Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 70
  1. #1
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    552

    Well, whaddaya know!

    Last November, I posted an excerpt from a review by Michael Fremer of Stereophile that seemed to generate much spirited conversation among the Audio Review regulars. The discussion soon degenerated into two camps: "$4200 is too much to pay for a mid-level amplifier" and "$4200 is not too much to pay for a mid-level amplifier". I would now like to quote Art Dudley from the new issue of Stereophile:

    "People who lack our enthusiasm for recorded music and exceptional playback gear delight in criticizing high-end audio as fraudulent. I don't share that point of view. We are crippled not so much by fraud as by a bit of greed, a bit of sloppy, cost-ineffective engineering, and a lack of willingness on the part of all of us to speak up and say, 'I'm sorry, but an interconnect is not, under any conditions, worth as much as a new car.' For me, that lack of willingness ends today." He also states; "It's time to call bullshjt on $30,000 amplifiers that would be priced to sell for $10,000 tops, if not for their massive, jewelry-like casework."

    It's heartening to me to see a reviewer from the same mag as Fremer take a stand against greed. I'll be curious to see how this goes over with some of Stereophile's big-bucks advertisers.

    Your thoughts?

  2. #2
    Phila combat zone JoeE SP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,710
    I've always though very highly of Art Dudley.

    I for one would be quite interested in a "megabuck" amplifier in "plain Jane" casework. Buying audio jewelry has never really appealed to me.

    I too have wondered how they justify cables that cost more than a good amplifier. Am I missing something?

    A good example of this is Stratos amplifiers. They are repackaged Symphonic Line. The price is very different.
    ARC SP9 MKIII, VPI HW19, Rega RB300
    Marcof PPA1, Shure, Sumiko, Ortofon carts, Yamaha DVD-S1800
    Behringer UCA222, Emotiva XDA-2, HiFimeDIY
    Accuphase T101, Teac V-7010, Nak ZX-7. LX-5, Behringer DSP1124P
    Front: Magnepan 1.7, DBX 223SX, 2 modified Dynaco MK3's, 2, 12" DIY TL subs (Pass El-Pipe-O) 2 bridged Crown XLS-402
    Rear/HT: Emotiva UMC200, Acoustat Model 1/SPW-1, Behringer CX2310, 2 Adcom GFA-545

  3. #3
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    355
    For God's sake, we need just a few blind listening tests to expose these extremely expensive units as consumer fraud.

  4. #4
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by tube fan View Post
    For God's sake, we need just a few blind listening tests to expose these extremely expensive units as consumer fraud.
    Many "audiophiles" don't believe in blind tests. They always find fault with the methodology, particularly when they don't show any audiable difference.

  5. #5
    Phila combat zone JoeE SP9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,710
    Charging more than something is worth does not qualify as fraud. It doesn't however say much for the purchaser.

    Making unfounded claims does qualify as fraud. To my knowledge none of the overpriced "audio jewelry" manufacturers make any fraudulent claims.
    ARC SP9 MKIII, VPI HW19, Rega RB300
    Marcof PPA1, Shure, Sumiko, Ortofon carts, Yamaha DVD-S1800
    Behringer UCA222, Emotiva XDA-2, HiFimeDIY
    Accuphase T101, Teac V-7010, Nak ZX-7. LX-5, Behringer DSP1124P
    Front: Magnepan 1.7, DBX 223SX, 2 modified Dynaco MK3's, 2, 12" DIY TL subs (Pass El-Pipe-O) 2 bridged Crown XLS-402
    Rear/HT: Emotiva UMC200, Acoustat Model 1/SPW-1, Behringer CX2310, 2 Adcom GFA-545

  6. #6
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeE SP9 View Post
    Charging more than something is worth does not qualify as fraud. It doesn't however say much for the purchaser.

