Well, I am a scientist and I cannot accept uncontrolled sighted experiments. There are rules to distinguish fantasy from fact, and in my book alternative facts are just fantasies. So why do people put more faith in their owned flawed experiences than in properly controlled experiments?
As for my own listening experiments, I can refer you to my participaption in Peter Walker's test. For me, that and the many similar experiments that you can read have clinched the argument. I am not an audio hypochondriac.
For years since the 1970's my own gear has consisted of Quad ELS 57 speakers driven by the Quad 33/303 amplifier (periodically refurbished). Some years ago I replaced the ELS57's with the (less efficient) Quad 2805's. Since we had also moved to a larger house with a far larger listening room, the 2x45 watts of the 303 were no longer enough, so I replaced it with a refurbished 2x140 watt Quad 606-2. Interestingly, and predictably, there was no audible difference at lower volumes, but the sound was/is now cleaner at higher volumes - I had been driving the 303 outside its comfort zone. More recently I added a B&W PV1d subwoofer, with Antimode 8033 room equalization. In short, the speaker system is revealing enough to show up any weaknesses earlier in the chain.
My desktop system used to have LS3/5a speakers driven by a variety of smallish amplifiers. Some time ago I replaced the LS3/5as with the far better Harbeth P3ESR mini monitors, and I acquired a completely refurbished 2x100 watt Quad 405-2 power amplifier to drive them (having learned the importance of power). Sufficient power is indeed important, and as I wrote earlier, does make a sonic difference, so I am pondering 2x260 watt Quad QMP monoblocks.
Very recently I bought my son a 2x250 watt Yamaha P2500S for his birthday (he is saving for a pair of Harbeth M30.1s, and currently uses my LS3/5as). Again, as was to be expected, the sound is absolutely fine, and indistinguishable from the Quad 303 that he had borrowed from me before. And for now the power limits of the LS3/5a do not allow him to experience what big power does.
So all in all, a lot of happy listening is going on.
As for my own listening experiments, I can refer you to my participaption in Peter Walker's test. For me, that and the many similar experiments that you can read have clinched the argument. I am not an audio hypochondriac.
For years since the 1970's my own gear has consisted of Quad ELS 57 speakers driven by the Quad 33/303 amplifier (periodically refurbished). Some years ago I replaced the ELS57's with the (less efficient) Quad 2805's. Since we had also moved to a larger house with a far larger listening room, the 2x45 watts of the 303 were no longer enough, so I replaced it with a refurbished 2x140 watt Quad 606-2. Interestingly, and predictably, there was no audible difference at lower volumes, but the sound was/is now cleaner at higher volumes - I had been driving the 303 outside its comfort zone. More recently I added a B&W PV1d subwoofer, with Antimode 8033 room equalization. In short, the speaker system is revealing enough to show up any weaknesses earlier in the chain.
My desktop system used to have LS3/5a speakers driven by a variety of smallish amplifiers. Some time ago I replaced the LS3/5as with the far better Harbeth P3ESR mini monitors, and I acquired a completely refurbished 2x100 watt Quad 405-2 power amplifier to drive them (having learned the importance of power). Sufficient power is indeed important, and as I wrote earlier, does make a sonic difference, so I am pondering 2x260 watt Quad QMP monoblocks.
Very recently I bought my son a 2x250 watt Yamaha P2500S for his birthday (he is saving for a pair of Harbeth M30.1s, and currently uses my LS3/5as). Again, as was to be expected, the sound is absolutely fine, and indistinguishable from the Quad 303 that he had borrowed from me before. And for now the power limits of the LS3/5a do not allow him to experience what big power does.
So all in all, a lot of happy listening is going on.
