How far have ss amps really come in the last twenty years??

[MattHooper]

If you demonstrated it under controlled conditions, then that is that. I remember how the rec audio thing would get pretty nasty. Those were the days!

The experience brought up some interesting questions for me.

The objectivists (and, again, in spirit I considered myself one of them even if not being as technically knowledgeable) would keep saying that any well designed CD player or DAC would sound indistinguishable from another. I mentioned that, while I wasn't doubting that general principle per se, I sure seemed to be hearing very distinct differences between a couple CD players and a DAC I owned.

I did the blind testing of the CD players/DAC then presented the results to the objectivist boys on the newsgroup (Arny, J.J. and others...). The results were positive for identifying each player, and I asked for suggestions. The objectivist/engineers looked at how I performed the test and suggested some ways to tighten up the method, especially using a voltmeter to match output at the speaker terminals. So I did another set of blind tests using a borrowed voltmeter to match levels. Again, I could identify the units with almost perfect accuracy. I even did a blind test where I was outside the room from the CD players/switching and easily identified between two of them.

When I presented the results of the second batch of tests, it wasn't greeted with "well, I guess you heard a difference" but rather, especially in Arny's case, "something probably went wrong...there could have been communication 'tells' between switcher and listener for instance." I explained the protocol again, which did not seem to allow for such a thing. In other words, Arny's suggestion of how the results could have been invalid seemed extremely implausible given the protocol.

So I was left with my own results, and the skepticism of folks like Arny about the results.

Which led to the interesting question of how to think about the results.

On one hand, I can understand and agree with someone like Arny. If you have a technical knowledge that leads you to think a result is implausible, then do you accept a blind test someone else performed and posted on the internet as a data point at all? Well, you weren't there, maybe the test did not occur strictly as described, maybe you'd spot some problem if you were there. This is one reason why there is the demand for replication of results by other parties in science. So I can see the case for being skeptical for an Arny K.

On the other hand...I performed the tests. I know that I described them correctly, and being familiar with how every step went down, I could not see an area where the type of objections made were plausible.

So do you accept your own tests as a data point, and say "well, I understand why someone who wasn't there has to be cautious in accepting my account...but I was there, so I guess I really did detect differences. Maybe one or more of the DACs involved were substandard, or coloured or whatever."

Or, do you say "well, despite that I did the blind tests exactly as the engineers described, they still doubt the results, so I won't accept the results of my own blind test." ?

If the latter, it would seem any attempt at doing one's own blind test would be moot - as the only results one could accept are those that had the results some objectivist/engineer had. (But then...what of replicability?)

So it brings up interesting questions about to what degree you can accept the results of blind tests you didn't perform. If someone on a forum describes their protocol and it seems sound, yet the results are surprising, do you accept it as evidence? And how much weight do you put on your own tests, if the results are surprising?

 

[SIY]

Rule of thumb: if I have to pry details out of them regarding level matching and blinding methods, they didn't actually do it. If it's clearly stated up front in a manner that anyone could (in theory) replicate it, it's far more likely to be an accurate account.

 

[BDWoody]

The experience brought up some interesting questions for me.

The objectivists (and, again, in spirit I considered myself one of them even if not being as technically knowledgeable) would keep saying that any well designed CD player or DAC would sound indistinguishable from another. I mentioned that, while I wasn't doubting that general principle per se, I sure seemed to be hearing very distinct differences between a couple CD players and a DAC I owned.

So it brings up interesting questions about to what degree you can accept the results of blind tests you didn't perform. If someone on a forum describes their protocol and it seems sound, yet the results are surprising, do you accept it as evidence? And how much weight do you put on your own tests, if the results are surprising?

I would guess that if the two transports went through Amir's testing, the differences in what you are hearing could be identified in the measurements. Would hope the science would answer the question.

 

[Frank Dernie]

So do you accept your own tests as a data point,

I would say yes.
Personally I do my own level matched tests and make my own choice, I have to live with it.
I was very surprised, when looking for a DAC that decoded bigger files than 16/48, that I couldn't tell the difference between DACs over a price range of 15:1 though.
I did the comparison on the sort of music I listen to, which is light on jangling keys, and even cymbals so I may well have missed something valid for somebody else.
I say do the tests properly, make your own choice.
I have 2 main systems I listen to and the deciding factor on which I listen to is one of the remote controls being much nicer to use. The SQ pleases me adequately on both.

 

[watchnerd]

@andreasmaaan ,

Many would agree that many recordings from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s surpass the quality of modern recordings.

