[Trevor]

On 31/12/2015 2:20 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:
On 30/12/2015 3:04 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
I see two things going on. First of all, there is the point I made earlier
that people tend to think something that sounds different must be better.
Really different? Must be really better.

Subjectively comparing two systems that are "really different" to each
other, both are "really different"! The choice of which is "really
better" simply comes down to personal bias when no objective measure is
taken.

To some extent, but it's easy to gimmick a test, even an A/B test. And
people selling stereos do.


Which as I just said is a "subjective" comparison with no "objective
measure".


Go to your local Bose dealer and get their demo. They have a standardized
procedure which is a brilliant piece of salesmanship. It uses very short
listening segments in such a way that the brighter sounding speaker will
almost always sound better.

There are plenty of brighter speakers than Bose, so they should fail
that test then.


Frankly I have never had a problem with that until they start
telling me that one is more *accurate* simply because they think it is.
The greatest example of that is how many people still claim vinyl is
more accurate, rather than simply more pleasing to them. When I point
out the difference they still insist vinyl is always more accurate.

I think it's foolish to claim that vinyl is always more accurate, but if you
pick a random disc out of the library and compare the vinyl one with the CD,
it's not unusual to find the vinyl issue to be more accurate.

As I've always said, mastering variations are irrelevant to claims about
actual media capability, whether it be tape, vinyl, CD, SACD or anything
else. That the majority of people still don't get it saddens me as to
the level of human intelligence. :-(

Trevor.