    Making unfounded claims does qualify as fraud. To my knowledge none of the overpriced "audio jewelry" manufacturers make any fraudulent claims.
    What IS fraudulent are the claims of "reviewers" like MF that every new horribly expensive component is WAY, WAY better than anything that came before. Many "reviewers" are no more "golden eared listeners" than a man off the street. Blind tests would reveal that most of these golden eared reviewers are frauds. Yes, of course, IMO.

  7. #7
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by markw View Post
    Many "audiophiles" don't believe in blind tests. They always find fault with the methodology, particularly when they don't show any audiable difference.
    I've always suspected that the real reason that some audiophile writers don't like blind tests is, rather than faulty methodology, that blind tests would expose them as less-than-golden-eared. Their reputations and livelihoods depend on the audiophile community trusting their aural acumen, and without that trust they're just ordinary writers. Let's face it: there's no way that 50-60+ ears are going to pick up the details that they used to. As long as they don't get involved in double-blinds, they can maintain the facade.
    Last edited by RoyY51; 08-04-2012 at 09:33 AM.

  8. #8
    Super Moderator Site Moderator JohnMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Central Ohio
    Posts
    6,307
    Quote Originally Posted by markw View Post
    Many "audiophiles" don't believe in blind tests. They always find fault with the methodology, particularly when they don't show any audiable difference.

    Back in the day when audio shops had walls of speakers sitting on multiple shelves with a switchbox in the center you had the opportunity to compare several pairs of speakers. I remember hearing differences but I continued listening to the speaker to decide if the differences were a good thing or a bad thing. Yes you can hear differences but can you tell which will be satisfying in the long term?

    I can hear differences in wires when switched back and forth. I have to listen to them for a few days before I know if they are compatible in my system with my ears. I bought a pair of IC's once that sounded incredible at first with female vocals and bass. The brightness of the cables that emphasized female vocalists slowly grew fatiguing.

    In my opinion DBT might be good for narrowing down a choice but more listening is needed for long term satisfaction. Yes and I know my examples are not true DBTs but my thoughts on quick comparisons.
    JohnMichael
    Vinyl Rega Planar 2, Incognito rewire, Deepgroove subplatter, ceramic bearing, Michell Technoweight, Rega 24V motor, TTPSU, FunkFirm Achroplat platter, Michael Lim top and bottom braces, 2 Rega feet and one RDC cones. Grado Sonata, Moon 110 LP phono.
    Digital
    Sony SCD-XA5400ES SACD/cd SID mat, Marantz SA 8001
    Int. Amp Krell S-300i
    Speaker
    Monitor Audio RS6
    Cables
    AQ SPKR and AQ XLR and IC

  9. #9
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyY51 View Post
    I've always suspected that the real reason that some audiophile writers don't like blind tests is, rather than faulty methodology, that blind tests would expose them as less-than-golden-eared. Their reputations and livelihoods depend on the audiophile community trusting their aural acumen, and without that trust they're just ordinary writers. Let's face it: there's no way that 50-60+ ears are going to pick up the details that they used to. As long as they don't get involved in double-blinds, they can maintain the facade.
    I tend to agree. I think I hear differences among tubes, opamps, and even cables, but it's only uncertainly..

    I'll grant that DBTs can have severe limitations depending on the test design; ultimately they can only prove that differences can't reliably be heard under the conditions of the test.

    But given you can, with care, select an excellent sounding system for say, $3000, how else could you justify a $100k+ system if not for differences at the very limit of perception? And having spent $100k, (or any amount more than you could sensibly afford), you don't want to believe that DBTs prove that you can actually hear a difference.

  10. #10
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    If I understand how any "blind" test works it subjects the items to the same testing methodology but eliminates any pre-conceived bias on the part of the reviewer. Most companies and professional reviewers do not like them because it can expose the weakness of both the product and the reviewer. To the extent a blind test can eliminate a reviewers bias' then I think they should be welcome in the industry.

