[macrae11]

DS-21 wrote:

Intuitively, to me that would lead to the conclusion that durability and the maker/marketer's service reputation are crucially important. Perhaps as much so as sonics. But it's not my industry.

Sound quality is paramount above all else. Service after the sale, is certainly important, and takes consideration, but really only after the sonics are more or less equal. This is why people still use pieces of equipment that are 50 years old, have no suitable replacement parts, and are in constant need of upkeep. Just to get that sound. Now after the repairs and downtime become more costly, than the benefit of having that sound, then service issues become much more important. Just trying to make a living you know. Gets harder every year in this business too.

Alternately, because it is better designed for the duty cycles required in your line of work. Some of the Behringer stuff may well not be suited for high-duty commercial audio use. However, the fact that it isn't - or priced like gear that is - does not preclude its use in top-flight home stereos. (I don't own any Behringer gear right now, because I find it ugly and have equal or better functionality from other stuff that better fits my aesthetic preferences.)

Certainly Behringer doesn't suit my aesthetics either, for a variety of reasons. Behringer has made a few decent products that I've used, but in general, amongst the products that I've used, their noise floor is higher than competing products, they're are not laid out as well, they use shoddier components, and they are far more prone to failure. These things I would think affect the home theatre enthusiast as much as the professional user. Of course this also doesn't say anything about their corporate ethics issues for which they are almost as infamous as their product line.

DS-21 wrote:

Ugh, I think I'd rather listen to awful iPod earbuds than Grados, because at least the iPod buds were free. I'm not into paying to torture my ears. (I'm a Sennheiser '580/600/650 + Ety guy.)

Again just a preference thing. I'm a big fan of the 650's although right now I'm mostly using a pair of Beyerdynamics.

DS-21 wrote:

That's the kind of statement that requires a cite, given the overwhelming weight of evidence (starting at the very latest with Clark's 1983 JAES paper) to the contrary. Assuming, of course, that factors known to be audible (FR, certain orders and levels of distortion, noise, etc.) were not measurably different between the two. I think such a finding would be at the very least highly publishable and of enormous marketing value to the firms whose gear prevailed in such a session.

emphasis added.

Ok I guess this is where the rubber meets the road, and where I think our two arguments meet. All the double blind ABX tests that I was referring to, were ones that I either designed myself or was present at. Thus there was no official publication of our findings. Here's the key: Of course if there is a sonic difference there will also be a corresponding measurable difference. I never claimed that there wouldn't be a measurable difference, however often these differences will not show up on a standard spec sheet, which is often what people are using to judge which product to buy. For example on a spec sheet from a Behringer preamp(which I used to own by the way) the THD is measured at .001%. On a Millenia preamp, which is one of the more revered transparent preamps, the THD is also measured at .001%. So if we are to simplify the comparison down to this spec, by your logic the two pieces will sound identical. This however is not the case. When we dig a little deeper, the behringer offers no other information. However the Millenia product states that the THD .001% from 10Hz-20kHz at +27dBu output. Quite a different story is told.

I never would have bothered to argue your point if you had said that two pieces of gear that have identically measurements will sound the same, but that wasn't your initial statement.

DS-21 wrote:

But outside of improvements in signal processing, anyone making a statement about personal preferences regarding sound quality in the commodity parts that are modern audio electronics is simply deluding her/him-self and possibly wasting money. It doesn't sound better, unless one of the two pieces of gear are broken.

This is your initial statement which I take opposition to. You weren't claiming that different pieces of equipment with the same specs sound the same, you were saying that all equipment sounds the same. I would also say even if the specs are the "same" two pieces will still sound different as specs never tell the whole story.

The other thing when using measurements only as a gauge of sound quality, you need to measure every possible component in every possible quantifiable way. Not easy to do, and never done on a spec sheet. With a proper level matched ABX test I can very quickly discern if there is a difference in sound quality. I may not be able to tell you what the exact difference is, or even which one you'll prefer, but I will be able to tell you if there is a difference or not. You can easily verify this with a null test.

Also we haven't talked about different types of components. IC's don't sound the same as transisters which don't sound the same as tubes. You stating that all modern audio components sound the same, ignores all of these variables. So a seperate transistor preamp and tube power amp are going to sound different than an IC AVR. Better or worse is not for me to say.(although you could probably guess my opinion.)

DS-21 wrote:

No argument here. At all. The idea that DSP will correct for severe flaws in system design such as haphazard speaker placement, non-constant directivity in the midband, use of a toppled-MTM center channel, or inadequate radiating area for low-distortion, low-compression lower midrange reproduction is off-base. However, I do not believe anyone here holds that position. I think the prevailing view (or at least my view, which if it isn't the prevailing view should be it) is that room correction is like the cream you put in after you've brewed a great cup of coffee in a French press. Start with bad coffee, and you'll never get there. Start with some coarsely ground Julius Meinl Jubilaeum blend, and you'll get a perfect Viennese melange.

Just a different methodology then. You're choosing to add your own flavour after the fact rather than listen to the ideal of what the artist wished to create. This is not a bad thing, just maybe not the way of the purist, who would drink their coffee black