There is also sample selection bias.

The recordings that were crap from that era, we mostly don't listen to.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The experience brought up some interesting questions for me.

The objectivists (and, again, in spirit I considered myself one of them even if not being as technically knowledgeable) would keep saying that any well designed CD player or DAC would sound indistinguishable from another. I mentioned that, while I wasn't doubting that general principle per se, I sure seemed to be hearing very distinct differences between a couple CD players and a DAC I owned.

I did the blind testing of the CD players/DAC then presented the results to the objectivist boys on the newsgroup (Arny, J.J. and others...). The results were positive for identifying each player, and I asked for suggestions. The objectivist/engineers looked at how I performed the test and suggested some ways to tighten up the method, especially using a voltmeter to match output at the speaker terminals. So I did another set of blind tests using a borrowed voltmeter to match levels. Again, I could identify the units with almost perfect accuracy. I even did a blind test where I was outside the room from the CD players/switching and easily identified between two of them.

When I presented the results of the second batch of tests, it wasn't greeted with "well, I guess you heard a difference" but rather, especially in Arny's case, "something probably went wrong...there could have been communication 'tells' between switcher and listener for instance." I explained the protocol again, which did not seem to allow for such a thing. In other words, Arny's suggestion of how the results could have been invalid seemed extremely implausible given the protocol.

So I was left with my own results, and the skepticism of folks like Arny about the results.

Which led to the interesting question of how to think about the results.

On one hand, I can understand and agree with someone like Arny. If you have a technical knowledge that leads you to think a result is implausible, then do you accept a blind test someone else performed and posted on the internet as a data point at all? Well, you weren't there, maybe the test did not occur strictly as described, maybe you'd spot some problem if you were there. This is one reason why there is the demand for replication of results by other parties in science. So I can see the case for being skeptical for an Arny K.

On the other hand...I performed the tests. I know that I described them correctly, and being familiar with how every step went down, I could not see an area where the type of objections made were plausible.

So do you accept your own tests as a data point, and say "well, I understand why someone who wasn't there has to be cautious in accepting my account...but I was there, so I guess I really did detect differences. Maybe one or more of the DACs involved were substandard, or coloured or whatever."

Or, do you say "well, despite that I did the blind tests exactly as the engineers described, they still doubt the results, so I won't accept the results of my own blind test." ?

If the latter, it would seem any attempt at doing one's own blind test would be moot - as the only results one could accept are those that had the results some objectivist/engineer had. (But then...what of replicability?)

So it brings up interesting questions about to what degree you can accept the results of blind tests you didn't perform. If someone on a forum describes their protocol and it seems sound, yet the results are surprising, do you accept it as evidence? And how much weight do you put on your own tests, if the results are surprising?

Two things gotten very wrong much of the time with audiophiles. How incredibly precise hearing is in regard to unbelievable differences. How hard it is for a tale-tell to slip through testing.

Hearing is incredible in many ways, but is rather unreliable in other ways.

The human organism (all mammals actually) are incredible in their ability to pick up on tells. Usually the brain involved doesn't know it either. You can be tipped off by some very odd little cues and never know you were. If you are relying on hearing, there are 4 other senses that can be called upon to help. And you can't stop them from helping.

I do understand the frustration of having done a careful test with results that don't get accepted.

And it goes both ways. I've recorded those 8 generation copies of music and let some friends try them. One was very interested, surprised he could hear no difference, and gave lots of thought to what that meant. Another tried for a bit, was surprised it wasn't obvious, and then didn't want to know about the implications of that. Some people don't want to know in both camps.

 

[MattHooper]

Two things gotten very wrong much of the time with audiophiles. How incredibly precise hearing is in regard to unbelievable differences. How hard it is for a tale-tell to slip through testing.

Hearing is incredible in many ways, but is rather unreliable in other ways.

The human organism (all mammals actually) are incredible in their ability to pick up on tells. Usually the brain involved doesn't know it either. You can be tipped off by some very odd little cues and never know you were. If you are relying on hearing, there are 4 other senses that can be called upon to help. And you can't stop them from helping.

I do understand the frustration of having done a careful test with results that don't get accepted.

And it goes both ways. I've recorded those 8 generation copies of music and let some friends try them. One was very interested, surprised he could hear no difference, and gave lots of thought to what that meant. Another tried for a bit, was surprised it wasn't obvious, and then didn't want to know about the implications of that. Some people don't want to know in both camps.

