[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Saturday, December 22, 2012 4:18:46 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:29:56 AM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:



I don't remember addressing you with that comment, but if you insist on

taking it personally, I have no real objection.



I wasn't taking it personally. I was just pointing out how wrong you were.

I beg to differ, If you didn't take it personally, you wouldn't have answered it.
And to set the record straight, you were pointing out how wrong YOU believe
me to be. I.E. you were confusing opinion with fact. They aren't always the same
thing as much as we would like for them to be.


Can't say. What I can say is that most of audio writers who I know doubt,

as do I, the efficacy of current DBT testing methodologies for evaluating

audio components.



And we all know why: Those tests expose them as the frauds they are.

Your opinion. You are entitled to it, but your opinion as to why many reviewers
both here and abroad doubt the efficacy of DBT for audio is quite incorrect.

And you can quote chapter and verse of

Psychoacoustical dogma and statistical analysis 'till the end of time

and it won't change my mind.


Kinda sums it all up right there.

Yes it does. It's going to take more than quotes from adherents
to a methodology that I believe is wrong-headed to make me
a believer in this form of audio testing. See, no one has proven
to me that DBT testing of audio equipment covers all of the
bases. In fact, I'm more than reasonably sure that it doesn't.
There are things that a few seconds of listening before
switching to the alternate DUT will rarely, if ever, uncover.
For instance, Many characteristics also require the RIGHT kind of
source material. Like I said before, you'll not uncover differences in
dimensionality and image specificity (one of the main differences
that I find in DACs) using source material that was multi-miked in
a studio using 8, 16, 32, and more channels. Because such studio
recordings don't have ANY image specificity. They can't. They
aren't real stereo. They are multi-channel mono with the instruments
pan-potted into position. Do any kind of listening test with such
recordings (rock, "pop", most jazz, some classical [Columbia recordings
made in the late sixties through the '80's, for instance]), and there is
NO real soundstage, so that aspect of a DAC's performance will
simply be ignored by the testing procedure, whatever that listening test
procedure might be.