Okay, this is my primary thought:
I'd love to *measure* the psycho-acoustical impact of SST.
I know Rushton to be one of the more responsible posters on the 'gon. I also know these tweaks do make a difference. But when I read:
"...after two hours I'm beginning to get a sense of a system that sounds like the windows have been newly washed for dramatically improved clarity."
I think: I've heard this before....
Then when I attach a catch phrase to a manufacture statement like:
"SST's ultra-pure micro-flaked silver treated with a special deep immersion cryogenic treatment. Amazing!"
I ask: how far a jump is it to attach a stock phrase to a suggested improvement? And even stipulating the fact that SST offers improvement, is it that dramatic? Enough to pay $150?
There is little doubt the topic of psycho-acoustics has been discussed here *many* times. A part of the discussions always swings over to double blind testing, and of course, the problems with such methods. Still, there is ample evidence that we are creatures prone to exaggerate facts, and in this case, such exaggeration costs $150 dollars.
Now, there's no questioning Walker's commitment to audio, and attempting to bring products to the market which increase our pleasure. Yet it is also clear that Walker's products fetch a huge price premium, thus, the attempt to reconcile the value of that cost is warranted (I offer Walker Vivid v. Shinola as an example). Therefore, I feel one is justified in bringing this topic up - on this thread - and the raising of this issue is not trolling or flame-bait or any other destructive activity.
In other words: I'd like to discuss this.
Not trash Rushton, SST, or me :-)
Sincerely,
Lee
I'd love to *measure* the psycho-acoustical impact of SST.
I know Rushton to be one of the more responsible posters on the 'gon. I also know these tweaks do make a difference. But when I read:
"...after two hours I'm beginning to get a sense of a system that sounds like the windows have been newly washed for dramatically improved clarity."
I think: I've heard this before....
Then when I attach a catch phrase to a manufacture statement like:
"SST's ultra-pure micro-flaked silver treated with a special deep immersion cryogenic treatment. Amazing!"
I ask: how far a jump is it to attach a stock phrase to a suggested improvement? And even stipulating the fact that SST offers improvement, is it that dramatic? Enough to pay $150?
There is little doubt the topic of psycho-acoustics has been discussed here *many* times. A part of the discussions always swings over to double blind testing, and of course, the problems with such methods. Still, there is ample evidence that we are creatures prone to exaggerate facts, and in this case, such exaggeration costs $150 dollars.
Now, there's no questioning Walker's commitment to audio, and attempting to bring products to the market which increase our pleasure. Yet it is also clear that Walker's products fetch a huge price premium, thus, the attempt to reconcile the value of that cost is warranted (I offer Walker Vivid v. Shinola as an example). Therefore, I feel one is justified in bringing this topic up - on this thread - and the raising of this issue is not trolling or flame-bait or any other destructive activity.
In other words: I'd like to discuss this.
Not trash Rushton, SST, or me :-)
Sincerely,
Lee
