MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Me:
FWIW, I don't care whether he could hear differences or not. When
someone shows that the test can show real differences with music, then
I'll worry about the lack of positives.

That's been shown dozens, perhaps hundreds, of times.
Even with cables, if they're different enough folr it to
matter audibly.

Even then? :-)

Hell, Floyd Toole uses it to test speakers
at Harman Kardon/JBL. So start worrying.

Is that the same facility Sean Olive uses? I recall someone posting that
he published a paper that included describing the process of screening
listers for the ability to detect differences.

AIUI, they *train* listeners to detect differences, using ABX
methods...which again, is accepted scientific practice.
It reduces the incidence of false negative...something the audiophile
community has been known to latch onto as a 'flaw' of blind tests.

So how could this possibly be objectionable?


I read a more interesting point in the new Stereophile about blind tests
of colas in which neural images showed that when tasters were told the
names of the drinks different parts of their brains were engaged,
perhaps because of the associations, memories, etc brought about. There
were no real differences, but the differences were real! Listening to
music could very well be similar. I would be open to this type of
bridging the gap: assuming identical sound (everybody happy?) could
yield differing perceptions that are measurably real No worries,


Well, yes, and how is that different from placebo effec? The perceptions
are always 'real' in the sense that something is happening in the brain.
To take a trivial example , if you closed your eyes while listening ,
*obviously* the brain activation pattern would be different from if your
eyes were open. But this isn't making the *sound* objectively different,
is it?

All the above anecdote shows is that the brain processes both *signal* and
*noise* -- in other words, that placebo effects map to neurological
events.


Unwarranted pseudoscientific inference from such data is what makes
Stereophile, and audiophilia, ludicrous.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Me:
FWIW, I don't care whether he could hear differences or not. When
someone shows that the test can show real differences with music, then
I'll worry about the lack of positives.

That's been shown dozens, perhaps hundreds, of times.
Even with cables, if they're different enough folr it to
matter audibly.

Even then? :-)

Hell, Floyd Toole uses it to test speakers
at Harman Kardon/JBL. So start worrying.

Is that the same facility Sean Olive uses? I recall someone posting that
he published a paper that included describing the process of screening
listers for the ability to detect differences.

AIUI, they *train* listeners to detect differences, using ABX
methods...which again, is accepted scientific practice.
It reduces the incidence of false negative...something the audiophile
community has been known to latch onto as a 'flaw' of blind tests.

So how could this possibly be objectionable?

It isn't, especially for design and research.

I read a more interesting point in the new Stereophile about blind tests
of colas in which neural images showed that when tasters were told the
names of the drinks different parts of their brains were engaged,
perhaps because of the associations, memories, etc brought about. There
were no real differences, but the differences were real! Listening to
music could very well be similar. I would be open to this type of
bridging the gap: assuming identical sound (everybody happy?) could
yield differing perceptions that are measurably real No worries,


Well, yes, and how is that different from placebo effec?

A placebo causes a real, measurable effect, yes?

The perceptions
are always 'real' in the sense that something is happening in the brain.
To take a trivial example , if you closed your eyes while listening ,
*obviously* the brain activation pattern would be different from if your
eyes were open. But this isn't making the *sound* objectively different,
is it?

There is no sound, only perception. And you've just rephrased my premise.

All the above anecdote shows is that the brain processes both *signal* and
*noise* -- in other words, that placebo effects map to neurological
events.

You don't find an actual scientific inquiry into this phenomenon
interesting?

Unwarranted pseudoscientific inference from such data is what makes
Stereophile, and audiophilia, ludicrous.

There's a gap unbridged.

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Me:
FWIW, I don't care whether he could hear differences or not. When
someone shows that the test can show real differences with music, then
I'll worry about the lack of positives.

That's been shown dozens, perhaps hundreds, of times.
Even with cables, if they're different enough folr it to
matter audibly.

Even then? :-)

Hell, Floyd Toole uses it to test speakers
at Harman Kardon/JBL. So start worrying.

Is that the same facility Sean Olive uses? I recall someone posting that
he published a paper that included describing the process of screening
listers for the ability to detect differences.

AIUI, they *train* listeners to detect differences, using ABX
methods...which again, is accepted scientific practice.
It reduces the incidence of false negative...something the audiophile
community has been known to latch onto as a 'flaw' of blind tests.

