measurements to the phenomonon? Why can’t we just celebrate our new audio discovery and share our comments with others, without retribution?

@edcyn

Excellent points. I like your train of thought.

These are personal questions, so I’ll do my best keep my comments relative to the subject.

I played guitar and keyboard, and wasn’t very good at either one. I developed a fond admiration for those who could actually play well and was awed by their talent. I took music appreciation in college and learned to grasp the complexity of classical music. It did change how I viewed other genres as well. So, music as "art" has been part of me for a very long time.

I was a bit "geeky" and wanted know how things worked. I did well in college physics classes and thought seriously about becoming a math/science teacher. After a few unexpected turns I opened a hifi store, and later found a way to earn a speaker patent on what I designed and built. So, I am "compelled to figure things out."

I also understand that my knowledge base is incomplete. I stand with a engineer/reviewer of decades past who was quite comfortable taking the position that he could not explain in engineering terms what he was hearing. So, that may best describe me. I’ll do my best to try to analyze what I hear in scientific terms. But, if I can’t figure it out, it in no way invalidates my listening experience.

@ghdprentice 

In my younger days, I could go to the drag strip and differentiate the burnt exhaust smell of nitro, alcohol, or high octane pump gas.  Does that count?

@ebm

"This thread says absolutely NOTHING!!!"

Okay then, let me take a another whack at it.

Someone with extensive experience with high performance audio, ventures into the world of the "unknown" and installs something NEW in his system. He leaves his preconceived notions and biases on the back porch, ready to engage in a "neutral" evaluation of said component. After a couple of evenings of careful evaluation, he is torn with his impressions, and asks himself: "Was this the musical equaliviant of being shot out of the canon? Or, was it more like skydiving naked?" Still conflicted, he does the unthinkable and posts his enthusiastic remarks on an audiophile forum - not just embracing a (contraversial) product category, but the actually recommending the component!

Then, someone with the personality of a wounded leopard responds and rips him a new orifice -- because he CAN. Afterall, it IS a public forum.

The antagonist here has a pedigree as long as his arm and not afraid to use it. The OP has a mere 50 years of critical listening experience including professional stints in something Hif-fi related. But no accreditation. He is outguned. So, he’s sitting there with fingers frozen on the keyboard, having one of those God vs Moses moments, not sure how to response to the antagonist. After all, advisary has professional credentials. He does not.

The question, then becomes, what is more valid? A growing and evolving scientific knowledge base with tons of empiracal data? Or, human interaction and experience. To the OP, his musical experience was REAL. To him, denying what just happened would be the equalivant of someone driving a vehicle over his foot and trying to convince him it didn’t happen.

Which is the greater culprit? Gaps in our scientific knowledge base offset by accompanying degrees and certifications? Or, flaws in the human experience greatly minimized by thosands of hours of listening impressions and implimentation of musically significant, sonically predicable solutions in the field?

I’ll go with the human experience, with a high degree of optimism that our ability to measure, theorize, and comment with a degree of respectability will catch up to it someday.

@alaskaman

You presented me with a real dilemma this morning.

I can’t decide which of your quotes to print out, frame, and hang on the wall.

Quick story,

I’ve been involved in speaker upgrades for many years. After retirement as an audio dealer, my tech of 25 years and I work one day a week trying to keep good, but broken hifi gear from going into the dumpster. We also offer performanace upgrades. I’ve discovered that power delivery matters, and began the practice of installing "better stuff" in vintage gear. Begin at the wall outlet, we take the high voltage upgrades internally, improving anything in the high voltage power path. We’re pretty proud of our work, but are often surprised ourselves at the results. When we’re expecting noticeable improvements in "A", "B" and "C", and we get "A", "B", and "C" in spades, PLUS "D", "E" an "F" in good measure, I find myself unexpectedly glued the listening chair for an extended period of time taking in the new experience.

The two most accomplished and successful gentlemen in my orbit are my old college roommate, and a friend of 30+ years. When I spoke of my hobby, and some details related to what I was doing, my college roommate, a literal rocket scientist, shut me off abruptly with: "Nope!!! That doesn’t matter! You have to have atleast 50 feet of that cable to make a difference". I quickly changed the subject to something we agreed on: fast cars.

The other friend is an engineer who keeps vintage radio stations on the air. He’s also involved in the service and restoration of vintage broadcast gear -- open reel tape recorders, turntables, etc. One day I invited him over to my shop to listen to some "new" items I was feeling pretty good about. His reply: "That would be a total waste of time. Have you seen the power supply in my <popular amp brand>?!!"

So, here I was. A guy who merely tippy-toed into college physics, and after years of involvement, finally arrived at the esteemed position of being slightly smarter than the Radio Shack soldering station on my bench. I was faced with a near genius-level individual, and another who keeps classic rock stations playing in a 100-like radius of a major city. I had a confidence level of 90%+ in my findings, but had no superior technical track to pursue.

I still do what I do. My confidence level has nudged up to 95%. No regrets.

More thoughts:

I agree with a poster that mentioned that product development is mostly "trial and error." The "Hey, lets try THIS and see what happens" may be a common occurrence. So, it sounds better. Now what? Then the task of objective assignment of cause and effect takes place.

I can see several scenarios here when significant a sonic benefit is achieved:

1) They nailed it!! The SQ is there, they are highly confident in their engineering, the science aligns with empirical data and scientifiy community, and there’s a strong concensus in the technical community that something valid just happened. The item get great reviews and glowing technical writeups.

2) They have a pretty good idea what just happened from an engineering perspective, and do their best to describe it, but understand there may be other variables. The possibility also exists that some of their assignment of the "whys" are not correct. White papers are presented, they are met with some pushback. Critics may listen, compare and comment.

3) It sounds awesome, they have no idea why, and are left providing their "best guess" of why it sounds like it sounds. The scientific community’s propellers spin so fast their collegues have grab hold of them to keep them going airborn. The product is widely adopted, gets favorable reviews from those willing to listen. The item is shunned, ridiculed, and mocked by those that can’t attach the correct metric to the outcome. Or, reject the premise of "better sound" altogether.

Then, there’s a 4th possibility:

- They nailed it! Wonderful sonic improvements across the board. The science is spot on, yet does not agree with some in the scientific community whose education, training and experiences differ. We find ourselves here quite often, in my opinion, where gaps in knowledge bases are unacknowledged.

It brings up the question: If the wrong ’why’ is assigned, does it justifiably disqualify the premise that the item has real world sonic benefits? Or, does it just make life more difficult for those producing and marketing the item?

Someone, for example, introduces a brilliant speaker with highs so delicate you’re terrified to move your head from side to side in fear you’re going to break something. Their explanation of the ’why’ is: "Compared to the lower-priced models in our line, we’ve found that the symphathetic resonances of genuine zebrawood veneers produce more musically satisfying even order harmonics compared to simulated vinyl materials." Giving the above "technical explanation", should we disqualify the item? Or, just rough up the technical writer a bit, and give them a listen? The correct technical explanation is buried deep in there -- somewhere. They just haven’t found and/or properly communicated it. They could be sitting on a breakthrough product.