Agreed. Which is why I would remain quite open to having been wrong. And strictly speaking, if I wanted a higher level of confidence I'd be sending the units out to be tested, having other parties replicate the blind tests, etc. But as a regular joe consumer, on a practical level, it seems reasonable to accept the experience and incorporate it in one's personal decision-making. After all, I've observed debates between many knowledgeable people, those with experience in the relevant field, over engineering choices in audio gear. It seems that even when it comes to technical talk and experience, with plausible (not woo-woo) arguments on either side from people who have experience, ultimately a person tends to be driven by his own experience in testing these things.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Agreed. Which is why I would remain quite open to having been wrong. And strictly speaking, if I wanted a higher level of confidence I'd be sending the units out to be tested, having other parties replicate the blind tests, etc. But as a regular joe consumer, on a practical level, it seems reasonable to accept the experience and incorporate it in one's personal decision-making. After all, I've observed debates between many knowledgeable people, those with experience in the relevant field, over engineering choices in audio gear. It seems that even when it comes to technical talk and experience, with plausible (not woo-woo) arguments on either side from people who have experience, ultimately a person tends to be driven by his own experience in testing these things.

Interesting to hear about this episode. I'd be interested to know if you're aware of any published measurements of the two units? In fact I'm interested in what the whole setup was if you don't mind sharing? And also, what aspect/s of the sound (if describable) you were able to pinpoint that allowed you to differentiate in the blind test?

 

[Sal1950]

and things like Dartzeel which are SS but high output impedance for SS.

Frank, Would you say this and probably other design elements are a attempt to "voice" the amp?
(in inaccurate ways).

 

[Xulonn]

@MattHooper - I like your open-minded approach and I am following your discussions in this thread. If you are not well educated in science and audio engineering or pshcyoacoustics, at least you have the common sense to question issues on both sides of the objective/subjective debates. As I have mentioned before, science is much more about observing, and then asking questions rather promoting answers. Many laypersons seem to like to blather on about their unsupported opinions, and then claim vociferously that those opinions are facts.

Although I am not a scientist or engineer, I do have a broad rather than a deep knowledge in many areas of science and engineering - and a great respect for good scientists. In 1976, at the age of 36. I finally finished my undergraduate degree, earning a multidisciplinary B.S. degree from Berkeley. I also have many years of experience as a technical salesman, research technician, and scientific software sales and technical support specialist. But my own education and experience pales significantly when compared to some of our amazing audio "experts" here at ASR.

Having communicated with scientists and engineers from around the world, I am humbled about how little I actually know. If I make claims here, they are accompanied by caveats, questions about my own accuracy, or hard, verifiable evidence.

I also understand the psychology of the male ego, and am aware that this website is, not on purpose, however, a bastion of male audio enthusiasts. Occasionally, like a fly in a spider's trap, a clueless wannabe audio expert comes here and gets caught in a web of misinformation. Refusing to learn andything, they often struggle hopelessly to save face, but instead, dig a hole of ignorance and keep digging.

Your intelligent questions about what appears to be an anomaly can only be answered by verification of both subjective results and the availability of accurate measurements, and them comparing them. If that cannot be accomplished, it will not be possible to reach a valid conclusion.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Frank, Would you say this and probably other design elements are a attempt to "voice" the amp?
(in inaccurate ways).

I don't know Sal, but I have often wondered if the vaunted superiority of low feedback is simply down to amps with less feedback changing the response of the speakers they are driving in a way people like, or assume is better on the expensive=better metric. This includes the designers IMO.

 

[SIY]

amps with less feedback changing the response of the speakers they are driving

Much truth in this. But here's the dirty secret- the designer can't "voice" the amps because the frequency response will be different with every different speaker used with it.

 

[MattHooper]

Interesting to hear about this episode. I'd be interested to know if you're aware of any published measurements of the two units? In fact I'm interested in what the whole setup was if you don't mind sharing? And also, what aspect/s of the sound (if describable) you were able to pinpoint that allowed you to differentiate in the blind test?

Hi andreasmaan,

I'd have to go back and find notes or whatever I'd written about it. Maybe I'll take a look when I get a chance.

I can tell you that the 3 units where: Meitner Museatex bi-dat DAC, Meridian 508.20 CD player, Sony CD Player (I probably have the model number in my notes somewhere).

