The flaws of blind listening tests

[Allan F]

56 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The difficulty with listening tests is using them in the "expectation" that one can use them to find whether one component, or change is "better" than another. Doomed to failure, in my book

 

And the difficulty with your posts is that they don't say anything. They consist of "pablum" generalities. Contrary to your view, IMO, listening tests can be very valuable in determining whether a particular change improves the overall sound quality of a system.

[Allan F]

19 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

Very poetic, however when you climb your mountain peak, what you see are the next peaks, higher and more magnificent than the one you’re standing on. When you achieve a system that ‘disappears’ leaving just a big, beautiful soundscape in space...no identifiable sources like speakers....when you’re there, you’ve achieved an important milestone, a system that can trick your hearing and brain into constructing a solid 3 dimensional sound stage. But that’s just a stage along the way. Get there and there are still many improvements that can be made.  Greater naturalness, dynamics, speed, rhythmic drive, beauty, communication of the musical message, emotional responses, listener involvement to name just a few areas that can continue to be improved.

 

No, not when you have achieved the state of audio nirvana that he claims to have achieved!

[Allan F]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert." 

There you go again, quoting Newton's third law of internet forums!

[Allan F]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I've come across other rigs, rarely, that get it right - the point is to understand what needs to be done, each time, to push whatever happens to be in front of you to a plateau of presentation quality.

 

Another "pablum" generality completely devoid of any substantive content. Why don't you tell us how great it is to breathe air? Bye Bye.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

You appear to have a need for a precise recipe. However, the recipe will be different for every individual, depending upon their particular circumstances. And unless one knows those circumstances, some sort of generalised recipe is not going to be very useful.

 

There you go again. Not even a scintilla of valuable information. Forget it!

 

Quote

Time wasting, in fact.

 

You mean just like your posts. Why don't you give the bandwidth a break.

[Allan F]

5 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I agree with the idea that it is frustrating to actually communicate when someone is trying to express themselves  without the engineering/math/scientific expertise.  Sometimes a provincial language emerges that is used to communicate amongst the non technical individuals.

 

John,

I appreciate your opinion. However, IMO the issue in this instance is neither a question of difficulty of expression nor a lack of expertise. Rather, It has to do with repeating the same nonsense about good and bad recordings, including the notion that tweaking playback equipment can convert bad recordings into good ones, absolutely convinced that he is right. For example:

Quote

"Bad [recordings]" are just recordings put down with no concern for the 'sensitivities' of the playback equipment. "Good recordings" are the Politically Correct ones, they have been painstakingly doctored so that they offend no-one, no matter how 'bad' the status of their playback rig is.  And the ones that become very, very boring when one has a competent system - like gulping down large slabs of strained baby food."

 

Thank God for Bad Recordings! They have given me immense pleasure for the years, because they take no prisoners; all the excitement of intensely felt music making is bound up in them - may there be no "Auntie" music in heaven!.

 

I will avoid further frustration by simply ignoring his posts.