    A truism in this hobby is that individual tastes and listening preferences will vary. Why would we expect that to be any different with people who are "expert" reviewers/listeners. They most likely can identify subtle differences in gear in part because of the amount of critical listening they do. I doubt that their listening expertise is significantly different than the average audiophile or audio enthusiast. Their main strength is their ability to describe what they hear. As you become aware of their writing style and methods then you can probably get an idea of whether the gear they are testing is in line with your personal preferences.
    NAD D3020
    Denon 2910
    Denon DMD 1000
    MSB Link DAC III
    Von Schweikert VR2
    NAD 7240PE
    NAD 5240
    Hughes AK 100
    Tascam 122
    Technics SL 1700
    Rogers BBC Monitors LS3/6

  11. #11
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    I don't see blind testing as an end-all and be-all for determining preferences.

    I see it more as determining differences between two items. All to often one hear about "night and day" differences between two disparately priced units and this is a good way to see just how defined that difference is. If one uses such hyperbole, it should stand up to a DBT, no?

    I remember back in "the day", blind tests were useful in helping people determine which speakers they really liked as opposed to what they wanted to like, and it didn't always wind up being the more expensive, better reviewed ones. But, human nature being what it was, many times they went for the more expensive big name speaker. Gotta love human nature...

  12. #12
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by markw View Post
    Many "audiophiles" don't believe in blind tests. They always find fault with the methodology, particularly when they don't show any audiable difference.
    Audiophiles are not the only ones who find fault with the methodology and the numerous assumption sets.

    A Historical Overview of Stereophonic Blind Testing

  13. #13
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat View Post
    Audiophiles are not the only ones who find fault with the methodology and the numerous assumption sets.

    A Historical Overview of Stereophonic Blind Testing
    They sure make the biggest stink about it. I guess they really don't trust their own ears, at least when they can't have their eyes to validate their choices.. Egos are fragile I guess.

    Drug companies sure seem to go by them.

  14. #14
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by markw View Post
    They sure make the biggest stink about it.
    Some find pseudo science and misapplication of science misleading.

    Quote Originally Posted by markw View Post
    Drug companies sure seem to go by them.
    There are significant differences in the way drug trials are conducted and musical playback systems are evaluated:

    1. The drugs are administered in exactly the same way they are normally taken. That is most certainly not the case with the majority of audio tests. In the medical world, there are no additional devices added to the the test chain or Rube Goldberg-esque "simulations" used to *prove* a point. Having said that, I linked to a true online DBT using randomly generated samples of computer-based music and posted my results.

    2. Training has zero effect on drug trials. It is neither desired nor valuable.

    3. Medical blind studies include a segment of participants who get placebo.

    I have been an Audio Research fan since I first heard the SP-3a and D-76 in 1974 and as a result, have owned one or more of their components since 1981. If the result of Tube Fan's blind testing *proves* there is nothing better sounding on the market today than thirty year old ARC models, then I find that to be indicative of failure on the part of his testing methodology.

    Speaking of which, I have asked him on two occasions to detail his testing methodology and he has declined in both instances.

  15. #15
    Forum Regular YBArcam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    150
    Personally, when comparing two components, I like to have each in my system for a month or even longer. This allows time for me to adapt to the sound, to get used to it, and to have it ingrained in my memory. Once I've done this for a month or longer, a switch up becomes much more striking because I'm used to the previous sound. The differences between the components become more obvious.

    The problem with DBTs is that this setting is not a natural way to listen to music. The frequent changes cause confusion, and listeners are too focused in identifying small differences in sound, rather than listening to the whole. Our auditory memories are short, and this is cited as a reason for requiring quick changes between components. Unfortunately, you don't really get a sense of how something sounds by hearing it for a few seconds. As with learning anything, repeating the activity over and over allows it to sink in.

    With respect to mega buck gear, I recently did a big downgrade on my speakers and actually prefer the sound. I wasn't trying to get something better, just trying to save some cash while not losing much in terms of performance. Actually preferring the new speakers was a surprise.

    This drove the point home for me that cost is one factor, however there are two others: component matching, and listener preference. In my case, the new speakers were not better, but think they match my system and my preferences more.

