CardinalFang;143314 Wrote: > But at least they value measurements and are being pragmatic about > things that are *hard* to measure. They don't resort to false theories > and invent terminology to describe artifacts. The equipment is designed > using measurements as well as viewing tests, it's never built solely > using viewing tests. That's the crux of the discussion.Terminology is > invented to describe artifacts as required. If you invent a new coding scheme and it produces new artifacts, you need new terms to describe them. My point really is that pragmatic engineers understand there are some things they don't understand and can't easily (objectively) measure. But I agree, that doesn't mean they abandon all engineering priciples and resort to vodoo.
The problem with a lot of consumer stuff, is that marketing gets in the way, and consumers who are easily impressed by technical mumbo-jumbo and obscure patent claims (etc) get taken for a ride. But just because someone doesn't fully and accurately convey the mechanism of their product, doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad product. CardinalFang;143314 Wrote: > I never implied that a piece of equipment can be fully defined by > measurements alone - you've invented that.Actually, I never said you did! -- Patrick Dixon www.at-tunes.co.uk ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Patrick Dixon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=90 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28080 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
