[Peter Wieck]

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 8:02:19 AM UTC-4, wrot=
e:
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 6:21:52 PM UTC-4, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 12:48:11 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
ould I dispute that if it were the same thing to all people.
=20
People are different...that's a given. Not sure why that refutes th=
e position=20
that any difference a person (any person) can repeatably detect is ea=
sily=20
measurable.
The trick is determining what parameters or combinations thereof is t=
riggering=20
your detection.
=20
I would like to be able to predict that. Here is one example, however:
=20
I happen to have a serious weakness for Dynaco products, tube and solid=
-state. I have rebuilt enough ST-120s in my time such that I do not even ne=
ed a schematic and I can pretty much go directly to the problem based on th=
e symptoms. Early versions using 2N3055s for drivers sound much like glass-=
in-a-blender despite "good specs."=20
=20
What are "good specs"? Well, they are most assuredly NOT good
measurements. "Specs", as published by manufacturers, are more
marketing and sales tools, somewhat less are they legally binding
agreed minimum requirements to meet the definition of "fitness=20
for purpose" and almost NEVER are they reliable indicators of=20
actual performance.
=20
Specifications are not measurements.


SNIPPAGE

I agree entirely with your premise and statement that Specifications are no=
Measurements Hence the "" around "specs".

Few of us in the hobby end of the range have much more than very crude meas=
uring devices - perhaps a high-end VOM and a sound meter, maybe. Or a scope=
..=20

However, I am kept by two cats that more quickly than I recognize something=
'off' in audio equipment. So, they are my measuring devices amongst many o=
ther attributes and skills that they have. The dogs could care less.=20

p.s.: Every device in the inventory that once used 3055s is now using 3772s=
with the 'proper' bias adjustments. Much better, thank you!

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA