17-Apr-2018, 09:10
(This post was last modified: 17-Apr-2018, 11:47 by Hifi_swlon.)
Great post David A, you had me right to the end and I should have been doing something else!
Very much agree, but also value Archimago’s posts too - I’m quite interested in measurements but wouldn’t have the time, money, or knowledge to buy and use an audio precision or similar and lab environment to use it in so it’s useful to see others sharing.
Best to keep an open mind about all things, but also to remember there are people out there actively planning to make money out of our inability to prove whether something works as claimed or not. They of course have the upper hand since practically no consumers have the necessary gear to measure other than their ears, which are part of a complex system that can give very misleading results - any human being that thinks otherwise might benefit from reading a few more papers on the related subject - I certainly feel more clued up having done so.
I often think of Devialets claim of 0.000000001% (or whatever it was) THD, which was all over their marketing material, and followed through to the first Phantom (where they rounded it to ZERO for the masses). The Pro sounds significantly better to my ears than the previous expert, and that seems a generally accepted consensus too, yet has almost the same THD at 0.00000000000001% (or whatever). OK they’re both zero - clearly the THD was the best number they had, and there were plenty that they hid or didn’t measure first time round. At the Pros launch they mentioned some other numbers, many of which had doubled or more in precision. There have been three Phantom models and each allegedly sounds better off mainly the same numbers as the original. Measurements are valuable but won’t necessarily give you the whole truth especially once they’ve been through the marketing dept!
Very much agree, but also value Archimago’s posts too - I’m quite interested in measurements but wouldn’t have the time, money, or knowledge to buy and use an audio precision or similar and lab environment to use it in so it’s useful to see others sharing.
Best to keep an open mind about all things, but also to remember there are people out there actively planning to make money out of our inability to prove whether something works as claimed or not. They of course have the upper hand since practically no consumers have the necessary gear to measure other than their ears, which are part of a complex system that can give very misleading results - any human being that thinks otherwise might benefit from reading a few more papers on the related subject - I certainly feel more clued up having done so.
I often think of Devialets claim of 0.000000001% (or whatever it was) THD, which was all over their marketing material, and followed through to the first Phantom (where they rounded it to ZERO for the masses). The Pro sounds significantly better to my ears than the previous expert, and that seems a generally accepted consensus too, yet has almost the same THD at 0.00000000000001% (or whatever). OK they’re both zero - clearly the THD was the best number they had, and there were plenty that they hid or didn’t measure first time round. At the Pros launch they mentioned some other numbers, many of which had doubled or more in precision. There have been three Phantom models and each allegedly sounds better off mainly the same numbers as the original. Measurements are valuable but won’t necessarily give you the whole truth especially once they’ve been through the marketing dept!
>>> 1st Place Award: Devialet, last decades most disappointing technology purchase. <<<
