Nick Arran (CEeng MIET) makes the point here:
http://www2.theiet.org/oncomms/Secto...35C8065D59ACD4
I would hesitate to use the word "audiophiles" and would replace it with 'experienced listeners' or in fact anyone with better hearing acuity than someone else be it a scientist or whomever. In fact, sometimes non-audiophile, non-professional people have better ears than anyone with hi-fi (I'm thinking wife's, partners and such like here). I certainly don't feel that scientists automatically or necessarily have more discerning ears than others!
Russ Andrews addresses the issue and Mr Arran's assertions (in the latest copy of his company's booklet 'Connected'):
I find myself nodding in total agreement with Mr Andrews, particularly the bits I've highlighted in bold as they represent my own judgement methodology with hi-fi. It also neatly ties in with another discussion currently taking place about speaker cables.
Personally, I think it's a fallacy to believe that measurement apparatus alone can determine the efficacy of hi-fi equipment, particularly when the human brain deciphers musical signals in a totally different way to a computer. Listening to music is largely an emotional, not a cerebral experience, and so applying science to hi-fi in terms of it being the sole arbiter of what is deemed as 'correct' and 'incorrect' I believe is an exercise in futility. Understanding how we as human beings derive pleasure from music, and ascertaining how hi-fi equipment is best designed to accurately facilitate that experience through the processing of recorded music signals I feel is far more complex than known science can fully explain or quantify.
So, guys, what do you think about the assertions of Mr Arran, the subject in general, and about what Russ wrote above?
<Discuss>
Marco.