Agree or disagree with the following statement.


Trying to get some input on an issue that a few of us are debating.

Statement:

If you have never listened to any particular component, you can't have an opinion on how it sounds.

Answer:

I don't agree with that. Measurements provide a fairly good indication of how something will sound. That's the beauty of science -- it's not necessary to have first hand experience to make reasonable judgments. You likely disagree and that could be a difference in our background and education."

So, the issue at hand is, can tell how a component sounds without listening to it, and just go on specs? Or, do you have to listen to it, as well, because the specs don't tell the whole story?
zd542
"If you have never listened to any particular component, you can't have an opinion on how it sounds." This applies to much more than just audio equipment.
I love this stuff: The Tice Clock was an infamous case of utter tweak silliness when Tice marketed a Radio Shack clock that was supposedly treated with some magic Tice mojo. Supposedly when plugged into any part of the electric circuit of a room containing audio gear, everything would sound better. It was complete bullshit, the clocks weren't treated with anything, and the product stands as a classic example of fraudulent hifi snake oil.
"02-21-15: Wolf_garcia
I love this stuff: The Tice Clock was an infamous case of utter tweak silliness when Tice marketed a Radio Shack clock that was supposedly treated with some magic Tice mojo. Supposedly when plugged into any part of the electric circuit of a room containing audio gear, everything would sound better. It was complete bullshit, the clocks weren't treated with anything, and the product stands as a classic example of fraudulent hifi snake oil."

A lot of people say that but its really not true. The Tice Clock is a line conditioner. There's other conditioners on the market that work the same way. The big mistake was that they should have never made it into a clock. It devalued the product because when people saw it, they just saw the clock, and not the product that it was designed to be.
Wolf, hey, you got it all wrong. The clock was treated just the same way all the Tice power line conditions were treated. But, hey, my clock doesn't even plug into the wall so the Tice gizmo looks kind of tame next to mine.
Tice: "The "Tice Clock" was a device intended to be plugged into the household current adjacent to the plug(s) used for audio devices. Physically, it was a Radio Shack clock that has been in some unspecified way "processed" to make electrons "coherent". Many people claimed to experience enormous improvements in terms of clarity, lowered noise floor, beauty of moonlight on water , the smell of roses, and what have you. As the following article explains, anything plugged in as a "parallel filter" in this way can have an effect for standard reasons and indeed, a parallel filter will work as well as an in-line filter in principle. (Soon after my article appeared, "parallel filter" devices using the principle of grounding RF appeared for sale--without credit naturally.) The Tice clock came and went. "Incoherent " electrons turned out to be enough for most people."

Richard Gray: Parallel Power Delivery

Patented parallel iron-core inductor technology is proven (after 1 million installations and counting) to provide instant current –on–demand to power efficiently today’s High Performance-Current hungry AV components and electronic systems.

Stabilizes AC Power
Enhances AV performance
Improves start up characteristics and Inrush response
Provides additional Balanced AC Surge protection.

There's several examples, besides the above 2, that use a parallel design. Also, remember that when the Tice clock came out, AC conditioning was unheard of. Just like when aftermarket PC's first came out, everyone made fun of them too. No one would believe they made a difference until they heard it for themselves.