Quote:
Originally Posted by Puma Cat
Serge, with all due respect, this is simply not true.
.
|
Stephen, with all due respect to you and your new passion of reviewing gear for a magazine, I’ll simply remark that had you worked in your previous career as a scientist writing scientific papers that could not stand up to peer reviews and had no scientific backing, would been a very short lived career. Is that not so?
Good thing reviewing gear is part believing in what you hear and part romantic novel writing skills, telling the readers what they should hear and most importantly what the manufacturer needs to hear you say. All this very often without a shred of scientific evidence backing it up. In fact the recent articles that I posted on how we all hear different, how we perceive the memories which can be false and how short the audible memory is.
If professional violin players can confuse the Stradivarius for a cheap modern violin blindfolded and it has been proven their listening and sound processing by the brain is very different from non musician listeners. If wine experts can confuse white for red wine while blindfolded, then what we can and can not pick out from our A/B listening that has a time lapse between is not reliable at all.
It’s all good fun though, audio is an obsession, it does no harm but to the wallet. I see the trend of accessorizing across all hobbies I am involved with, it is very much the same with industries built around the gadgets and upgrades.
If one hears that new footer, the new shelf or a rack, so be it, I do believe we convince ourselves very easily and it becomes the reality. Trying to prove it otherwise only takes away from the fun. That’s why I still read audio magazine reviews, (from time to time) for the entertainment and creative writing as well as the technical, features and specs. Listening impressions i don’t pay as much attention to.