So how could this possibly be objectionable?

It isn't, especially for design and research.


I read a more interesting point in the new Stereophile about blind tests
of colas in which neural images showed that when tasters were told the
names of the drinks different parts of their brains were engaged,
perhaps because of the associations, memories, etc brought about. There
were no real differences, but the differences were real! Listening to
music could very well be similar. I would be open to this type of
bridging the gap: assuming identical sound (everybody happy?) could
yield differing perceptions that are measurably real No worries,


Well, yes, and how is that different from placebo effec?

A placebo causes a real, measurable effect, yes?

Yes, it can, *in the patient*. However, it is patently not due to the
characteristics of the 'medicine'. In other words, the effect doesn't
occur for the reason the patient believes it does. The same medicine
could be given twice, and one could be presented as 'real' and one
as 'placebo', with different results. The analogy
to audio should be clear.

The perceptions
are always 'real' in the sense that something is happening in the brain.
To take a trivial example , if you closed your eyes while listening ,
*obviously* the brain activation pattern would be different from if your
eyes were open. But this isn't making the *sound* objectively different,
is it?

There is no sound, only perception. And you've just rephrased my premise.

Rubbish. There is sound -- atmospheric pressure waves within the 20-20kHz range
impinging on the ear -- and there is mental interpretation of that stimulus.


All the above anecdote shows is that the brain processes both *signal* and
*noise* -- in other words, that placebo effects map to neurological
events.

You don't find an actual scientific inquiry into this phenomenon
interesting?

Yes, but I don't find obfuscatory philosophical musings particularly
useful for this. That neurons actually fire in the brain during
thinking and perceiving is not, in itself, astonishing at this late date.


Unwarranted pseudoscientific inference from such data is what makes
Stereophile, and audiophilia, ludicrous.

There's a gap unbridged.

It's not as if it couldn't be bridged. There's good *economic*
reasons not to, from a magazine publishere's POV.



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

In article , Russ Button
wrote:

Giles Stewart wrote:
In article , Russ Button
wrote:
snip

Are you saying that you have 300 wpc and you're not actually
driving the amp hard enough to use 300 wpc? Why get an amp
with that much power then?

Essentialy, yes. My car can theoretically do over 120mph but I dont
drive it at that speed. The performance aspect I do tend to use
frequently to it's full potential is acceleration, when overtaking.

It is the same with the amp. I have only once or twice used it's full
potential for high 'sustained' output (for a PA at a wedding) but I
suspect I frequently use a good part of it's capability for handling
transients.

I got it because it came to my notice when I needed an amp and was very
good value.

snip

Recording studio requirements are entirely different from home audio
requirements. In a studio, the big thing is saving space.

Saving space - you are kidding? I have seen photos of recording
studios you could get most of my house into.

You get all
rack mount gear because it takes up less space. You're never going to
see a professional studio with the likes of Krell, Rowland Research, or
any of the fine tube amps that people like for home use.

Space is not the reason you are unlikely to find such in a recording
studio. A complete lack of value for money would be a more likely
reason.

I have several times seen people make the incredible claim that
professional organisations involved in recording music and then selling
their product for many billions of dollars/euros - have little or no
interest in sound quality! The evidence for this ludicrous claim is
that they do not employ most of the panoply of esoteric high end gear
that floats around in the market on beds of hot air.

The belief system required is truly bizarre!

Somehow - a recording process that uses inferior wires, speakers,
amplifiers and ears - produces a product that magically ends up with
content from which a high definition signal can be later extracted by
using higher quality components than were used to record and produce
the signal in the first place!

Only words like 'magic' and 'miracle' are sufficient to explain how
such a mysterious process could occur.

In the case of pro audio,
the design criteria are durability in the face of physical and signal
abuse, and taking up the minimal amount of rack mount space. Sonic
quality is down the list.

You are suggesting that pro amps sound just as good as the very expensive
hi-end amps, and that it's a waste of money to spend more than the $800
or $1000 you spend on a high powered pro amp.

That is exactly what I think.

This is where we disagree.

Yes we do.

If you were to take a pair of Avalon Eidolon loudspeakers ($35k/pair)
and carefully listen to them being driven by your Perreaux amp, and
then by any number of other home audiophile grade amps, you'd hear
some significant differences. Even with other less expensive audiophile
grade loudspeakers, there would be significant differences. The Avalon
line in particular, has extraordinary imaging. They really do "disappear"
in a room, which is why people spend enormous sums for them.

