Beware the audio guru


There are a few contributors to these forums who apparently see themselves as gurus. They speak in absolutes, using words such as "always" and "never." They make pronouncements about products or techniques they’ve never heard or experienced, justifying their conclusions because contrary claims are "impossible" or "snake oil." Those who disagree are accused of being "deluded," or suffering some insurmountable bias, or attempting to further some commercial agenda. On occasion, they have taunted detractors with an appeal that they engage in a wager - one guy wanted $25,000 cash up front and an agreement drafted by lawyers. Another offered 5-to-1 odds.

I am not going to tell you who to believe. But for anyone who might be uncertain about sorting out conflicting claims here, I suggest they consider the behavior of experts in other fields. No good doctor offers a 100 percent guarantee on any treatment or surgical procedure, even if medical science suggests success. No good attorney will tell you that you have a case that positively can’t be lost, even if the law appears to be on your side. No true professional will insult you for the questions you ask, or abandon you if you seek a second opinion.

A doctor conducts his own tests. An engineer makes his own measurements. Neither will insist the burden of documentation falls upon you.

These might be details to consider as you sift through the many conflicting claims made on Audiogon. In short: Decide for yourself. Don’t let other people tell you how to think, or listen.
Ag insider logo xs@2xcleeds
I've stated this many times, so why not once more...
"I'll defend the person who seeks the truth but
fight the person who claims to have found it."

As @teo_audio points out, the ear does not hear the same way a signal is measured. Get your head around that, and your ass will follow.
The ear "hears" in a non-linear manner as opposed to how a signal is measured. We can draw correlations but there's no absolutes.

All the best,
Nonoise
And our knowledge of how human hearing works and how to measure and correlate it is not very comprehensive 

In the name of historical accuracy.....J. Gordon Holt was never a "subjectivist guru". He performed test bench measurements on all the products he reviewed, starting in his time at High Fidelity Magazine before starting Stereophile, where he continued his measuring. JGH is rightfully credited with inventing subjective reviewing, but he did so without abandoning bench tests. If a product tests well but sounds poor, you're measuring the wrong things.

Peter Aczel DID start out as a subjectivist, until he had his epiphany, after which he was a pure objectivist. Peter Moncrieff (correct spelling) is more of a subjectivist than an objectivist, imo. And Harry Pearson was a pure subjectivist, being almost completely technically ignorant, unfortunately.

I think the Yanni/Laurel thing, as silly as it may have been, taught us that many of us hear differently from others.

I don’t think that is true. I experimented with different speakers and headphones and am now certain that the biggest factor in hearing Yanni or Laurel is the fidelity of the device you are listening on. The result is based on frequency response. I’m betting that 99% of people would hear the same thing if they listened to the same sound reproduction device.
It actually is a teachable moment for audiophiles, but it teaches something about reality not subjectivity.