Quote:
Anaxilus said:
/img/forum/go_quote.gif
You venture incorrectly. As for DBT, yeah it sounds like the same predictable results as every other DBT around here so it won't be any surprise at all. But yeah let's keep it off the thread. If you want to use psychology to explain why someone would buy the Clip+ as their first 'audiophile' DAP expecting the incredible audio performance supported by your measurements only to be disappointed enough to seek out other sources, best of luck. Does psychology apply when someone looks at a favorable graph and hears it to sound better? Of course not.....
If someone tells me the DBA-02, Monster MD, M50 sounds the same from a stand alone Clip+ as it does from a Clip+ amped then I have to say its time to put down the calculator and stop listening w/ your eyes. The difference is in detail and resolution, not coloration, fyi. I wish your data supported my hearing so I could use one $30 DAP for everything and save the time, effort and money. Don't forget, we are talking a part of the anatomy that people have been using their whole lives that has evolved over millions of years. The data is useful as a tool but claiming any sort of epistemological certitude to make people rethink how they hear is a bit like putting the cart before the horse.
It's easy for anyone to claim we can hear all sorts of things that evade measurement. It's all too close to the statement: "Prove God exists (or not)!" And I'm honestly not trying to open that can of worms as it turns into page after page of heated posts that ultimately lead nowhere new. So, if you prefer, I retract my "psychological" comment.
My main gripe is when people state their own subjective opinions as fact. For example it's not at all uncommon to read something in a review like:
"Player A has much greater bass extension and impact than Player B"
To someone surfing the web trying to decide what player to buy, the above implies they too will hear much better, deeper, more impressive bass from Player A than from Player B. But often the opposite turns out to be true or lots of other people can't tell them apart. Or Player A had the "Mega Bass EQ" function turned on and Player B didn't. Or the person in question is an undisclosed bass head that likes obscene amounts of bass. Etc. Etc.
At least with objective measurements, you can actually measure--in repeatable and verifiable ways--the bass extension, low frequency distortion, maximum low frequency output, etc. of Player A vs Player B. That's all I'm mainly trying to do in my review of the Clip+. So at least for those curious about the more
factual differences between players, they have more information to go on.
I'd be much happier if people would stick to comments more like:
"
Given my headphones, EQ settings, and taste in music, I prefer the bass of Player A over Player B"
As, unless someone can back up their subjective claims with some basis in fact, it's
just their personal opinion. And "fact" can be properly done objective measurements, statistically valid surveys of large numbers of people, or valid blind listening tests done by them or someone else.
Your comments above about "detail" and "resolution" use words that mean different things (or little at all meaningful) to different people. It's like describing a certain wine to someone else with a few words of typical "wine lingo". Despite the elaborate language of wine buffs, you can often only get a vague impression across to the average person. They really need to taste it for themselves. And, as we all know, knowing what they're drinking--versus not knowing--can have a big impact on their perceptions.
So lacking some other practical objective way to compare products, I prefer objective measurements as at least a good starting point.
It's not unlike comparing the fuel economy and performance data of cars (data that's typically confirmed in multiple independent road tests). Does it describe the entire car? Not at all. Does it accurately describe what sort of performance and fuel economy you can expect if you buy that car? Yes it does. Is it generally useful? Most would say yes.
If I like fast cars, and want to know if I should trade my 3 year old Porsche in on the latest version, it's incredibly useful to find out the new car has virtually the same 0-60 time, skidpad performance, gas mileage, etc. as the one I already own. Or that Porsche has made dramatic improvements.
It's much less useful to read a subjective review of someone who's driven the latest car and calls it "wicked fast". Fast relative to what? And by how much? And in what ways? Top speed? Off the line? The 3 year old car might be just as "wicked fast" but I'd never know from reading the review I'd just have the impression the new car is worth buying--even if it wasn't in my case.
Why does audio have to be so different to where many argue the numbers don't tell the whole story so they should be largely ignored, or can't be trusted, etc? Why do people get so defensive about factual data?
