Why we (often) upgrade the wrong things (first) and ignore the important things

@oddiofyl Agree wholeheartedly. There can be major and minor bottlenecks, and the preamp is somewhere in between. 

@kerrybh I really like him, too. He challenges strongly held beliefs, yes. What I like about his approach is that he’s saying, "If you’re willing to set emotions aside, there is a way to look at the big picture in terms of priorities so that when you make a change, you either attack the problem closest to the root -- or, you recognize that when you make a change (cable, etc.) you don’t overestimate what it might possibly do."

I’ve seen so many posts with people debating, say, OCC copper or whatever, and I’d bet real money that half those folks have systems in rooms that are so problematic, acoustically, that they can’t possibly make a large change in their systems AND they are talking past one another in terms of the perceived changes in the gear. 

To put it bluntly, if people want to have fun acting like chat bots saying words back and forth to one another -- ok, fine. Free country. But let’s not pretend we’re talking about reality, here, right? ;-)

I like him very much, as well. He is a breath of fresh air. For one thing, he refuses to frame issues in either/or polarities, such as "measurement vs. listening". The fact that he acknowledges and covers both the objective and subjective aspects of topics he discusses elicits my respect and appreciation. He certainly seems very knowledgeable from an engineering standpoint but manages to avoid burying the viewer in jargon. Is he perhaps a university professor?  The clarity of his presentations suggests teaching expertise. 

On another point, some of us focus on changing gear and cables because we don’t have the leeway to change our rooms. The fact that this approach has less potential for significant improvement compared to treating the room does not discourage me from experimenting to see what can possibly be gained. 

some of us focus on changing gear and cables because we don’t have the leeway to change our rooms. The fact that this approach has less potential for significant improvement compared to treating the room does not discourage me from experimenting to see what can possibly be gained. 

I liked that he addresses this point. He's basically saying, "It's critical to first identify and estimate the magnitude of your constraints. If you don't, you can experiment but you'll have no idea if there's a chance you can make a gain. Some may be able to, but others won't, and they'll chase gear forever. Needle in a haystack."

Agree 2000% treat your space and measure... why I like small listening spaces easier to control... 

My experience is that, in a non treated room with a less than ideal size, experimenting with cables, fuses, equipment isolation footing or just about anything other than changing a major piece of equipment, does not result in any significant changes in the sound. Doing it in a properly sized and treated room and I can hear a clearly noticeable difference in any and all experiments. Huge difference.