"The Audio Critic" B.S. or what?

There seems to be some confusion here between "deciding what you like" and stating that one thing sounds better (or different) than another. If all you're about is "deciding what you like," you can go about that any way you wish--sighted, blind, standing on your head. But if somebody tells you that a particular cable has a certain sound, you need to know how he came to that conclusion in order to decide how much credence to give him. As for Charlie's point about blind testing, scientists long ago figured out that even the most unbiased helper gives subconscious cues that can throw off a test. That's why they always use double-blind listening tests.

I think you missed the point Jostler3. How could you go about "deciding what you like", without knowing that one thing sounds better(or different) than another? I don't rely on other people to do my hearing for me. I try my darndest to audition before buying. Yes, I use others as a first step(a tool). But pity the audiophile who buys sound unheard.

Trelja: For one thing, there are lots of reasons besides the sound to choose one component over another. For another, many audiophiles attempt to judge the sound of a component in a way that allows factors other than the sound to intrude on their perceptions. (They will tell you they can ignore those other factors, but the truth is our brains are not wired that way.) The point I was making was that if they want to listen that way, that's their business, and nobody should tell them, "Oh, but you should listen double-blind" or whatever. But if they want to pontificate to others about what things sound like and which things sound different from other things, then they need to do their listening in a way that takes into account what psychologists have learned over decades about the foibles of human hearing. Otherwise, their observations are completely meaningless to anybody else. And to get back to the original point, that is the difference between The Audio Critic and, say, The Absolute Sound.

I couldn't disagree with Jostler more. Since when do psychologists know anything about high end audio? Modern psychology is mostly religion anyway. If there is a "collective unconscious", then what am I thinking right now? The fact is, we are all individual beings with individual thoughts and desires. And if I have an opinion on the "sound" of an audio component, it is not for you to say it is "completely meaningless". It might be to you, but it may have lots of meaning to others.......I bet you are one of these people that lays your clothes out for the whole week, ahead of time. MY "METHODOLOGY", IS THAT I TRUST WHAT I HEAR THE FIRST TIME, AND DON'T DOUBT IT. THAT WAY, I HAVE MORE TIME TO MAKE MORE COMPARISONS, RATHER THAN WASTING TIME SECOND AND THIRD GUESSING MYSELF, FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN A BAD CASE OF ANAL RETENTIVENESS. The "psychoacoustics of human hearing", written in some dusty book 100 years ago are what "has no meaning", for me. What counts is what I hear right now, and no one will tell me that what I do "has no meaning whatsoever for others", and get away with it....You are NOT the sole arbiter of what is "objective observation", nor does anything in this hobby require "perfect" objectivity. EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE, EVERYTHING. Heisenberg's Principle is all the "science" we need, here.

You guys should marry.Mit and Spectral committ what amounts to fraud.These he two have gotten toghther to take fools like the both of you to the cleaners.What a joke.What Keith J know is there is a sucker born every second.You and eber with his long winded dribble should spare us your lame views.Both you so called Audiophiles should realize that they are coloring the sound.pay for wire not boxes with things that get into the signal path.Why dont you both just add Equalizers to your rigs.its the same as the houcus poucus Mit put in the box.Carl please stop the long winded bable.Your lost.