Quote Originally Posted by Geoffcin
As always your generalizing and provide no real facts to back up your argument. Audio testing is done with precision measuring equipment, listening with ears. Poor specs often mean that the item offers some type of idiosyncratic behavior, a'la SET with it's wildly non-linear response, and added second order harmonics. That people love this type of gear does not render the measurements meaningless. Far from it! It renders the measurements as a testament to how idiosyncratic peoples opinions of good quality sound is.

As always, YOU miss the point. NOTHING I posted indicates that precision measuring equipment is not used by those doing the measuring (like JA).
FACT: JA measured the AR VSi60 integrated amp with "precision" equipment, and found that the unit only measured average. HOWEVER, when JA actually listened to the unit driving the Acapella High Violoncello II ($80,000 speaker), he found that ONLY the average measuring AR amp produced great sound with the expensive speaker. NOW, you have to ask yourself if you buy audio equipment to listen to it or to measure it!

FACT: You yourself have a tube unit, and I am sure many comparably priced ss units measure better.

Fact: JA's measurements of the Harbeth M40.1 speaker (at $11,995) were
better than those of the Audio Note AN-E/SPeHE ($7,600). HOWEVER, JA actually preferred the Audio Note speaker when he listened to both in AD's home. The Harbeth unit sits in Class A, and the better sounding Audio Note unit sits in class B.

FACT: most ss units, and, yes, from the VERY beginning of ss equipment, measured superior to tube units (in almost every measurement , meaningless to actual sound quality IMO). Almost every serious audio critic now admits that the early ss sound was HORRIBLE, and, when ss was introduced, tubes were far better.

FACT: We were told by measurements that digital was superior to analogue FROM THE VERY MOMENT digital was introduced. Few would now contend that early digital was superior to analogue. At the recent CAS, NOT ONE of the salesmen I asked preferred the current digital sound to the best current analogue sound, despite the fact that ss continues to measure better than analogue. This was true even the rooms which only had digital equipment (like in the Audio Note room!

Some comments from Michael Fremer in the recent Stereophile: comparing a Pantera album on vinyl to a 24-bit/192kHz file, "the audience listened to selections from both the CD and LP editions, and even from where we sat on stage, BEHIND the speakers, it was clear to us and to EVERYONE in the audience that the LP KILLED the CD. Despite CD's supposed greater dynamic range than LP, the CD had been dynamically 'smashed' in the current fashion, while Doug had cut the vinyl to fully express the hi-rez master's wide dynamic range But, in addition to that, the vinyl did the lifelike things vinly does that, in my opinion, CDs just don't do." Fremer adds: " The human ear is far superior to any measurement device in determining the totality of what's heard. Yet the measurements crowd has held sway, and look at what's happened to sound."

15 to 20 years ago, if you went to an Audio show, most rooms used digital and ss. Today a HUGE number use analogue and/or tubes (and ALL of those producing the most pleasing AND most accurate sound IMO). I am far from being alone in this opinion. As I factually said: thousands of factors are at work in reproducing sound, and the current set of measurements simply fail to measure factors that real humans consider most important in sound quality.