Since you started posting here you keep making the same mistake. It's been explained to you several times but after debating it once or twice, you just ignore the explanation and then carry on repeating that same mistake. Then, when accused of repeating the same mistake, you respond by repeating the same mistake again???!
Again, the job of audio reproduction equipment is to reproduce the audio signal which has been produced. This is NOT a hard concept to grasp! Questions of how we perceive sound/music is relevant and part of sound science but is NOT relevant to audio reproduction equipment! It's ONLY relevant to what we put in that signal in the first place (the artists and engineers) and to what happens to the signal after reproduction. To measure the performance of audio equipment all we need is objective measurements, does the output signal match the input signal within the limits of audibility, that's it, no subjective aspects involved.
1, 2 & 3. You didn't answer my question, where do you get all this utter nonsense, do you just make it up yourself or do you use some audiophile nonsense database?
4. Fortunately, the facts do not depend on when, or even if, you ever agree with them. If you want to contradict the actual facts then no problem but you MUST back up your claims with something other than just your belief. Otherwise we have no option other than to treat your claims as pure ignorance based assumptions and complete nonsense/falsehoods and, if you keep doing it, as trolling!!
G
Since this a science forum and you guys insist on claims being backed by some proof, I have decided to stop you all even thinking of me as a troll.
For good.
It did take quite some time to obtain the required evidence, to learn how to present them, etc. They do not grow on trees, they can not be pulled off some reference from some AES paper - at least not easily. One has to make them by him/herself - using equipment one also, in most cases, can not obtain commercially, even if it does not mean building it entirely from scratch.
I will present evidence for each and every claim I ever made - along with the required explanations. Some of the claims are so far fetched in minds of many among you - due to the limited understaning and lack of thinking outside of the box - to have labeled me a troll; - repeatedly so.
An analogy - cars this time. Suppose I wanted to design a sport supercar, something in - broadly speaking - category a la Ferrari etc.
I would NEVER go and study - in the first place, other than not to "reinvent" or use any already patented solutions, etc - how did a particular problem got solved by Ferrari, Koenigsberg, Lamborghini, Zonda, etc - but would instead set myself the following goals :
- how much acceleration from nil to xy - and so on
- how much decceleration in a SAFE mode
- how much sustained acceleration in a curve
- how much ....
- autonomy radius required
- max speed attainable
etc ... - resulting most probably in different solutions to the known ones offering appreciably improved performance, simply because being driven by the best attainable performance - cost be damned.
Quite sure, some of the new solutions found this way could be trickled down to normal everyday cars, benefiting more people and making car transport better and safer in the forseeable future.
Remember - Ferrari got him/itself an arch nemeseis by dismissing and ridiculing the proposed modifications to Ferrari cars by Ferruccio Lamborghini ... Should he had accepted the well meant modifications and him as an employee and/or a partner, both companies should not have to use the very same roads for testing, encountering themselves on the road on a daily basis...