Nousaine wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote:
Harry, from the beginning, made a
point of noting that he was talking about where (how high, or how exalted)
they set their company's "mission", not their price.
Oh really: so how come there have been no bias-controlled listening tests
conducted or published? Was it NOT true that you are suggesting that
measurements didn't convey an accurate picture of an audio components true
acoustical performance? So why weren't there any confirming bias-controlled
listening tests to show that this was true? A 'screen' would seem to have been
an obvious closer.
I'd think that objective verification of one's claims would be the
highest 'mission' one could aspire to, when designing real equipment.
It doesn't seem to me that many 'high-end' companies have aimed very
high, by that standard.
So a lot of not very
expensive gear was reviewed as well as some very expensive stuff. For
example, NAD was considered high end. Yamaha was not. And that distinction
was deserved based on the sound of the day.
There was nothing based on the "sound" of the day because there were no
bias-controlled listening tests employed confirming that the evaluations were
confined to acoustical import.
The audiophile press is a shameless enterprise today, and apparently was
then too.
--
-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth