7, i think that you'll find that sometimes electrical measurements VERIFY what we hear even though it would not show up under "normal" test procedures. Moncrieff did reviews of products and talked about ( others still do it today ) product X having a "blacker background" than product Y and product Z. The differences between he and the current breed is that he actually showed the differences via scope photos that product X actually had deeper nulls on the negative going portions of the same signals than either product Y or Z. Is it possible for someone to hear such absolutely minute discrepancies in signal ??? I guess so because he was able to make note of such things BEFORE measuring them. Keep in mind that we are talking duration lengths of microseconds and output level differences of microvolts at best. This is NOT recognized by the scientific community as being "above the accepted minimum hearing threshold", etc....
I also know where your coming from as someone that makes a living working with electrical measurements. I don't think that we know everything about how such things work and try to keep an open mind about them. Measurements DO give us something to compare and baseline one product against another while explaining SOME of the if's and why's to us. Besides that, they give us a baseline for repeatability as to how something works "normally". The problem is that many of the actual "industry standard" test procedures may not be up to the level of discernment that the actual equipment is capable of doing or to what we can hear. THIS is what causes many of the problems that the "regulars" on this site and several others have problems with. Just because something measures similar under specific test conditions DOES NOT mean that it HAS to perform the same under dynamic use. There are specific test parameters that are followed, but who is to say that they are measuring the "most correct" criteria as to what we consider important when listening ???
I think that your approach of refining circuitry via measurements AND listening tests is about the only way that this industry will make progress. Obviously we've been the way of "best measurements" via SS electronics in the 70's and we've all heard how most of that sounded. Sean
>
I also know where your coming from as someone that makes a living working with electrical measurements. I don't think that we know everything about how such things work and try to keep an open mind about them. Measurements DO give us something to compare and baseline one product against another while explaining SOME of the if's and why's to us. Besides that, they give us a baseline for repeatability as to how something works "normally". The problem is that many of the actual "industry standard" test procedures may not be up to the level of discernment that the actual equipment is capable of doing or to what we can hear. THIS is what causes many of the problems that the "regulars" on this site and several others have problems with. Just because something measures similar under specific test conditions DOES NOT mean that it HAS to perform the same under dynamic use. There are specific test parameters that are followed, but who is to say that they are measuring the "most correct" criteria as to what we consider important when listening ???
I think that your approach of refining circuitry via measurements AND listening tests is about the only way that this industry will make progress. Obviously we've been the way of "best measurements" via SS electronics in the 70's and we've all heard how most of that sounded. Sean
>
