"Ruud Broens" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can
measure the difference between a poor room and a good room, but
sometimes its easier to just use our ears.

substitute 1. amplifier for room:

"In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can
measure the difference between a poor amplifier and a good amplifier,
but sometimes its easier to just use our ears."

This of course ruins the truth of my statement, because as a rule rooms
sound different, but good amps don't.

.................................................. ...
substitute 2. loudspeaker for room:

"In the end perceived sound quality is what matters most. We can
measure the difference between a poor loudspeaker and a good
loudspeaker, but sometimes its easier to
just use our ears."

This is closer to the truth because as a rule, all speakers sound different.
It's takes a major effort to even make two supposedly identical speakers
sound close to each other. One reason for this is the fact that merely
relocating a speaker a few feet makes it sound different due to room
effects.

What was your case again, for level-matched, double blind testing, Arny ?

That's pretty well known. In cases where the differences are likely to be
subtle, listening tests should be level-matched and double blind. However,
the audible differences between rooms and speakers are likely to be highly
non-subtle.

How can someone like Scott who is addicted to retro-technology like
tubes and vinyl have the foggiest clue as to where the 2004 SOTA is?
Scott is firmly grounded in 1978 technology, none later. That was
then, but this discussion is about now.

We know about your 2005 SOTA, eh, Arny ? It's the 44.1 KHz/16 bit CD
format, no?

44/16 is a fine distribution format. One can level-matched, double blind
compare it to so-called hi-rez formats all day long and find not one audible
difference.