It helped that the Museatex DAC had it's own volume control (purportedly "transparent") which helped match output precisely to the Meridian as measured by a voltmeter at the speaker terminals. Switching was done through my preamp IIRC. Pre-trials to see if I could guess correctly via my helper simply switching the inputs randomly were done, without any music, just to see if there were any "tells" going on that could cue me as to which input had been selected. (I couldn't tell).

As to the last part of your question: The Meridian player - circa mid-late 90's, had a reputation of sounding more like "analog/vinyl" when many audiophiles were talking about the "cold digital" sound of CD players. I ended up with one to replace the good quality Sony CDP I'd been using and did indeed perceive what seemed to be some obvious sonic characteristics: It did have a different tone than the Sony, sort of a lighter textural quality that, yeah, if I had to pin-point it actually sounded a bit more like the difference I hear between my digital and vinyl sources even now. It wasn't "bright" but it evoked pastel timbral colour where the Sony seemed "darker" (though...with a "brighter" and slightly more piercing edge). One really distinctive character of the Meridian was the focus and density of the sonic images. There was a sense of all the sonic information for a voice or instrument being "lined up" so it had this opaque "non-see-through" sonic palpability - the sonic sense of a real image vs a ghostly see-through image.

The Museatex DAC (being raved about by many of my audiophile acquaintances so I tried one out) *seemed* to sound quite different! The sound seemed "darker," but bigger, more lush, the sense of the scale and soundstage seemed appreciable more spacious - "walls melting away" kind of thing. I loved the sense of lushness and spaciousness of the Museatex, but it's tonal quality never sounded believable to me...always a bit darker than life. And the images were more spread out, diffuse and "see-through" as it were. The Meridian sounded tonally and in terms of image focus and density more like "instruments are THERE" even while loosing the sense of immersion.

So, it really did seem to be beyond any sense of straining to hear a difference. Every time I switched between them the difference seemed very obvious, with my ultimately preferring the Meridian.

The apparent obviousness of the difference is really what got me to blind test them, given I kept reading they *should* sound identical (if they were both competently made - and it seemed both Meridian and Ed Meitner had a good reputation for having good chops, in the digital realm).

When I blind tested them the qualities described above were just effortless to pick out. As I mentioned, I could even pick them out when I stood outside the listening room and down the hall! The tonal change alone, including a different sense of bass quality - more 'bloom' with the Meitner, between the Meridian and Meitner gave it away leading to perfect scores.

Well...that was my experience anyway. As to details about the test, they may be on another computer so maybe I can dig them up.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Much truth in this. But here's the dirty secret- the designer can't "voice" the amps because the frequency response will be different with every different speaker used with it.

Exactly, but it will sound different with all speakers and probably considerably so with speakers with an extreme impedance shift, like the audiophile darling Wilsons, for one

 

[andreasmaaan]

Hi andreasmaan,

I'd have to go back and find notes or whatever I'd written about it. Maybe I'll take a look when I get a chance.

I can tell you that the 3 units where: Meitner Museatex bi-dat DAC, Meridian 508.20 CD player, Sony CD Player (I probably have the model number in my notes somewhere).

It helped that the Museatex DAC had it's own volume control (purportedly "transparent") which helped match output precisely to the Meridian as measured by a voltmeter at the speaker terminals. Switching was done through my preamp IIRC. Pre-trials to see if I could guess correctly via my helper simply switching the inputs randomly were done, without any music, just to see if there were any "tells" going on that could cue me as to which input had been selected. (I couldn't tell).

As to the last part of your question: The Meridian player - circa mid-late 90's, had a reputation of sounding more like "analog/vinyl" when many audiophiles were talking about the "cold digital" sound of CD players. I ended up with one to replace the good quality Sony CDP I'd been using and did indeed perceive what seemed to be some obvious sonic characteristics: It did have a different tone than the Sony, sort of a lighter textural quality that, yeah, if I had to pin-point it actually sounded a bit more like the difference I hear between my digital and vinyl sources even now. It wasn't "bright" but it evoked pastel timbral colour where the Sony seemed "darker" (though...with a "brighter" and slightly more piercing edge). One really distinctive character of the Meridian was the focus and density of the sonic images. There was a sense of all the sonic information for a voice or instrument being "lined up" so it had this opaque "non-see-through" sonic palpability - the sonic sense of a real image vs a ghostly see-through image.

