[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Monday, September 30, 2013 10:17:32 AM UTC-7, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, September 27, 2013 4:01:48 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:





Be my guest. Just realize that the results reflect your taste and not accuracy. believe me, that's fine, but then you're NOT reviewing equipment for a general

audience. The problem arises when people with your attitude start using your

personal tastes to tell others how something sounds. Like you say, for yourself, the sky's the limit!



That's why I like the concept of a buffer...with the click of a switch it's gone. And the price is tolerable for a little curiosity.



I do agree that reviewers should commit to a higher standard. I've long suggested that it makes great sense for reviewers to include DBT results in their reviews for items that it would be relatively easy to do (amps, preamps cables, DACs come to mind. Speakers and sources (due to sync difficulties) would not be easy).

With a PC controlled DBT switch box....it would be fairly easy to setup a DBT test system that could be self executed with reviewer never having access to the results until published. Only simple honesty required by the reviewer in setup.

Few seem willing and even fewer publishers.

The claim has been their readers aren't interested. I think it's more their advertisers "lack of interest".

It would be interesting. I wonder if such a computer program actually exists?

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.