    There is no doubt that the more you spend the better you will get. Better parts, better build. Up to a point this will likely have a positive impact on sound quality, but as we all know there is a point of diminishing returns and eventually what you begin paying for is less about sound and more about styling.
    Naim Nait 5i
    Naim CD5X
    Wharfedale Evo2-10
    Linn LP12
    Cambridge Audio 650P, and 550T
    LFD and Nordost cables

  16. #16
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    See?

    It seems that post four was a self-fufilling prophecy. IMNSHO, the greater the price disparity, the easier it should be to identify the different DUTs..

  17. #17
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by markw View Post
    IMNSHO, the greater the price disparity, the easier it should be to identify the different DUTs..
    I agree entirely. Have you ever seen a DBT between something like an Audio Research REF 610T and a NAD integrated?
    Last edited by E-Stat; 08-05-2012 at 12:53 PM.

  18. #18
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat View Post
    I agree entirely. Have you ever seen a DBT between something like an Audio Research REF 610T and a NAD integrated?
    No, but it would be interesting, assuming that both were of comparable power ratings and operated within their specified limits.

    Where I'd really like to see this is with cables and interconnects.

  19. #19
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by markw View Post
    Where I'd really like to see this is with cables and interconnects.
    How exactly would you carry out such a double blind test?

  20. #20
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    Ah, here come the pre-emptive excuses. ;-)

    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat View Post
    How exactly would you carry out such a double blind test?
    You know, but you just don't want to admit that it's as simple as that and most likely very few people would be able to differentiate between the two in a brief listening period,

    And, "brief" is the qualifying factor here. .The greater the price disparity, the less time should be needed to differentiate between them.

    As to how, it ain't that difficult if you use common sense and honest people.

    But, this will be my last post on this subject. As some newbies might not be aware, several years ago, Mtry was banned for supporting DBT's here. Heaven knows, you can trash religon, countries and almost anything but call audiophiles reliance on pure subjective impressions into question and you're gone, like yesterdays train.

    wotta site ;-)
    Last edited by markw; 08-05-2012 at 02:52 PM.

  21. #21
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by markw View Post
    You know, but you just don't want to admit that it's as simple as that and most likely very few people would be able to differentiate between the two in a brief listening period,
    What I know is that performing a true DBT without compromising the signal in any number of uncontrolled ways is impossible. Here's a great example of profound ignorance.

    "Well controlled test"

    Scroll down to interconnects and read the test methodology.

    "You do not need any test equipment. You can use your preamplifier to do the switching. You will need a Y connector so you can connect the two interconnects under test (let's call them "A" and "B") to the same component -- probably your CD player.

    Note that the Y connector is the same for both interconnects, so even if you believe that the Y connector somehow corrupts the sound (they don't), the same corrupted signal will pass through both interconnects so the test will still be valid. Remember that we are only listening for any difference between the interconnects, and you can hear that difference (if present) on any signal, even a corrupted and distorted one. Inexpensive Y connectors can be obtained from Radio Shack. If you want audiophile grade Y connectors, Sound Connections International (phone 813-948-2907) sells beautifully built, gold plated units at reasonable prices.

    Connect one end of interconnects "A" and "B" to the Y connector. Do so for both channels.

    Connect the other end of interconnect "A" to one of your preamp line level inputs (such as "CD"). Connect the other end of interconnect "B" to your tape monitor input. Do so for both channels. Be sure you don't reverse the channels. All line level inputs on a preamp are identical, so it doesn't matter which ones you use.

    You could connect the interconnects to any other line level input on your preamp instead of Tape. But the tape monitor inputs allow to switch back and forth between interconnects by toggling the tape monitor switch instead of having to press different input switches, or rotating a knob. Toggling a single switch is more convenient and makes it easy to do the test 'blind' so you don't know which interconnect you are listening to. Doing the test blind is desirable so your personal prejudices don't influence the test results...