The only thing 'disappearing' is a large surplus of disposable income.
Being the tone deaf pauper that I am, I will just have to muddle along
with my sonically challenged B&W 802 nautili and pro power amp, and
other bits, all wired together with Canare microphone cable
interconnects of my own manufacture. I couldn't even tell you then
'name' on my speaker cable without going to have a look. It just
looked like the conductors were thick enough to handle a few amps and
was a couple of ¤ per metre.

You'd find that your Perreaux amp would perform differently in terms
of timbre, tonal balance and imaging. You may or may not prefer it,
but it will be different.

Would I?

I run a tri-amped loudspeaker, which actually requires four stereo power
amps, not three. So my costs are four times what it would be for someone
else. I only need 60 wpc for my amps, but that's still a lot of money
potentially. They also have to be identical amps, which is part of the
loudspeaker designer's criteria. Four amps take up a lot of space.
So what I use are pro-grade, Hafler P1000 amps. 1U pancakes which I
rack mount, with 1U spacers between them for cooling. They're a
MOSFET amp and have that characteristic MOSFET sound, which I happen
to like.

How strange! I belive my Perreaux has MOSFETs too.

Can you imagine how hard it would be to find four Audio Research 150 amps to
buy?

For Sony Music, Deutsche Grammaphon, Decca, EMI etc. - a piece of cake
I would imagine

Can you imagine how much heat four Audio Research D150 amps would make?
Can you imagine how much it would cost to re-tube four D150 amps?

A mere trifle to large corporations with billions in cash flow.

I believe that amps do sound different, though not to the degree that
loudspeakers do. I also believe that there are situations where a pro amp
is actually superior for home use, even over high end amps like the ones
I've mentioned above. Specifically home amps can be subjected to severe
signal abuse when run into difficult loads, such as those presented by
electrostatic loudspeakers. A pro amp has protection circuitry built-in
that would sustain it during those rare circumstances where something
went badly wrong.

You are probably correct, There are five mysterious black plastic bumps
on the back of my Perraux. They are labled 'fuse'. I think they must
be part of the protection circuit you speak of.

I used to run X-Static loudspeakers, which were wonderful, but deadly
to an amp under the wrong circumstances.
snip
Today I would only drive those speakers with a pro grade amp because of its
ability to withstand signal abuse

You mean you would actually sacrifice sonic excellence for practical
considerations?

and I'd get a big one with plenty of
current capability. But it would run hot, so the amp would need large cooling
fins and plenty of space around it. Your Perreaux probably wouldn't fit
the bill as it came with a fan to begin with, and probably doesn't have
sufficient passive cooling.

You are possibly correct, but for my purposes, the passive cooling is
certainly sufficient. You can download a product spec sheet with
picture he http://www.perreaux.com/backcat.php

You'd think I'm making your point here, but I'm not. I'm saying that a
pro-grade amp at home is appropriate when the situation calls for it.
I do believe that there are sonic differences between amps, but circumstances
sometimes dictate that sonic qualities can be of lesser importance than
equipment safety or constraints of space and/or budget.

About the only thing we seem to disagree on at this point is whether
consumer amps have superior sonic capabilities over Pro grade amps. I
happen to think that they don't.

Giles Stewart

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Me:
FWIW, I don't care whether he could hear differences or not. When
someone shows that the test can show real differences with music,
then
I'll worry about the lack of positives.

That's been shown dozens, perhaps hundreds, of times.
Even with cables, if they're different enough folr it to
matter audibly.

Even then? :-)

Hell, Floyd Toole uses it to test speakers
at Harman Kardon/JBL. So start worrying.

Is that the same facility Sean Olive uses? I recall someone posting
that
he published a paper that included describing the process of screening
listers for the ability to detect differences.

AIUI, they *train* listeners to detect differences, using ABX
methods...which again, is accepted scientific practice.
It reduces the incidence of false negative...something the audiophile
community has been known to latch onto as a 'flaw' of blind tests.

So how could this possibly be objectionable?

It isn't, especially for design and research.


