magiccarpetride;610436 Wrote: > With all due respect, I don't understand what's the purpose of these > tests. There are four possible scenarios here: > > 1. You present me with the results of the test, and the results claim > that there are differences between modded and the unmodded Touch. I, > however, cannot hear any differences. In that case, what's the point in > me knowing that some far fetched measuring methodology produces > different results if I can't hear the differences anyway? > > 2. You present me with the results of the test, and the results claim > that there are differences between modded and the unmodded Touch. I do > hear the differences. In that case, what's the point in me knowing that > some far fetched measuring methodology produces different results when I > can already hear the differences myself? > > 3. You present me with the results of the test, and the results claim > there there are no differences between modded and the unmodded Touch. > I, however, hear the differences between the two. In that case, what's > the point in me knowing that some far fetched measuring methodology > does not produce different results when I clearly hear the differences > myself? > > 4. You present me with the results of the test, and the results claim > there there are no differences between modded and the unmodded Touch. I > also cannot hear the differences between the two. In that case, what's > the point in me knowing that some far fetched measuring methodology > does not produce different results when I also cannot hear differences > myself? > > The above charade sounds like a colossal waste of time, no matter how > you put it. Wouldn't your expertise be put to a better use if you would > devote your time to discovering the mods that could improve the sound > quality (sort of like Soundcheck already did)?
I second your position. Everybody who has done some research and lab work knows that things wouldn't work the way Phil approaches the subject. And even those who've done some serious research know that it is very easy to drive things to your advantage. All that you can't discuss over here. I mentioned that before: I'm also questioning his approach and the results in absolute terms. Or his conclusions on the - from his perspective - failed resp. unnecessary tests. That all goes hand in hand. I'd say that the majority of measuring charts of top quality equipment ( if you're able to find any) does not have any value either. They all do the same measurements. The results are pretty similar. And all machines sound different. Those measurements usually belong to the marketing package addressed to a specific group of customers. There are many people out there who take their buying decisions based on that kind of stuff. Fair enough. Others can live with a listening session. Others better do it all by themselves. Good to have that "biodiversity" still around. That keeps things going. What after all counts for me is that Phil has finally done the job and came up with any positive findings - at least from my perspective - at all... ...and he had the guts to present his results. Please consider, Phil was the one claiming there is no difference on wireless vs. ethernet more then once. Which then turned out to be one of the major differences on his measurements. Enough of that kind of talk. Enjoy. -- soundcheck 'soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 2.0' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com/2011/01/soundchecks-squeezebox-touch-toolbox-20.html) || 'soundcheck's Touch Toolbox - Beta Blog' (http://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com/2011/01/soundchecks-tt-beta-blog.html) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ soundcheck's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34383 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=84742 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