The Museatex DAC (being raved about by many of my audiophile acquaintances so I tried one out) *seemed* to sound quite different! The sound seemed "darker," but bigger, more lush, the sense of the scale and soundstage seemed appreciable more spacious - "walls melting away" kind of thing. I loved the sense of lushness and spaciousness of the Museatex, but it's tonal quality never sounded believable to me...always a bit darker than life. And the images were more spread out, diffuse and "see-through" as it were. The Meridian sounded tonally and in terms of image focus and density more like "instruments are THERE" even while loosing the sense of immersion.

So, it really did seem to be beyond any sense of straining to hear a difference. Every time I switched between them the difference seemed very obvious, with my ultimately preferring the Meridian.

The apparent obviousness of the difference is really what got me to blind test them, given I kept reading they *should* sound identical (if they were both competently made - and it seemed both Meridian and Ed Meitner had a good reputation for having good chops, in the digital realm).

When I blind tested them the qualities described above were just effortless to pick out. As I mentioned, I could even pick them out when I stood outside the listening room and down the hall! The tonal change alone, including a different sense of bass quality - more 'bloom' with the Meitner, between the Meridian and Meitner gave it away leading to perfect scores.

Well...that was my experience anyway. As to details about the test, they may be on another computer so maybe I can dig them up.

Many thanks for the detailed reply! Very interesting.

 

[Thomas savage]

@MattHooper - I like your open-minded approach and I am following your discussions in this thread. If you are not well educated in science and audio engineering or pshcyoacoustics, at least you have the common sense to question issues on both sides of the objective/subjective debates. As I have mentioned before, science is much more about observing, and then asking questions rather promoting answers. Many laypersons seem to like to blather on about their unsupported opinions, and then claim vociferously that those opinions are facts.

Although I am not a scientist or engineer, I do have a broad rather than a deep knowledge in many areas of science and engineering - and a great respect for good scientists. In 1976, at the age of 36. I finally finished my undergraduate degree, earning a multidisciplinary B.S. degree from Berkeley. I also have many years of experience as a technical salesman, research technician, and scientific software sales and technical support specialist. But my own education and experience pales significantly when compared to some of our amazing audio "experts" here at ASR.

Having communicated with scientists and engineers from around the world, I am humbled about how little I actually know. If I make claims here, they are accompanied by caveats, questions about my own accuracy, or hard, verifiable evidence.

I also understand the psychology of the male ego, and am aware that this website is, not on purpose, however, a bastion of male audio enthusiasts. Occasionally, like a fly in a spider's trap, a clueless wannabe audio expert comes here and gets caught in a web of misinformation. Refusing to learn andything, they often struggle hopelessly to save face, but instead, dig a hole of ignorance and keep digging.

Your intelligent questions about what appears to be an anomaly can only be answered by verification of both subjective results and the availability of accurate measurements, and them comparing them. If that cannot be accomplished, it will not be possible to reach a valid conclusion.

I really appreciate this and your presence here as a regular contributing member.

 

[Sal1950]

Much truth in this. But here's the dirty secret- the designer can't "voice" the amps because the frequency response will be different with every different speaker used with it.

Exactly, but it will sound different with all speakers and probably considerably so with speakers with an extreme impedance shift, like the audiophile darling Wilsons, for one

Maybe the use of "voice" is the wrong term to use. IMO it's more about sounding different from the others, specially the accurate, transparent raves of the day such as the Benchmark.
But also they do have a pretty good idea how some of the current audiophile speakers measure and what the amp will end up sounding like with the more extreme cases.

 

[BigRez]

Yes to the former.

As to the latter, well, here's a list of all demonstrated auditory phenomena which were not easily measurable:






Quite a list!

I have to disagree. Not only do we not have all the answers, we don't even know all the questions. Some day there will be more tests available and still we will not have tests for everything that contributes to sound quality. This is my opinion, and you are free to respectfully disagree. In NO WAY am I saying that listening will tell you more than measurements. Please don't misunderstand my point. I believe measuring equipment is the best way to tell if it's any good. I'm simply saying that there ARE things related to sound quality that can not current be measured and there always will be these intangibles "phenomenon". It's why some pairings of speakers, amps and placements just don't work well and others are magical. Is there a way to measure and correct for a very cold room vs a very warm room? Yes, bit it's not very practical. What if the speakers are still warm but the room is now cold because someone opened the door. What about a new piece of furniture? What if I move that furniture closer to the speaker or throw a pillow on it? Do I measure again if there are a lot of people in the room? Are these things that can and should measure constantly or are they possibly phenomenon that we don't have a good way to measure and adjust for constantly? I could probably come up with a good list of technical things that are hard to measure as well. I feel like impedance is a pretty complicated one that's hard to measure because it's different at different frequencies. It can be measured but do we really know everything those measurements mean to sound quality or could there be some phenomenon in there that our understanding of measurements doesn't cover? I bet there will be a better way to measure impedance in the future to gain further knowledge of sound quality. If you still believe there are no auditory phenomena that can not be easily measured, that's cool.