I read a more interesting point in the new Stereophile about blind
tests
of colas in which neural images showed that when tasters were told the

names of the drinks different parts of their brains were engaged,
perhaps because of the associations, memories, etc brought about. There
were no real differences, but the differences were real! Listening to
music could very well be similar. I would be open to this type of
bridging the gap: assuming identical sound (everybody happy?) could
yield differing perceptions that are measurably real No worries,


Well, yes, and how is that different from placebo effec?

A placebo causes a real, measurable effect, yes?

Yes, it can, *in the patient*. However, it is patently not due to the
characteristics of the 'medicine'. In other words, the effect doesn't
occur for the reason the patient believes it does. The same medicine
could be given twice, and one could be presented as 'real' and one
as 'placebo', with different results. The analogy
to audio should be clear.

Of course, hence my anecdote. Your second sentence is arguable, as the
"characteristics" of the 'medicine' include its appearance and how it is
administered, etc.

The perceptions
are always 'real' in the sense that something is happening in the brain.
To take a trivial example , if you closed your eyes while listening ,
*obviously* the brain activation pattern would be different from if your
eyes were open. But this isn't making the *sound* objectively different,
is it?

There is no sound, only perception. And you've just rephrased my premise.

Rubbish. There is sound -- atmospheric pressure waves within the 20-20kHz
range
impinging on the ear -- and there is mental interpretation of that stimulus.

Again, we're saying the same thing.

All the above anecdote shows is that the brain processes both *signal*
and
*noise* -- in other words, that placebo effects map to neurological
events.

You don't find an actual scientific inquiry into this phenomenon
interesting?

Yes, but I don't find obfuscatory philosophical musings particularly
useful for this. That neurons actually fire in the brain during
thinking and perceiving is not, in itself, astonishing at this late date.

That would be old news indeed.

http://www.brandchannel.com/start1.asp?fa_id=201

I didn't find the original report. I expect audio skeptics will now take
up brand differentiation, perhaps to advocate the marketing of generic
sodium lauryl sulphate products and spreading anecdotes of substituting
inexpensive shampoo for a boutique brand to humiliate someone who
bragged about his clean hair.

Unwarranted pseudoscientific inference from such data is what makes
Stereophile, and audiophilia, ludicrous.

There's a gap unbridged.

It's not as if it couldn't be bridged. There's good *economic*
reasons not to, from a magazine publishere's POV.

Use and listening tests are still useful to consumers, even in magazines
that don't claim sonic differences.

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:
*obviously* the brain activation pattern would be different from if your
eyes were open. But this isn't making the *sound* objectively different,
is it?

There is no sound, only perception. And you've just rephrased my premise.

Rubbish. There is sound -- atmospheric pressure waves within the 20-20kHz
range
impinging on the ear -- and there is mental interpretation of that stimulus.

Again, we're saying the same thing.

No, we're weren't, as is obvious from reading the exchange.


All the above anecdote shows is that the brain processes both
*signal* and *noise* -- in other words, that placebo
effects map to neurological events. You don't find an
actual scientific inquiry into this phenomenon interesting?
Yes, but I don't find obfuscatory philosophical musings particularly
useful for this. That neurons actually fire in the brain during
thinking and perceiving is not, in itself, astonishing at this late date.

That would be old news indeed.

http://www.brandchannel.com/start1.asp?fa_id=201

I didn't find the original report. I expect audio skeptics will now take
up brand differentiation, perhaps to advocate the marketing of generic
sodium lauryl sulphate products and spreading anecdotes of substituting
inexpensive shampoo for a boutique brand to humiliate someone who
bragged about his clean hair.

Now, why in the world would you expect that *audio* skeptics would take
up that banner particularly, given that shampoo has
nothing to do with audio? (or is there a new shampoo-based tweak
is TAS this month?)





Unwarranted pseudoscientific inference from such data is what
makes Stereophile, and audiophilia, ludicrous. There's a
gap unbridged. It's not as if it couldn't be bridged. There's
good *economic* reasons not to, from a magazine publishere's POV.


Use and listening tests are still useful to consumers, even in magazines
that don't claim sonic differences.


In the sense that lists of lucky numbers are useful to lottery players,
absolutely.

Giles Stewart wrote:
In article , Russ Button

Recording studio requirements are entirely different from home audio
requirements. In a studio, the big thing is saving space.


Saving space - you are kidding? I have seen photos of recording
studios you could get most of my house into.

