In Reply to: RE: Thanks for your editorials on SS posted by Jim Austin on November 3, 2017 at 14:27:46:
> > Are you suggesting that MQA's listening evaluations need to be held to a higher standard than, say, your own loudspeaker reviews? < <
Hi Jim,
You bring up a good point. Let's use loudspeaker reviews as an example. Suppose I said that I had designed a new loudspeaker and all of the new technology was patented and covered by NDAs. I would give you vague "hand-waving" explanations of how it worked, but not supply any real details. I would invent new term to replace old ones. Instead of "frequency response", I would refer to it as "perceived spectral density". Instead of "sensitivity", I would refer to it as "transductional coupling factor". Instead of using dBSPL with 20 microPascals as a 0dB reference level to describe the frequency response, I gave it to you in phons, but left that information off the graph used. And so forth.
Then when you wanted to review it, I would only let you listen to it in demonstrations which I had set up. I would have a room with my "new technology" loudspeakers and compare them against some other highly regarded loudspeaker. Maybe I would even let you choose the brand and model of loudspeaker.
But even though both systems were playing music from the exact same digital audio source files, I wouldn't tell you what electronics (eg, DAC, preamp, power amp, power cables, interconnect cables, speaker cables, equipment racks, footers, AC mains conditioners, or anything else about the signal chain feeding either pair of loudspeakers) were in use. I would give demonstrations at audio shows like this, and even only allow you to review it the way I set it up.
Would you consider reviewing loudspeakers this way? If so, how valid do you think the results would be?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Thanks for your editorials on SS - Charles Hansen 11/3/1715:01:59 11/3/17 (7)
- RE: Thanks for your editorials on SS - Doug Schneider 15:06:37 11/3/17 (6)
- I've heard things you people wouldn't believe. - Krav Maga 21:57:45 11/3/17 (5)
- Can't view your post - Charles Hansen 18:47:19 11/4/17 (4)
- RE: Can't view your post - Krav Maga 22:45:10 11/4/17 (3)
- Thanks! - Charles Hansen 01:14:19 11/5/17 (2)
- RE: Thanks! - Krav Maga 09:59:54 11/5/17 (1)
- OMG! - Charles Hansen 01:15:19 11/8/17 (0)