tomjtx wrote: > bigfool1956;293926 Wrote: >> Well not my review, but I was interested in the comments. > > The conclusions are flawed if the comparison was not done with level > matched sources. and not just level matched "by ear" > There is no escaping that. > DBT is somewhat of another matter. > However one can't rule out expectation bias in a sighted test, period. > > Short term testing does have it's own pitfalls and long term listening > is preferable. > Long term sighted comparo's followed by some blind testing which > corroborates the sighted testing would be the most convincing . > > These blanket assertions of superiority of one source over another w/o > some rigorous testing are quite invalid and boring.
I agree. Mainly because the language used is inevitably some thing like "X blows Y away", or similar. For example, in this case: "Audio Quality is stunning, and blows away the TP in all aspects in my opinion." Now, it may well be that the source in question is very good; I don't know, I've not heard it. But, we're talking about a digital source here. There's no way on earth that *any* digital source can "blow away" another. Just like the Transporter doesn't "blow away" the SB3; sure it's better sounding, if you have a sufficiently high-calibre system that can resolve the differences, but it's not "night and day". Hell, I've got a v.old CD player (Marantz CD50SE - about 20 years old!) and yeah, both the SB3 and Transporter sound better, but the difference is not massive. R. _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