The sound booths I've been in were all crammed with gear.
Home audio gear wouldn't work simply because it would take
up too much space needlessly. The floor of the studio
where the musicians play may well be large. My wife has
recorded at Skywalker Ranch and their studio is large
enough to accomodate a full sized symphony orchestra.
They also have adjustable acoustics with moveable walls
and the like. Mind you, they have megabucks too...

I haven't been to Skywalker Ranch, but if you went into the
recording booth, I doubt there would be a lot of empty
rack space.

You get all
rack mount gear because it takes up less space. You're never going to
see a professional studio with the likes of Krell, Rowland Research, or
any of the fine tube amps that people like for home use.


Space is not the reason you are unlikely to find such in a recording
studio. A complete lack of value for money would be a more likely
reason.

I think we both agree that corporations have tons of money to
spend on facilities and equipment. I believe that if someone
felt that a given technology was critical to improving the end
product, then that technology would get used.

Regarding the use of electron tubes in pro audio, you do see
them used a lot in microphone preamps. Engineers like the way
tubes sound. But mike preamps are physically small things and
don't take up too much space. You can get 'em typically in a
2U or 1U rack space high configuration, which gets back to my
point that space considerations are of a high priority in pro
settings.

I have several times seen people make the incredible claim that
professional organisations involved in recording music and then selling
their product for many billions of dollars/euros - have little or no
interest in sound quality!

Oh I believe that pro settings do care about sound quality.
It's just that they put their money in places where they
feel it makes more of a difference. Playback amps are not
a major priority. Recording equipment, microphones, effects
processing and the like are where they put the money.

To some extent, this is very much in line with what you say
when you feel that there's not a lot of value in spending
on expensive audiophile grade amps. I do agree that it is
a vanishingly small difference, but I do believe that it is
there nonetheless.

Somehow - a recording process that uses inferior wires, speakers,
amplifiers and ears - produces a product that magically ends up with
content from which a high definition signal can be later extracted by
using higher quality components than were used to record and produce
the signal in the first place!

A friend of mine in San Francisco named Bill Ruck once rewired
the studios of KFOG with Mogami 2531, low oxygen content mike
cable. He did it for the improvement in sound quality for
FM broadcast. Apparently a lot of people agreed with him.

I think that in pro settings, you're going to see a lot of guys
like Bill using better grades of Mogami and Belkin cable for their
work. But they're not going to get the $300/foot kind of stuff.
That's totally whack.

And that's another argument for moving things into the digital
domain. Once the signal is digital, it's just bits and the
transmission of bits is pretty damn reliable over ethernet
and the like.

In the case of pro audio,
the design criteria are durability in the face of physical and signal
abuse, and taking up the minimal amount of rack mount space. Sonic
quality is down the list.

When I made the above statement, it wasn't that I felt pro amps
sounded like crap, or that pro audio engineers didn't care about
sound quality. Not at all. And a lot of pro engineers will talk
about sound quality, but when it comes to pro setups, things like
rack space and functionality are of first importance.

While I believe there are real sonic differences in amps, I also
believe that they are not sufficiently significant to justify a
studio paying 2 or 3 times as much for an amp and to have it take
up 2 or 3 times as much rack space.

You'd find that your Perreaux amp would perform differently in terms
of timbre, tonal balance and imaging. You may or may not prefer it,
but it will be different.

Would I?

I feel strongly that if you were to compare your Perreaux amp to
other amps, you'd hear differences. I think that MOSFET amps
may well have a characteristic sound that would have them sounding
very much alike, and that it would make a lot of sense to go with
the least expensive MOSFET amp if that is the sound you liked.

But I also think that other amps would sound sufficiently different
that you could readily find some you'd prefer over others. You'd
probably like your Perreaux just fine and prefer it to others. But
until you take the time to some careful listening, you just don't
know.

I used to run X-Static loudspeakers, which were wonderful, but deadly
to an amp under the wrong circumstances.

snip

Today I would only drive those speakers with a pro grade amp because of its
ability to withstand signal abuse


You mean you would actually sacrifice sonic excellence for practical
considerations?

Oh sure. You can't listen to an amp at all if the outputs are fried.
I also listened to tube amps on my X-Statics and they didn't like 'em
at all. An electrostatic loudspeaker is a big capacitor to an amp.
Remember that tube amps have transformer outputs, so if you put an
inductor in series with a capacitor, you have a reactive circuit!
The high end would roll off badly with the X-Static, so it really needed
a strong solid-state amp to drive it.