    The test is done by simply listening to music while switching back and forth between the two sets of interconnects as much as you wish. The idea is to try to hear any difference between the interconnects. There is no time limit, you may switch whenever you wish and take as long as you want.

    The test is easiest to do if you have a remote control preamp so you can sit in your listening chair and simply push the Tape Monitor button on the remote whenever you want to switch to the other interconnect. If you don't have a remote control preamp, then you may need an assistant to switch for you whenever you signal them to do so.

    To do the test blind, press the tape button several times quickly so you get confused and don't know which interconnect you are listening to. If your preamp has an indicator light showing what you are listening to, then either put a piece of black electrical tape over the light or close your eyes while you do the test.

    After doing this test, you will discover that all the hype surrounding interconnects is just that. The fact is that all well designed interconnects sound identical."


    Seems reasonable, right? Where do I start with the obvious flaws? What happens in the real world when you employ a Y-adapter connected to the two cables is that now with the grounds connected, the electrical characteristics of both cables is now present at the end of either cable! What you end up comparing is BOTH CABLES to BOTH CABLES.

    Let me say that again if you missed it: You are now comparing BOTH CABLES to BOTH CABLES!

    Not to mention that tape monitor loops typically have active buffer circuits which necessarily alter the playing field. Higher performance cabling most often has a lower dielectric constant which interacts less with all sorts of devices like CD players, preamps, power amps, EQs, etc. Buffering eliminates that other real world aspect. Understandably, you most certainly can't tell the difference between the summed (and worsened characteristics) of both cables for either choice! I just happen to have a capacitance meter and some Y adapters and verified this behavior for myself.

    FAIL

    ABX cable boxes necessarily share the same fatal flaw along with adding quadruple the number of jacks and adding TWO additional cables at either end of the box in order to make the comparison. The addition of added contacts, switches also can negate differences in cable shielding which can affect HF response. You dumb down the results in addition to comparing BOTH to BOTH. Real science does not conduct test with multiple uncontrolled variables that totally negate the purpose behind the test itself! When you use boxes to compare amps, the situation gets worse. Now you are combining the feedback loops of both amps to really confuse the issue.

    Contrary to our clueless engineer's assertions, the ONLY WAY to do it is via a single blind test where an assistant changes the cables outside of view of the person taking the test.

    Quote Originally Posted by markw View Post
    And, "brief" is the qualifying factor here. .The greater the price disparity, the less time should be needed to differentiate between them.
    Yes and no. What these clowns fail to understand is the cable becomes an active part of the system directly interacting with the devices to which they are attached. Some gear - good and bad alike - is more sensitive to cable metric variations.

    Quote Originally Posted by markw View Post
    As to how, it ain't that difficult if you use common sense and honest people.
    Sorry, that's just not true for anyone who understands the issues (and measure them) as I have described.

  22. #22
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnMichael View Post
    Back in the day when audio shops had walls of speakers sitting on multiple shelves with a switchbox in the center you had the opportunity to compare several pairs of speakers. I remember hearing differences but I continued listening to the speaker to decide if the differences were a good thing or a bad thing. Yes you can hear differences but can you tell which will be satisfying in the long term?

    I can hear differences in wires when switched back and forth. I have to listen to them for a few days before I know if they are compatible in my system with my ears. I bought a pair of IC's once that sounded incredible at first with female vocals and bass. The brightness of the cables that emphasized female vocalists slowly grew fatiguing.

    In my opinion DBT might be good for narrowing down a choice but more listening is needed for long term satisfaction. Yes and I know my examples are not true DBTs but my thoughts on quick comparisons.
    I don't believe in short term blind listening tests. When I am comparing units blind, I take several weeks. I use short blind tests to show those who claim that they can hear VAST differences between components (or wines) that they cannot even
    consistently identify their "vastly" better unit.

  23. #23
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat View Post
    Some find pseudo science and misapplication of science misleading.


