Originally Posted by nick_charles
I really have only a few substantive gripes with the article, which of course do not reflect on the translation.
1. A stylistic point, I am without a doubt somewhat on the skeptical side , but boy are those chaps absolutely certain of their case. The tenor is very much this is how it is let us demonstrate to you gullible fools. In terms of actual evidence this is a minor issue, the evidence is there or not, but it is confrontational and this can alienate even slightly sympathetic readers.
2. The graphs, sorry, I just cannot read them, so I do not know what is happening at 20K, 80k or 120K. Similarly I do not care if something is rolled off at 120K but I do want to know how rolled off it is at 20K, even if it is
3. Listening tests, it is one thing to assert that a difference may or may not be audible in a casual internet forum but for a published article unless you provide support from other reputable sources you really should support your case with emprical tests, blind of course. A model is just a model and even smart chaps can get it wrong, Like Julian Dunn who was forced to revisit his assertions after empirical evidence challenged his model.
Certainly < 1 db differences have been easily detected in some experiments so dismissing all small differences as unnoticeable out of hand is a bit previous. For instance noticing a 0.5db drop at 60db is much more likely than noticing it at 10db.
No reflection on the tranlastor of course
Just wanted to comment your answer. I too felt that the article had some weak points. However i imagine that if they wanted to cover absolutely all points of view the article would have been way longer, and it would have become a very specialized article.
1. The underlined sentence i do not understand it
And neither some of the following...
2. The graphs are very low quality, even in the original article scan. I asked them for better pictures of those graphs, before I started translating, or for a copy of the original article, in better quality, however they answered that they did not have it and they knew the same information about where it came from as i did. I can not do more than that, sorry.
If they only put that there is some roll off at 120K, 200k or 1M, it is because the differences are not relevant to those 10-20k, don't you think. Will it make a difference for you to know that instead of a difference of 0.05 dB there is one of 0.08 dB? When you listen to your music through your speakers/headphones will you think like "damn those 0.05 dB, they are making my ears bleed..."
3. About other reputable source could you give me an example of that? I get why you ask, though; but if we have to question every smart chap (Newton, Einstein, Faraday...), we would have to question the "not so smart" chaps, and consequently everyone in this world...
In that site, matrixhifi, they have loads of blind tests between different apparatus -amps, cd players, cables- The problem is that they are in Spanish...
At the moment i do not feel like translating more texts for a while, however I will read them again and choose one or two most relevant tests that some people like you might want to read.
As a final note, i decided to translate it an add it because I believe it covers more relevant aspects than most that has been written on this forums.