In article ,
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote:
I agree with you that the magazines' advertisers would certainly not
like DBTs. If, indeed,
DBTs don't work and always give a null result for everything, then
the inclusion of a DBT
would tend to show that a $40,000 MSB DAC sounds exactly like $50
Chinese DAC. That
wouldn't do, would it? If, on the other hand, the DBT did show
varying degrees of difference
between components, makers of amps. preamps and digital appliances
costing tens of thousands
of dollars might find that their products are bested by similar
components costing an order
of magnitude less than their products. That wouldn't be too good
either.
In a world in which the reviewers stopped the delusional nonsense and
learned how to do a valid listening test, people would be reading them
mainly for descriptions of new products coming out, the author's opinion on
what features are groundbreaking and worth buying. We all know that we
cannot rely on someone else's ears or taste, but if we just knew what was
going on in the land of the high end, we could go audition the stuff or
ourselves.
Basically, Gary, that's all these publications are good for NOW.
Listening impressions are all well and good, and might be entertaining
reading, but other than as a way to generate a short-list, based on such
parameters as price, feature set, and aesthetic appeal, somebody else's
impressions of a piece of gear can only serve to whet one's appetite,
not provide the meal.
Like political ads, I have never believed a word of the flowery descriptions
that I read in those magazines, so why do they do it? Pandering to the
manufacturers to suck a few rich people into them. I just wish I had a
nickel for every veil that has been lifted since it all began.
The audiophile who takes any reviewers word for sound and suitability of
any component and buys based on that word is one foolish audiophile.
---
news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
---