Establishing a common analog listening bias

Thanks Viridian. I found your fourth post and get your point. You don't think it is a good idea to create a list of recordings that we could use as a common basis for discussion. However, to Dertonarm you wrote: "And a really bad try at that." I thought he gave it a good try even if the idea is flawed for the reasons you stated. The thread did generate some good recommendations.

I do like the idea of sharing recommendations of good recordings with other members of the forum.

Dear Peterayer: Of course that Dertonarm idea is very good and IMHO Viridian maybe don't understand in deep the whole subject of that " tool ".

I posted an example of what dertonarm means in the thread:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1246451558&openflup&93&4#93

here his answer:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1246451558&openflup&96&4#96

The importance on Dertonarm idea ( not to often I coincide with D. ) is that we can comunicate on audiophile terms using the same " language " because it is the best path that you, Viridian , me or any one else could know what each one of us are " hearing " and what we really want to comunicate and that this " comunication " be fully in understand for everyone.
With out that common listening bias we are surrounded by uncertainty on what each one of us is talking about.

Anyway, Dertonarm attemp was a good one that has not success because IMHO the people don't understand very well his meaning and the importance for all of us of that meaning.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.

It is - apparently - very difficult to establish any kind of "reference standard" (this is not meant to be taken in as "quality" here!) in a subject which is so highly individual and burden with taste, preference and emotion.
Some may even fear such a benchmark being established for whatever reason.
I thought it would be a good one, following the paths Harry Pearson laid out with his list of preferred test records in "the absolu!e sound" almost 3 decades ago.
To have some kind of common ground to return to and to compare things could bring a much better understanding of each other's sonic picture and set-up while communicating about the very sonics in virtual cyberspace.
What I missed however was a constructive counter-proposal.
Especially from the most opposing "critics".
But then constructiveness seems a rare bird anyway these days in "audiophile communication".
Often it is not the message which provokes opposition, but the mere personality of the messenger...;-) .....
I for one still think we missed just another chance to fortify and clarify a part of our communication regarding our passion.

Viridian, while I do not share your opinion nor would say that you understood my proposal correctly (neither in intend nor content), I agree - with the experience of the past year here on Audiogon... - that there is hardly any intention to agree no matter how obvious a given thing/concept/consequence may be.
In reverse it rather seems that the all present chance and option to deny out of personal preferences and intentions is an omnipresent force in audiophile online discussions. A force few can resist to use. Somehow haunted by the ghost of Mephistofeles who claimed and named himself the "spirit of negation".

Dertonarm,
I, for one, appreciate your efforts in this thread and was hoping that it would lead to some kind of list that we could use to discuss sonics and systems. However, the thread died about a year and a half ago. Why not tally the results, make a list and use it as originally intended? Call it Dertonarm's List or something.

Those members who are not interested, need not be involved. The Audiogon Analog forum could be the host location for discussion. Perhaps a list of 25 or so currently available LPs is sufficient, or ten LPs in each of three or four genres.

What do you think?