In Reply to: RE: "That does not mean there are no differences, but the scale certainly changes. " posted by Tony Lauck on June 19, 2010 at 11:15:12:
Sorry :).
I DO agree that if one adopts a "good enough" approach they may end up with a system that is not good enough. I may even agree that if a difference cannot EASILY pass a blind A/B test, that it is not "sonically significant." But if a difference consistently fails a rigorous A/B test, well within the margin for error, we're not dealing with the insignificant, we're dealing with the inaudible. Is it possible that a distortion could exist at an inaudible level, and exactly the same distortion could be repeated in other components in the system until it became audible? Sure. Unlikely, but possible. So I suppose, at the extreme, I even agree with that.
What I disagree with is the notion that this problems are most often mitigated through audiophile obsessiveness. Blindly pursuing subjective "quality" can only eliminate insignificant problems by chance, and the biggest problem, of course, is the subjective part. MOST obsessive audiophile systems I've heard, and I've heard a bunch, had significant problems as a direct result of the subjectivists' ethos. More often than not, it is an excessive warmth that the audiophile considered "musical" but was definitely not an accurate reproduction of the material. on occasion, it is the opposite: an etched, edgy high end - nothing but exaggeration and harshness, really - that was being heard as "detail" by the audiophile in love with the system.
And these characteristics are deliberately engineered into many audiophile components.
There's nothing wrong with loving any of the above, of course, though I think such love is often fickle and a major cause of all the shifting and "upgrading" of audiophile systems. In these systems, in these homes, I often hear the most dramatic sound, but not often the best. The best I usually hear in the control rooms of engineers with really good ears and a really good understanding of their systems. YMMV. And by the way, if A sounds like B and B sounds like C, but C does not sound like A, the test was not only not rigorous, it was deeply flawed.
P
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Disagreed - Phelonious Ponk 05:01:04 06/27/10 (2)
- RE: Disagreed - Tony Lauck 06:30:40 06/27/10 (1)
- RE: Disagreed - Phelonious Ponk 17:15:16 06/27/10 (0)