@<eargiant Would you say you'd still be able to take a step back and look at the whole of your thread? I know debates can be aggravating and polarising, but what you seem to have done is reveal that your true intention was not withheld in your apparently benign first post where you merely ask for some opinion. Because when you got them, you fell into this honey badger's pit, clawing at everyone.
Studies are still being conducted that are uncovering how millions of years of evolution had fine tuned our hearing of spatial cues and timing in order for us to survive.
Here's a nice example. Do you know how long human beings exist, would be my first question? Now, I'm also a noob and I might find myself in a position to choose between what you preach and what is being preached here in audioholics. I hope you can see why I wouldn't opt for your persuasions. You offer haze. Think of all the amps you haven't heard, you might as well own the worst one, right?
Here's another example:
But how our ears perceive spatial cues and timing to "see" and "map" the space around us is still an area that is not fully understood. Far from it.
And yet these guru's seem to perfectly reliably utilise these "millions of years" of evolution of human ear?? Every time they opt for a tube, for example, it seems they hit exactly the spot of all those "millions of years", could you envision what this would mean for the discovery of the tube. It would present a one in a google odds. Where are all the trials and errors of these gurus?
And once you learned your experience may be preset with wording, you may start avoiding what guru's say all together.
These are just some of the examples why even someone who doesn't know much about audio would steer clear of your bold claims.
In the end you acquired the form of a snake oil marketer who aims to up his game and find new ways of disarming the arguments of his opponents through forum quarrel which would offer insight into what is stopping the people in buying esoteric gear. (I base this entirely on my own experience so you can't say I'm wrong, you can, following your logic, only say you haven't had this experience)
Back to audio, if amps all sound different base on mix and matching with other equipment as well as different people's individually unique hearing skills and preferences (such as the so called warm, cool, bright etc.) that are not easily measurable, how the heck did people like John Siau or John Curl design their products, whose ears/hearings skill/ability/preference would they base their design on? I would say their design parameters have to be based on just science, i.e. human hearing ability, noise, distortions, frequency response, power requirements, transient response, dynamic range etc, that's just logic. If the final products does well in all those categories, relative to normal human's hearing and discerning ability, then such products should, and will likely sound the same to normal people when used well within their specified limits, though the specs will not be exactly the same.
I'm so glad you asked this question. It's been bugging me for years. I see this as a perfect question to be posed at snake-oil vendors, it's like;
It is there, it is not measurable, but we have a perfectly reliable insight into all this that's not measurable and produce our equipment accordingly.
I mean, wouldn't it be highly, I mean HIGHLY beneficial to rather start working on that missing measuring device that would once and for all prove that we all need to buy expensive and esoteric gear if we want to enjoy? If your entire production depends on it, it would come in handy...
This way it is perfectly clear they have a whole industry whose production process is entirely based in the non-measurable! Well ain't that just dandy? Can you really go wrong then?
