P Floding;176817 Wrote: > So what did the BDT-fetichists talk about? Recent diagrams? I guess > saying no must be a favourite passtime of theirs. Pretty much > everything measures "perfectly" nowdays (on the bench), so I don't see > any reason at all to be interested in audio reproduction if you are a > so-called objectivist. >
This post sums up what really lies behind this debate. It's not about blind testing at all - it's about the fact that a large fraction of audiophiles are obsessed with a set of things that don't make a bit of difference to audio reproduction, and feel compelled to defend them. The things that measure perfectly are the things that matter the least - that's just a fact, sorry. But have you ever measured the frequency response of a speaker in a real room? It's abysmal. Has it ever occurred to you to wonder why, even from down the hall, you can distinguish music or voices playing through speakers from the real thing? It's not because you need to cryo treat your digital cables. Have you considered the difference between two speakers, plus a subwoofer, or using 3 speakers, 4, 5, more? Those differences are huge. Room treatment, speaker placement, active crossovers? Digital signal processing, room correction, equalization? Everthing there is far, far more important than ebony hockey pucks. But for some reason there's a group of people that bought into a myth and can't get past it. They hate BT because they can't deal with the results. They claim measurements don't matter for the same reason. And they deride and attempt to silence (witness this thread) anyone that dares disagree. -- opaqueice ------------------------------------------------------------------------ opaqueice's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4234 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=32352 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
