In message <h2hpj4$7le$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
[]
>As an engineer, all I can say is that double blind tests merely ensure
>that what gets picked is the equipment most like what the audience 'has
>at home' and has got used to.

(-:
>
>It took me over a year listening to various parts of what I was working
>on to finally understand what all the various imperfections did, and
>learn to like real quality. At first it simply sounded as it it was
>lacking in character. I eventually realised that that was indeed the
>whole point. I couldn't hear the electronics, I had instead to listen
>to the material ;-)

I remember when the Quad electrostatic 65s finally came out (in the
1970s, despite the name, which was based on when they started to design
them), there was much coverage that they sounded flat and lifeless; it
took a while for the penny to drop, as you describe.
>
>Oh, and the things that are easy to measure, like frequency response,
>step response stereo separation and harmonic distortion, are the things
>that make the least difference. Its intermodulation distortion that
>muddies up complex sounds, but without a spectrum analyser that's a
>hard thing to measure.
>
Indeed, though such instruments for audio bandwidths, especially as PC
cards, are a lot cheaper than they were, and of course CDs are a good
source of test tones (I have one with several pairs of tones for
measuring HID). If you have a good CD player of course!
>
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

Now, don't worry. We'll be right behind you. Hiding. (First series, fit the
sixth.)