 

[Xulonn]

I really appreciate this and your presence here as a regular contributing member.

Thanks, Thomas. I think the atmosphere here inspires a good number of regulars to not only have fun here, bring it also out our best when participating in the discussions.

After a lifetime of interest in both audio and science, my few years at AudioAsylum 20 years ago, then stupidly losing all of my tax-free $250K retirement investment in an audio company (Tripath - I should have listened to those who say "never fall in love with a t=stock), I had drifted away from internet audio discussions.

In 2012 I moved to a beautiful, cool tropical mountain valley in Panama, and brought along a modest, but excellent audio system with its Teac A-H01 DAC/Amp and a pair of Paradigm Atom v6 monitors. When the Teac died, I decided to catch up on audio technology while looking for a budget-priced replacement, and discovered ASR in the process. I was immediately attracted to the atmosphere and sense of community here with its lively and mostly civil discussions.

Amir's technical knowledge and skills, his dedication to making this forum interesting and exciting, and his patience with both inquisitive newbies and ill-informed "party-crashers" is unique - and much appreciated. The fact that we have not only a great bunch of informed audio enthusiasts here, but also an interesting assortment of small audio company owners who make some of the best amplifiers in the world participating, is remarkable.

The discussions of psycho-acoustics, audio equipment marketing, the interactions of audiophiles and music lovers, and even the musings of those who are simply interested in modern science and technology - and our relationship to it - all add up to make this an interesting forum. The currently active discussion of the career and contributions of Nelson Pass to the world of audio is a stellar example of how subjective and objective audio in the high-end sector can coexist without rancor.

ASR successfully blends the best aspects of audio enthusiast participation in the modern, real-time world of the internet. Compared to the early days of audio when snail-mail "letters to the editor" sent to audio magazines sere the only option for the public to participate, ASR is a paradise.

Or perhaps you're just being nice because of the recent "San Blas beach bunny" photo I posted...

 

[digicidal]

The confusing thing (to me at least) with the subjective vs. objective lies in 'durability' of value - that's probably an obtuse way of describing it so I'll elaborate:

If I like two products of similar specifications (including subjective ones... i.e. affordable, attractive, cool) - why wouldn't I want to know as much objective information about them as well? Especially if I can't tell the difference without those subjective opinions. To me there is always likely to be a 'visual' component to audio gear... but that's all the more reason for objective measurements, not less of a reason.

Even if I can easily tell the difference accurately in an ABX... am I preferring the one that measures poorly because the noise/harmonics just appeal to me on some level? To many (including myself once) that didn't seem important - if I like the sound, who cares if it's 'accurate' or not? That's the typical audiophile approach... "maybe it's noisy, inefficient, and rolls off at X frequency - but it's so sweet sounding". The real problem comes when you then find that a particular genre of music doesn't sound right, or a particular source doesn't... so you're back in the hunt again - wasting ever more time and money. Most importantly, you're not spending as much time enjoying listening to music... which was the whole point! Right?

Some things will likely never be 'perfect' and will always involve compromise (speakers and room for example) - for those, subjective evaluation is great... and DSP + subjective evaluation is even better! For things like amps, digital sources, cables, etc. - it is completely possible to select something that is objectively 'perfect' for a particular application... which is then something that can be completely removed from the "how could this sound better?" quandary.

If, through objective review and measurements, we can at least get reasonably priced gear that is audibly 'perfect' (or indistinguishable from it at least)... that frees up time and money for the two elements which are most variable and inherently subjective. It also eliminates doubt from those decisions... if the speakers I'm listening to sound like crap - and I know the rest of my gear measures fine... then those speakers are definitely not for me - regardless of how they happen to measure. The compromises in my room combined with those in the design of those speakers just isn't a good match (or I messed up my DSP/EQ).

That seems much more desirable (even for a total 'subjectivist') than simply having to luck into a magic synergy between thousands of possible components. If I can stop myself from supporting advertising and start supporting good engineering... then I'm not only less likely to regret my purchases - but I'm also investing in the future as well.

Now if only I could learn to be more succinct in my posts...