    There are significant differences in the way drug trials are conducted and musical playback systems are evaluated:

    1. The drugs are administered in exactly the same way they are normally taken. That is most certainly not the case with the majority of audio tests. In the medical world, there are no additional devices added to the the test chain or Rube Goldberg-esque "simulations" used to *prove* a point. Having said that, I linked to a true online DBT using randomly generated samples of computer-based music and posted my results.

    2. Training has zero effect on drug trials. It is neither desired nor valuable.

    3. Medical blind studies include a segment of participants who get placebo.

    I have been an Audio Research fan since I first heard the SP-3a and D-76 in 1974 and as a result, have owned one or more of their components since 1981. If the result of Tube Fan's blind testing *proves* there is nothing better sounding on the market today than thirty year old ARC models, then I find that to be indicative of failure on the part of his testing methodology.

    Speaking of which, I have asked him on two occasions to detail his testing methodology and he has declined in both instances.
    I've explained my blind testing method many times: my wife or a friend changes units (or doesn't change units), and I listen to dozens of vinyl records and rate each record on a 100 point scale. The best unit (yes, of course, FOR ME) is the one that produced the highest scores on those records. Not hard at all! BTW, NOTHING I heard at the 2010, 2011, or 2012 CASs produced higher scores than my humble system: Audio Research SP8 preamp (or Mystere Ca-21 preamp), Audio Research D-70 Mark two amp, VPI Scoutmaster tt, Benz Ruby 3 cartridge, Auditorium 23 tranny (or Bob's CineMag tranny), Audio Research PH3 phono (or Fosgate phono), and Dunlavy SCIV speakers (or Fulton Js).

  24. #24
    Super Moderator Site Moderator JohnMichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Central Ohio
    Posts
    6,307
    Quote Originally Posted by tube fan View Post
    I don't believe in short term blind listening tests. When I am comparing units blind, I take several weeks. I use short blind tests to show those who claim that they can hear VAST differences between components (or wines) that they cannot even
    consistently identify their "vastly" better unit.


    But please answer to all who have asked, how do you conduct your blind listeneing tests?
    JohnMichael
    Vinyl Rega Planar 2, Incognito rewire, Deepgroove subplatter, ceramic bearing, Michell Technoweight, Rega 24V motor, TTPSU, FunkFirm Achroplat platter, Michael Lim top and bottom braces, 2 Rega feet and one RDC cones. Grado Sonata, Moon 110 LP phono.
    Digital
    Sony SCD-XA5400ES SACD/cd SID mat, Marantz SA 8001
    Int. Amp Krell S-300i
    Speaker
    Monitor Audio RS6
    Cables
    AQ SPKR and AQ XLR and IC

  25. #25
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by YBArcam View Post
    Personally, when comparing two components, I like to have each in my system for a month or even longer. This allows time for me to adapt to the sound, to get used to it, and to have it ingrained in my memory. Once I've done this for a month or longer, a switch up becomes much more striking because I'm used to the previous sound. The differences between the components become more obvious.

    The problem with DBTs is that this setting is not a natural way to listen to music. The frequent changes cause confusion, and listeners are too focused in identifying small differences in sound, rather than listening to the whole. Our auditory memories are short, and this is cited as a reason for requiring quick changes between components. Unfortunately, you don't really get a sense of how something sounds by hearing it for a few seconds. As with learning anything, repeating the activity over and over allows it to sink in.

    With respect to mega buck gear, I recently did a big downgrade on my speakers and actually prefer the sound. I wasn't trying to get something better, just trying to save some cash while not losing much in terms of performance. Actually preferring the new speakers was a surprise.

    This drove the point home for me that cost is one factor, however there are two others: component matching, and listener preference. In my case, the new speakers were not better, but think they match my system and my preferences more.

    There is no doubt that the more you spend the better you will get. Better parts, better build. Up to a point this will likely have a positive impact on sound quality, but as we all know there is a point of diminishing returns and eventually what you begin paying for is less about sound and more about styling.
    As I have said many times, I use long term blind listening tests. quick changes mean nothing.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •