|Originally posted by ServinginEcuador
I'm afraid we don't really agree, Doug.
"My point was to reduce the ambiguity of listening tests by avoiding things like musicality, emotional response, and other REALLY ambiguous terms that mean different things to different people."
My point is that the subjective element of listening tests is unavoidable and cannot be lessened.
"When listening to a set of drums, one can easily tell if one set doesn't get the impact of the right, drops them off totally, or slurs the sounds they make. Sibalance of vocals is another factor that is not subjective."
One can easily tell? No, Doug, this involves as much subjective judgement as anything else. And sibilance: how do you know that the recording isn't sibilant itself. To some, sibilance means detail, to some, sibilance means distortion.
"Decay and attack are others that can be timed using a watch to see how long they each last on A versus B cables.
And now you're trying to measure things? Doug, do you believe we can agree where the attack part of a natural tone starts and where it ends? Or what is to be defined as decay? The longer decay you treasure could be simply ringing or resonance to someone else's ears.
"Etc, etc, etc. ad nauseum."
I am afraid that's what your method leads to, yes.
Doug, what it comes down to is this: do you want a high degree of objectivity in your evaluation because you feel that you need the approval of your peers, of other Head-Fiers or of the audiophile community? Or do you want a musically satisfying and emotionally rewarding reproduction of the music you like?
If you regard this as some kind of illicit pleasure not to be had while evaluating components, you virtually guarantee one thing and one thing only: that you will not choose those components that are the most musical and the most emotional TO YOUR EARS. You will actively prevent yourself from having fun with your system and with the music it reproduces.
Doug, I guess we all ought to ask ourselves: what am I in this hobby for?