"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
" wrote in message
link.net...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
" wrote in message
link.net...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
" wrote in message
link.net...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
" wrote in message
link.net...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message
link.net...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message
ink.net...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf
Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.
See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the
same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic
measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of
the complexities of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring
dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you
see it discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.
Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am
wrong.
I'm first in line.
And your evidence?
Obvious differences.
As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?
It's just not necessary.
I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several
comparisons
of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
Others were were like pancakes.
Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are
just another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias
and poorly conducted listening comparisons.
I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.
Nor do I. But you were not discussing preferences you were talking
about how things sound. Since there is no reason for CD players or
decent amps to sound different, unless you have tubed stuff, then
you've made a claim that you ought to be able to back up.
Well, I have tubed stuff, but I have enough ss cd players to tell
you
that many of them sound quite different from each other.
Which of them were compared blind and level matched?
No, that is unnecessary.
On your end, according to your own favored protocol,
you can't prove they all sound the same to you unless
you DBT each and every one of them against each other.
Since there is only one situation I've ever heard of, (and that was
from Arny) where it might be possible to differentiate between CD
players, I'm convinced enough that there is nothing to worry about.
Yes based upon your ONE paired comparison!
Why would you assume that? It was based on a particular design, not on a
single comparison.
Then you admit that your comparisons are based on comparing specs and
design,
rather than on comparative listening tests.
I admit no such thing. What is it with you and reading comprehension? I
said the only difffernce I heard OF in CD players was from a description
Arny gave. The first one I recieved as a gift, the second one was based on
the reading I'd done on the performance of CD players and the reputation and
my personal experience with Rotel.
As much as you would like to try and make it seem like I have always
recomended DBT's for buying audio equipment, a cursory look at the history
of what I've said, shows that I have always said people should use whatever
criteria they desire. Since the differences between CD players tend to be
in thousandths of a dB, it hardly makes sense to spend a lot of time doing
listening comparisons, unless of course you are considering one of those
units that s designed to sound different because it was badly designed, or
has tubes.