[Magick Man]

Is this the same Guttenberg who on a so-called "review" on this forum said that he eschews lossless codecs because they--i forget the exact phrase--end up making the soundstage flat?

I'm not sure, if you have evidence of that I'd like to see it.

 

[Lorspeaker]

when u buy a swiss watch ...or a german audi...eg
the salespro will explain to u the technical excellence and intricacies for your appreciation ...n hopefully opens your wallet.
Is that placebo.. these are actual technical achievements by professional engineers/craftsmen who tried to push the limits of technical possibility.
Question is how much are these "extras" worth to the target audience...to achieve a sale and ensure the company survives.
Will these "extras" sooth the ride over the next pothole...maybe its redundant on a rough road...
Part of the consumption is in the MIND, "i can afford it, u cant.." ..." wow its a ten speed gearbox.."..." did u hear  that sileeeence...?? " 

 
 
ps...fact is i bought a minimal cost of a car, the salesman just threw me the price and asked when i can sign on the dotted line..and look at me.
THe specs sheet was used as a roughpaper to calculate if i had busted my bank account.

 
 
By the way the d7000 is no placebo inspite of the shinnywoodcaps....the sound is terrrrrificccccc,
BEEGEEs' NIGHTs on BROADWAY...ooooo grovvvvingg in my head.
 
 
 
 

 

[Magick Man]

Exactly. I wish audio equipment was tested like cars are. Car and Driver, Motor Trend, etc. will post tests, and tell you that a car is junk, if it is junk, no matter the price tag.

Everyone's ears are physically different, and measurements don't always tell the whole story.

FWIW, let's not forget who recently blasted the UE10s completely out of the water, despite their stratospheric price tag.

 

[tmars78]

Quote:

Everyone's ears are physically different, and measurements don't always tell the whole story.
FWIW, let's not forget who recently blasted the UE10s completely out of the water, despite their stratospheric price tag.

I agree that they don't tell the whole story, but when something is junk, it is junk. If it measures terribly, you can't just say, "well I heard differently" especially when you know it was really, really expensive. I think people tend to do that so they don't have buyers remorse, or in a reviewers case, they don't piss off people who pay them. 

 

[Mauricio]

Once again, a straw-man.  Measurements are not meant to test or probe one's years.  Measurements are meant to test and probe electronic equipment.  For that purpose--and that's what we are talking about here--measurements can be supremely useful, if not authoritative.  Throwing this sad bit around is like saying that we cannot determine the performance of a BMW because everyone's driving ability is different.  Absurd, ain't it?

 

[Magick Man]

Once again, a straw-man.  Measurements are not meant to test or probe one's years.  Measurements are meant to test and probe electronic equipment.  For that purpose--and that's what we are talking about here--measurements can be supremely useful, if not authoritative.  Apples and oranges.

Except, as related directly to headphones, measurements aren't the same from one set of ears to another. :rolleyes:

Even testing models are different, check out the differences between Innerfidelity and Headroom's measurements sometime.

And no, that wasn't a straw man, do you actually know what a straw man is?

 

[Mauricio]

You are questioning the value of the testing of electronic equipment by throwing in the spanner of individual ear canals.  You are trying to discredit the former based on the latter.  In fact, the testing of electronic equipment requires the measured and the measuring equipment.  No ears or ear canals are involved at all.  Whether your or my ears are flawed or good is a separate and distinct question of whether the headphones/amp/source are flawed or good.  Of course, a measurement of, say, a DAC or headphone says nothing about the structure and quality of one's hearing or ear canal.  Duh!

 

[Magick Man]

I'm not speculating if a person's ears are flawed or good, what I'm saying is they're all different. Even the test dummies are different. Get a chance to look at those measurements yet?

And what you threw up just then is what we actually call a straw man, because I never questioned the value of testing audio equipment. I'm saying, as I've said all along, that a trusted reviewer's opinion is just as valuable as hard data. Both are necessary to give a complete picture.

 

[skamp]

I'm not sure, if you have evidence of that I'd like to see it.

Half a second of googling turned up this:

So while lossless audio compression (FLAC or Apple Lossless for example) can be "expanded" to produce an exact digital duplicate of the original audio stream, that's not necessarily the same thing as sounding exactly like an uncompressed WAV file or a CD. To my ears lossless files add a glare or edge to the music and flatten the soundstage. Please don't misunderstand, I think FLAC or Apple Lossless sound perfectly fine, just not on par with a CD, when played on a high-end audio system.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20029913-47.html

He lost all credibility with me right there.

 

[Magick Man]

I wouldn't say he's lost all credibility, but I think he's incorrect there.

 

[bellsprout]

what credibility?
Quote:

Half a second of googling turned up this:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20029913-47.html
He lost all credibility with me right there.

 

[skamp]

I wouldn't say he's lost all credibility, but I think he's incorrect there.

If I told you that there's a pink elephant outside my window while I'm typing this, would I have any credibility with you at all?

 

[Mkubota1]

One of my favorite quotes regarding 'audiophilia' comes from the founder of Stereophile, the late J. Gordon Holt.  Keep in mind, this is well before the Stereophile as we know it today:  
 
(1992) "Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. For the record: I never, ever claimed that measurements don't matter. What I said (and very often, at that) was, they don't always tell the whole story. Not quite the same thing."  http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi

 

[Magick Man]

If I told you that there's a pink elephant outside my window while I'm typing this, would I have any credibility with you at all?

Depends, I had some interesting times in college.

 

[Magick Man]

One of my favorite quotes regarding 'audiophilia' comes from the founder of Stereophile, the late J. Gordon Holt.  Keep in mind, this is well before the Stereophile as we know it today:  

(1992) "Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel. For the record: I never, ever claimed that measurements don't matter. What I said (and very often, at that) was, they don't always tell the whole story. Not quite the same thing."  
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi

Agree 100%