We love personal experiences. It is just that we want that to relate only to what the ear received, not what the brain manufactured after the fact (i.e. tests need to have controls). Without this, subjective experiences are so wrong and so routinely so, that it is not worth sharing it with us. We know people can perceive the impossible. So let's not keep telling us that you "heard" that when you can't show that is what was actually heard.
In this forum, we rather stick to what we can prove, not imagine to be so.
amirm:
It will continue to be an uninspiring/weak website/blog when that is your guiding principle/reasoning.
Did it ever occur to you (and followers) that perhaps the listening experience is (far) more than what "our
ears hear" ? Such as what was 'felt' (naturally through hearing) and the great depth of clarity, texture
and dimensionality presented by via Amp 'A', but not Amp ''B'.
And you wish for the listener and/or manufacturer to give you a'specification' for this type (of routine)
interpretation made by music lover's/hi-fi buffs the world over ? Yet, no matter the sensibility of the
argument, some will never be able to see/feel/hear what others do.
Additionally, those that appreciate premium, nuanced, articulate sound reproduction (better hi-fi) are
comfortable in the knowledge of their SQ interpretations and feel not threatened there may not be a
readily identifiable 'measurement' to "prove" it .
peter jasz
