When I was first thinking about this, I started with subjective vs objective (i.e. 'I like the sound' vs 'it is accurate'), but realised the inadequacy of that approach, as the subjective especially splits into many camps. The objective approach is kinda dull to me as there's not much to talk about - I'm a big fan of pontificating ;)
I agree that the 'three camp' approach is simplistic, but I suggest that you can get a reasonable understanding of some equipment by plotting its position on some imaginary triangular graph. Thus Arcam might have a bit of PRaT, reasonable timbre but not much impact (say). It then becomes interesting to consider what you are after - a 'middle-of-the-road' system, or a heavily-skewed one? And are these three mutually exclusive? What other outcomes might we be looking for? Could it be used as a system for reviewing equipment? Adam -- adamslim SB3 into Derek Shek d2, Shanling CDT-100, Rotel RT-990BX, Esoteric Audio Research 859, Living Voice Auditorium IIs, Nordost and Anti-cables http://www.last.fm/user/AdamSlim/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ adamslim's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7355 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34379 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
