Subjective Rating System

[Kal Rubinson]

39 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I thought it would be useful to lay out some descriptive phrases relating to the magnitude of perceived SQ.

A ranking is important.

For example, at the bottom - right next to "no difference" - would be:

Discernable

Noticeable

 

At or near the top:

Astounding

Jaw Dropping

and, finally:

like the birth of a new world

Where does "So what?" fit in?

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

it would have to go in the middle somewhere; above discernible but far below jaw-dropping

... that reminds me.. "blankets were lifted" is obvious more than a quantum bum above "veils were lifted"

It covers a lot of ground.

[Kal Rubinson]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

5.0 is Imperceptible

4.0 is perceptible, but not annoying. 

3.0 is slightly annoying.

2.0 is annoying.

1.0 is very annoying. 

Mebbe we can rate posts/threads that way.

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

"The Bozak Concert Grand is a loudspeaker dreams are made of..."

- Stereopile, 2005

I didn't write that nor would I but the Bozak Concert Grand figures in my dreams because a pair of them were the face of the first stereo system I had ever heard.  Sometime in the mid-to-late 50s at an audio shop on Radio Row on Cortlandt Street in lower Manhattan (soon to be cleared for the construction of the World Trade Center), I was treated to a stereotape of Beethoven's 7th Symphony performed by a long-forgotten conductor and orchestra.  The tape was played on a Magnecorder via a lot of McIntosh electronics and the sound emerged from the Concert Grands.  Having heard only mono recordings before, although sometimes through more than one speaker, this was a revelation.  And I stand by that description.  Hooked me good.