Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site edison.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!edison!dca
From: dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tighter bass and edgeless piano
Message-ID: <568@edison.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-Oct-85 17:40:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: edison.568
Posted: Fri Oct  4 17:40:07 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Oct-85 03:42:43 EDT
References: <1636@druxu.UUCP> <16538@watmath.UUCP> <19@nbs-amrf.UUCP> <16600@watmath.UUCP> <284@pedsgd.UUCP>
Organization: General Electric Company, Charlottesville, VA
Lines: 20

> it really does sound better to them. And thats what they should buy.
> However, if that person is going attempt to convince someone else of the
> superiority of a particular piece of equipment then they ought to clearly
> label their views as opinion or present measurable differences and/or the
> results of double-blind testing.
> 
> It is the reluctance of 'golden-ears' to embrace double-blind testing
> which arouses my suspicion about audible differences such as
> 'tighter bass'. Given that it is fairly easy to objectively demonstrate
> such effects, why not do so?
> 
Add to the soup that differences that may be distinguishable even under
double blind tests that are not supplemented by measurements and not equalized
so much as possible to eliminate known differences a given audiophile
or group may find equipment more pleasing which is actually a preference for
a less accurate piece of equipment because they find the inaccuracies
pleasing (frequency response deviations et. al.).  Then you have to
trust that you will like the same 'inaccuracies'.

David Albrecht