[Scott[_6_]]

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 9:21:12 AM UTC-7, news wrote:
Scott wrote:

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:39:04 AM UTC-7, news wrote:



The subjectivist audio press comes out with endless prose and poetry

about



what they hear in the latest products, but it is totally meaningless

if it



is done under sighted conditions.



No, it is not "totally" meaningless. yes it is flavored with sighted

bias. But honestly so are your personal perceptions of your own

stereo. Does that make your perceptions meaningless? You have talked

about those perceptions at length and have come up with some very

unconventional beliefs on stereo playback based on those perceptions.



Not totally unconventional.

I didn't say totally unconventional though did I?

There are a few others who have observed the

same, such as Linkwitz, Moulton, Davis, maybe include Toole if you consider

his reports on the prefernce for a wide, smooth response to indicate

something about radiation pattern.


While I disagree with many things Floyd Toole and company assert about speaker design I don't think his ideas are at all in line with yours.




But all of that is why I, too, must compare my new speakers against some

conventional ones in a blind study.

But you haven't. That was my point. Perceptions, even under sighted conditions are not "totally meaningless." You find meaning in your own sighted perceptions.




I do wish I knew which Scott you are, so that I know what body of discourse

we are referring to when you mention that you have read my material before.



There are only two Scotts that regularly post here. I go by Scott. The other Scott goes by ScottW. He always has.