chung wrote in message .net...
Dennis Moore wrote:
Well the dbt's seem impotent in matters of emotional realism as
discussed in the faq to this group. Yet everyone with another
idea get beat over the head endlessly by the dbt results
They have their place, and I don't mind some of them.
But something is amiss. Too many components long term
will give satisfaction that others supposedly sounding the
same don't. Or too many that supposedly are more accurate
are less enjoyable to listen to long term. I have read all the
arguments about why this is so, and don't with to go thru it
again.
Those touting the dbt route as the only rational route to take
consider there is nothing real to investigate otherwise.

Please don't erect a strawman, if you really want a genuine discussion.
No one said that the "dbt route is the only rational route to consider".
You can say you like a certain cable or a certain amp for whatever
reason. Accuracy is not the only factor in choosing equipment.

What I really don't understand is that there are many places where
subjectivity is the rule. Why try to make this newsgroup another one?
Yet some of the better of that equipment seems to satisfy in ways
the
supposedly accurate just as good equipment often doesn't.
Have you heard of "euphonic distortion"?

Yes, I'm sure he heard the name. I did too. I just wonder why
giving a somewhat negatively coloured name should affect sensory
perception. Everytime I choose MY favourite seat in a concert hall I
choose MY kind of "euphonic distortion". Everytime I listen to
speakers away from an anechoic chamber I'm subject to "euphonic
distortion". Where do YOU listen? Everytime I prefer Merlot admixture
to undiluted Cabernet Sauvignon I'm subject to tasting distortion.
Everytime I choose my seat in amovie house I'm subject to my kind of
"visual distortion'. And so on.
Giving a name is just giving a name. "Distortion" is a bad name.
Funeral Director is meant to sound better than undertaker and
"hospitality class" better than "tourist". Pure science.

And currently any meaningful discussion about that is not
possible here.

Another strawman. What is preventing you from having a "meaningful
discussion"? The problem I see is that some people are upset because the
discussions they want to engage in are not technically meaningful, and
they were pointed out by other posters.

I'll speak for myself. When I give an opinion I say it is an opinion
and what to you constitutes "technical meaningfulness" is the last one
of my concerns..
But I will react to silly challenges to "prove" opinions by an
unproven "test" with results as dependent on the individual doing it
as anything else in life.
Ludovic Mirabel