I don't want just numbers. I need numbers to show there IS a difference, THEN one can listen and see if those numbers actually result in something audible. Often we can measure something and it does not translate into something meaningful. Other times we can hear things that numbers can't tell you.
I've been reading this thread with increasing interest as I see an eager newbie, Zman7505, renew this very old argument about what sounds good in audio, what is a waste of money, and how to learn what does & doesn't make a difference. The only way these questions can be answered is by listening tests.
Then I saw the old Nelson Pass quote about amplifier performance amd heat. Note that he spoke about measurable amplifier performance, and said nothing directly about how an amp actually sounds when playing music through speakers. Measurable changes in amplifier performance, as seen with lab bench equipment, may or may not be audible to a listener.
I was about to tune up and say all this, when I saw j_garcia said it first. Thanks.
Often, people who argue over points like this fail to remember that most audio gear greatly benefits by being
good enough to get the job done while remaining reliable over time. But when designs and build qualities get extended to the point of being
the best available, little if anything is gained.
A simple example: silver speaker wire vs. copper wire. Both conduct electricity. Silver conducts better than copper by a margin of 4%, but costs quite a lot more than copper. If you remember the design goal of
good enough, silver isn't worth the extra cost.
The same goes for other, sometimes very expensive pieces of electronic audio gear. You always have to ask, does it actually sound better? And at what cost?