About the only thing we seem to disagree on at this point is whether
consumer amps have superior sonic capabilities over Pro grade amps. I
happen to think that they don't.

Let me put another nuance on this then. I believe that amps sound
different from each other, but it's not as if hi-end commercial amps
are inherently sonically superior to pro-grade amps. I believe that
any two amps will not be sonically identical. I think that you need
to listen for yourself and see which you prefer. If you were to set
your Perreaux against a good solid state amp from Audio Research,
Conrad-Johnson, Rowland Reseach or Krell, I'm sure you'd hear differences,
but I have no idea which amp you'd prefer.

I think that any self-respecting audio engineer will want his amplifier
to sound as good as possible, whether it is for home or pro use. It's
just that I believe a pro amp design puts a greater priority on durability
than sonics. But that doesn't mean a pro amp can't sound great. I'm very
happy with my Hafler P1000 stack.

I've really enjoyed this conversation with you Giles. We may well
disagree, but that's perfectly OK. It's too bad you're not in the
San Francisco area. We could hang, listen to some good stuff and
have a beer or two.

Coolness.

Russ

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
*obviously* the brain activation pattern would be different from if
your
eyes were open. But this isn't making the *sound* objectively
different,
is it?

There is no sound, only perception. And you've just rephrased my
premise.

Rubbish. There is sound -- atmospheric pressure waves within the 20-20kHz
range
impinging on the ear -- and there is mental interpretation of that
stimulus.

Again, we're saying the same thing.

No, we're weren't, as is obvious from reading the exchange.

You snipped the bit where I assumed identical sound for the purpose of
this exchange. What is obvious is you seeking contradiction while I
propose agreements. For one thing, the anecdote implies that the
listener creates differences from identical stimuli. Is that not your
position?

However, to call it "interpretation" is suspect, as it implies a
conscious process. One point of the anecdote is that the measurements
show differentiation to be unconscious.

All the above anecdote shows is that the brain processes both
*signal* and *noise* -- in other words, that placebo
effects map to neurological events. You don't find an
actual scientific inquiry into this phenomenon interesting?
Yes, but I don't find obfuscatory philosophical musings particularly
useful for this. That neurons actually fire in the brain during
thinking and perceiving is not, in itself, astonishing at this late date.

That would be old news indeed.

http://www.brandchannel.com/start1.asp?fa_id=201

I didn't find the original report. I expect audio skeptics will now take
up brand differentiation, perhaps to advocate the marketing of generic
sodium lauryl sulphate products and spreading anecdotes of substituting
inexpensive shampoo for a boutique brand to humiliate someone who
bragged about his clean hair.

Now, why in the world would you expect that *audio* skeptics would take
up that banner particularly, given that shampoo has
nothing to do with audio? (or is there a new shampoo-based tweak
is TAS this month?)

Your objection to high end gear seems to be that you consider it
identically performing, set apart only by appearance, hype, etc, that
is, branding. If so, you might find that other consumer goods with far
more economic impact than high end audio rely purely on branding and
superficial characteristics to differentiate themselves.

If that is your objection, why wouldn't you look for bigger fish to fry?

Unwarranted pseudoscientific inference from such data is what
makes Stereophile, and audiophilia, ludicrous. There's a
gap unbridged. It's not as if it couldn't be bridged. There's
good *economic* reasons not to, from a magazine publishere's POV.


Use and listening tests are still useful to consumers, even in magazines
that don't claim sonic differences.

In the sense that lists of lucky numbers are useful to lottery players,
absolutely.

Nonsense. If a reviewer had trouble using a product in some way,
wouldn't that be useful information to have?

Stephen

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
http://www.brandchannel.com/start1.asp?fa_id=201

I didn't find the original report. I expect audio skeptics will now take
up brand differentiation, perhaps to advocate the marketing of generic
sodium lauryl sulphate products and spreading anecdotes of substituting
inexpensive shampoo for a boutique brand to humiliate someone who
bragged about his clean hair.

Now, why in the world would you expect that *audio* skeptics would take
up that banner particularly, given that shampoo has
nothing to do with audio? (or is there a new shampoo-based tweak
is TAS this month?)

Sure it's the formulation of the SLS that matters, similar to the case of
solder.