Now the question is: how does one divorce the emotional attachment from the real audible differences? Well, you don't. I believe the phrase goes something like "music soothes the savage beast." Our listening experiences are emotional.

You say you want an honest critique and not a slap on the back. Whose standards are you going to trust. To quote another old saying (I'm full of old sayings tonight): one man's trash is another man's treasure. Honestly, who's to say what is the standard by which the sound should be judged.

Critiquing your own system or someone else's cannot be quantified like running the 40 yard dash - no stop watch. Moreover, this is not like auditioning for a band - either the notes are played correctly in time or not. There are no hard-fast numbers to report. Even if there are truly audible differences, how does one convey these differences in a meaningful, mutually understandable vernacular?

I'm not trying to argue against you, but I am simply posing the question of how this process of "honest evaluation" works. I don't know. Years ago, when I was less mature, if you said anything negative about my system we would not be on speaking terms. Today if you were to call my DIY baby ugly, it would be taken as a sign of friendship. I would appreciate the honesty. Is this a difference in my maturity level (being able to take the bad review) or is this my maturation in the hobby, for now I know there are lots of different tastes? Again, I don't know.

To be quite frank: if I build it, it sounds beautiful. It may have sonic flaws, it might not look pretty, but damnit I built it. Therefore, I automatically have a positive emotional bias to the way it sounds. Don't ever try to take that away.....(Insert virtual slap on back here)......Colin

You wrote: "Logical Fallacy; (ask the better half.) You can't assume because emotion is attached to any endeavor it is deRiguer unapproachable."

Taking a loose sociological interpertation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal: once a system is observed, the system is changed. Therefore, I would argue that there will ALWAYS be a bias. There is no way around it.

You wrote: "I have stated before in this forum; there is a reference standard. A system of components that, when people enter the room they know immediatelly that this sounds good. If that is true and I know we have all experienced that; then take that supposition to the logical conclusion"

I think this is where we differ in our approach. I would say there is no standard refernce system. Have you ever been in a bad mood and put your favorite piece of music on? You know, just to cheer yourself up? Sure, everyone has done this. So now, how do you remove emotion from a critical evaluation? Music stirs the emotions. And I would argue that the converse statement is true as well: Emotions stir the music.

Gotta go, the kids are crawling all over me.....Best regards, Colin

So maybe now would be a good time to play the Talking Heads, "Burning Down the House?"

I agree that when one hears a good system it's obvious the sound is quality. What makes it so and how does one put a number to it? That's a question that will never be answered, because it can't be. I guess one could also ask: What makes a beautiful woman beautiful? What makes a painting a classic? It's all in the eye (in our case - ear) of the beholder

Each culture has an ideal of beauty that is different from others. These ideals are not constant and change as the culture changes. To apply a set "audio reference" is, in my opinion, different for everyone. Audio reproduction would be considered ideal if were able to reproduce live performances. But what if the music being played is purely studio work or even totally electronic. Works such as these will never be heard "live." Or what if one's frame of reference is club music. Does my "reference" system need to produce ONLY volume and lots of bass?

The people that have 300B amps with large horns have truely great systems. Out of all the people that have stereos in their homes, what percentage have this kind of setup? 0.0001%? I agree a 300B with horns is about as close to perfections as one can get. There are obviously other ways there, but this is a good route. Now why is this combination that good? It IS that good, or I have been TOLD it is supposed to be that good. I suspect the answer lies somewhere between the two. No one goes to the local audio store and buys a 300B/horn system on the spur of the moment. There was lots of research (reading / listening) done prior to purchase. There was already an expectation of how it was going to sound.

I guess that's my point for right now. Before I even hear a system, I have an expectation of how it's going to perform. We all do it. As ojective as we think we are, we are subjective (emotional) creatures. There is no way around that. Earlier you mentioned the Bose Wave Radio. Have you heard one? What did you expect it to sound like? Did it sound like you expected? What about the Klipsch vs. Cerwin Vega sound. Which one do you expect to sound better? Why?

On to lighter things:
- I hope to get the parts ordered for the pre this week. I'm working on a surprise for everyone who builds, so don't tell
- Yes, I know what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal is (Thanks Dr. Bennett.) The idea was, errrrr, adapted by Social Sciences to imply that mearly observing a system changes the system. Really, I am not making this up.

......Until next time, Colin