Sighted tests -v- blind tests

[the record spot]

Used to do what, blind/sighted tests? Are you saying you only bother testing speakers now as the other components are, for the most part, audibly transparent? From experience I would agree. I think speakers are probably the item most worthy of auditioning, in terms of judging the sound.

Record Spot, this was meant as a reply to your earlier post!

That's pretty much it, although I don't know about audibly transparent. I think some amps are probably different, but to be honest, I haven't A-B'd anything and just buy blind mostly as I'll do a bunch of reading up beforehand and can return if the end result doesn't work out well at home. Not an issue. The 818's just blown me away with how good it is and put it in with a great recording then you're laughing. Got an MCA CD of Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World" album (cat no CMCAMD 25204) which was mastered by Greg Fulginiti and it's mind-bogglingly good; it's almost as if they're in the room. It's on its third spinning now!

I don't need another digital source, most of the films I stream off Netflix, I have a few on DVD/Blu-Ray and my Panny BDT-110 does the job. I've a Marantz CDP, which does SACD, and a Denon DVD-3930 which is a fine player too. I've had a few players over the years, but they've always been pretty similar in terms of sound. I might get a good universal player that'll handle SACD, DVD-A and HDCD, but not if it's going to cost me £800. The Denon does all of that anyway, but it's a consideration if I want to reduce the box count down to one player.

Biggest changes I've experienced to the sound have been through moving my speakers around a bit, changing to a different model of speaker and spending the time on the right fora getting the right recordings. Not as tough as it sounds and when you work out what you're looking for, it's second nature.

And as for that Louis Armstrong CD, this is the one to look out for:-

 

[byakuya83]

This isn't about wine and I don't know what you are trying to suggest but I don't appreciate the sentiment.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

So you don't want to be friends? Ah well, such is life as a legendary Australian once said.

By the way, I was trying to lighten up a slightly tedious thread.

 

[byakuya83]

Record Spot, thank you. I tend to agree based on my own ears (which are far from perfect and not at all trained) that amps can sound different. I also understand blind tests are not always possible for consumers so appreciate there are times when sighted is all that's available. I have also bought audio equipment without having tested it first, based on simply on recommendations/reviews and what I've read. However, I think when relying upon recommendations/reviews you have to understand the motives of whoever carried them out. Personally I think blind tests are more valid due to the elimination of other factors or agendas. Therefore, I lean more toward them being preferable for the purpose of evaluating sound. I was hoping to discover reasons why I might want to consider the alternative.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Try The Art of Sound forum.

 

[floyd droid]

Try The Art of Sound forum.

:rofl: Propper job me ansome

 

[busb]

I was going to say something but damned if I can remember what it is... Oh, yes! I take myself too seriously too. On the other hand I do know I do it. Glad to see a sense of humour is alive & kicking on this thread. Even The_Lhc made me laugh!

 

[CnoEvil]

I'm in...... I'm out.

Now why can't I be that sensible. :doh:

 

[Al ears]

When it comes to auditioing a piece of equipment for your own use then a blind test is totally irrelevent.

When groups of individuals get together to do a listening comparison study then blind-testing may gain some credence but this is normally irrelevent too as, in most cases none of those actually listening to that piece of equipment are likely to jump up and buy it.

 

[Al ears]

...double post for some reason

 

[byakuya83]

Allears, thank you. Could you expand on your first point and explain why you consider it irrelevant? Would the same apply to sighted tests? Keeping in mind only sound quality is being judged.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Good try bakkie boy!

Score +1 for irrelevant, but -1 for Allears

 

[Al ears]

Allears, thank you. Could you expand on your first point and explain why you consider it irrelevant? Would the same apply to sighted tests? Keeping in mind only sound quality is being judged.

The short answer to that is no. I do not purchase equipment purely on sound quality.

 

[char_lotte]

This isn't about wine and I don't know what you are trying to suggest but I don't appreciate the sentiment.

It's a shame it's not about wine. Then you could have used the ..."I dont appreciate the sediment" line.

 

[jcbrum]

My spell checker seems to have stopped working on this forum. Don't know why. Typos are a nuisance. - JC

Corrected for you.

Your correction is incorrect. Typo's is a contraction of typographical errors, not an incorrect use of the possessive apostrophy.

Just sayin'.

JC

 

[Al ears]

:cheers:

This isn't about wine and I don't know what you are trying to suggest but I don't appreciate the sentiment.

It's a shame it's not about wine. Then you could have used the ..."I dont appreciate the sediment" line.

:cheers:

 

[CnoEvil]

My spell checker seems to have stopped working on this forum. Don't know why. Typos are a nuisance. - JC

Corrected for you.

Typo's is a contraction of typographical errors, not an incorrect use of the possessive apostrophy.

Just sayin'.

JC

I can get my head round that.

It's the "ablative absolute", that I struggle with....as I don't even understand the explanation - "A construction in Latin in which an independent phrase with a noun in the ablative case has a participle, expressed or implied, which agrees with it in gender, number and case – both words forming a clause grammatically unconnected with the rest of the sentence."

Any ideas? :?

 

[Al ears]

My spell checker seems to have stopped working on this forum. Don't know why. Typos are a nuisance. - JC

Corrected for you.

Typo's is a contraction of typographical errors, not an incorrect use of the possessive apostrophy.

Just sayin'.

JC

I can get my head round that.

It's the "ablative absolute", that I struggle with....as I don't even understand the explanation - "A construction in Latin in which an independent phrase with a noun in the ablative case has a participle, expressed or implied, which agrees with it in gender, number and case – both words forming a clause grammatically unconnected with the rest of the sentence."

Any ideas? :?

Um:-

Duce nuntium mittente milites sua arma preparavunt ('While the general was sending a messenger, the soldiers readied their weapons'). Nuntium, although not in the ablative case, is considered part of the AA phrase because it is direct object of the active participle.

 

[Bodfish]

I haven't auditioned or even physically seen a component in years before purchasing it. Only exception is the RP8 (I'd originally gone to the store to purchase an RP6 and they had an RP8 on display and offered me a listen).

 

[CnoEvil]

Um:-

Duce nuntium mittente milites sua arma preparavunt ('While the general was sending a messenger, the soldiers readied their weapons'). Nuntium, although not in the ablative case, is considered part of the AA phrase because it is direct object of the active participle.

Ah.

You've got to love this forum!

:cheers:

 

[altruistic.lemon]

My spell checker seems to have stopped working on this forum. Don't know why. Typos are a nuisance. - JC

Corrected for you.

Your correction is incorrect. Typo's is a contraction of typographical errors, not an incorrect use of the possessive apostrophy.

Just sayin'.

JC

No, because you are using the word as a noun so it is a straight plural. Also, traditional spelling is "apostrophe".

Not having a good English day are you, my friend.

 

[CnoEvil]

My spell checker seems to have stopped working on this forum. Don't know why. Typos are a nuisance. - JC

Corrected for you.

Your correction is incorrect. Typo's is a contraction of typographical errors, not an incorrect use of the possessive apostrophy.

Just sayin'.

JC

No, because you are using the word as a noun so it is a straight plural. Also, traditional spelling is "apostrophe".

Not having a good English day are you, my friend.

An English lesson from an Ozzie......you definitely gotta love it.

Respect!

 

[jcbrum]

Not having a good English day are you, my friend.

No, I'm not

it's been like that all day.

Does anyone's spell checker work in the reply text box for this forum, or is it just me ? I'm sure it used to work ok ?

JC

 

[jcbrum]

testing testnig - no, it's hopeless

 

[jcbrum]

Just checked the same two words on AVI forum and Pink Fish, and the spell checker works ok there. Weired