Soundstage, Imaging, Detail & Presence??

Charles your post is full of contradiction,

No need for mysticism

and

god given ears

Doesn't the idea of god invoke mysticism?
Then you go on to suggest that our ears have evolved. Weren't they given to us by god? Or maybe the ears that god gave us millions of years ago were less than perfect and have improved through evolution.
Sorry I couldn't help myself!

One day Larry had a room and a SS amp, speakers, a sources, cables, power conditoners and whatever else. Then a sales rep shows up in his room with a tube amp. The amps are swapped, and the "presence" is improved as perceived by Larry. On this basis, the room does not come into question, nor do any of the other components of the system.

The problem is not that "Science" can't measure the subtle differences, the problem as I see it is that there are so many factors at play that are interelated that it becomes extremely difficult to setup an experiment or model that can test the effects of each and every factor in relation to all the others given all the possible permutations and combinations.

In the end Charles I agree with you it comes down to using your ears (the god given ones or the evolved ones) to determine your personal preference through a process more a kin to art than pure science.

Sebrof, in rereading my previous post I realize my verbiage was a bit confusing. What I had intended to convey is that there seems to be two camps. What I might call the the analog camp favors tubes and vinyl; the digital camp, along with those who don't give a damn, favor solid state and discs.

One can argue the merits of tubes/solid state or vinyl/discs as they perceive them, but the fact is that auditory memory for detail is quite poor; we're much better at auditory classification. That makes sense, because the prime purpose of our hearing throughout its development has been to distinguish between the sounds of organisms we might eat and those that might eat us. Music, on the evolutionary scheme is very new.

db

Hi,
Nick, the simple point is our ears are great and can perceive the many nuances and subtle characteristics in music that as of yet can`t be quantified with measurements. These characteristics are what attract us to music and evoke the emotional responses that are so enjoyable. I`ll leave the creation/evolution debate to you, as it`s irrelavant to this thread.
Best Regards,

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50

Charles1dad,
That sentence, beautifully constructed,"...the simple point is our ears are great and can perceive the many nuances and subtle characteristics in music that as of yet can`t be quantified with measurements."...is so true as to be the crux of many disagreements.
Back in the day, I used to ask Jim Thiel why he didn't use better caps and air core inductors, resisters, etc, in his crossovers. He would coyly say, 'Because they measure as they do with the components I'm using.'

That was all well and good--but then the next day, I'd be talking to Bill Conrad of cj, and he'd be waxing poetically about the caps they were having made to their specs and how they spent hours deciding which cap goes where and so on. I was confused and frustrated with Jim, one of my icons.

Many years later, I realized that the 'pragmatic' business side of Jim was simply winning the battle for saving the world from bad audio, and keeping THIEL Audio in business.
Every, we'll call it 'additional' penny(s) a manufacturer spends on internal parts, is a penny that doesn't come back as profits. So, if a $.58 piece of stuff works, why spend $4.35?

It wasn't until the twilight of Jim's life that he publically changed that position by making the CS2.4SE. As you may know, it offered upgraded parts in the crossovers.
When interviewed, Jim said, 'Well, there are some things that can't be measured, but exist in audio.' I'm paraphrasing, but that's the intent of the comments.
These speakers came out AFTER my LSA Statements hit the streets, AND after Sherry Graham (formerly of THIEL and new owner of LSA speakers) came to work for LSA. There may have been NO correllation, but anyone who's heard the LSA1 or LSA2 Standard/Signature/Statements can easily attest to the differences, the ENORMOUS differences that higher quality parts can make in circuitry.
Hell, two carefully chose Amprex 6dj8 tubes Circa 1962 in my Statement LSA Amp, even using the ridiculously expensive parts we use, 'transform' that amp into another realm.

There was a transmission commercial on TV years ago, touting the quality of parts that a company used...the 'stupid guy' trying to make the opposite point, says, 'Parts is Parts'! That always resonated with me.
Great comment Charles1dad.

Larry