Audiophilia and the Playstation 1

[Sheep]

Sorry, I was having a conversation with someone. I'll know better than to do it again here.

LOL! For the record, I've had threads where in 1 post I broken the Character limit.... twice.

SheepStar

 

[UFObuster]

Jostenmeat:
I appreciate your comments regarding "listening experience". Disclaimer: I'm not a musician, but I was raised around a family rich in musical talent and from an infant heard a lot of excellent music played (rehearsed and performed) on a variety of acoustic instruments. I know for a fact that some people, usually trained but not necessarily, have a keener sense of sound. Most of us can acquire some expertise if we try. One example, I've got 4 or 5 recordings of Mozart's Clarinet Quintet which have distinct differences in performance characterists as well as technical differences in the recordings. All are easily discernable to me...and it's easy to teach my friends and family how to hear it also.
Many of my classically trained friends have no trouble identifying a conductor and an orchestra just by listening to them on a recording. There is also truth to the matter that many good musicians hear the differences in manufactured instruments and that builders rely on it. Martin guitars use varied woods for different instruments for a reason. Most listeners wouldn't know the difference when heard, but a "good listener" would. Why did Horowitz always play Steinways?
It's a little like wine tasting isn't it. A lot of the difference of opinion on the quality of a CDP is definitely subjective but may also be valuable if the source of the opinion is a good one. The technical differences in audio equipment can easily be washed over by the quality of what the original sound source was. I would always first rely on opinion from someone who knows what the music was supposed to sound like BEFORE it was recorded. Not just an audiophile whose level of expertise extends from the microphones to my speakers.

I haven't done any serious blind testing lately with CD players but the DAC is a mature technology. It is trivial for a designer to put a DAC chip in a player and a few op amps and other components in an analog stage following the DAC. Yes it would be possible to screw up the analog stage design and have it perform terribly but I haven't encountered that myself and, apparently, neither have the audiophiles who like to listen to the PS1.

Help me out a little more with this. Are you saying that a Burr-Brown DAC is no better than a cheap generic one? I'm learning here. Don't the quality of the power sources/transformers matter? Wouldn't these produce some differences in playback quality that is audible? If it's true that cheap components work as well, then why wouldn't builders use them to price down a little and at the same time make more profit? If cheap is really just as good...what's gone wrong with the market ($$) forces here?

 

[Joe Schmoe]

If cheap is really just as good...what's gone wrong with the market ($$) forces here?

The market forces are working very well, from the manufacturer's point of view. They are able to sell players at high-end prices that don't actually sound any better than entry-level CDPs because they have convinced the public to accept the lie that more expensive=better.
The same comments apply to amplifiers. Only with speakers does a lot more money buy a lot more performance, and even there the maximum level of audible refinement is reached long before the maximum price. (at around $1000/pr, to be exact.)

 

[fmw]

Help me out a little more with this. Are you saying that a Burr-Brown DAC is no better than a cheap generic one? I'm learning here. Don't the quality of the power sources/transformers matter? Wouldn't these produce some differences in playback quality that is audible? If it's true that cheap components work as well, then why wouldn't builders use them to price down a little and at the same time make more profit? If cheap is really just as good...what's gone wrong with the market ($$) forces here?

No, let me repeat what I said. We did blind tests on a number of CD players several years ago. The responses were statistically random. In other words, the players all produced sound that was close enough to the others that ID'ing a given unit was impossible for the group. I did a test just two days ago with a couple of CD players that was exactly the opposite. We scored 100% ID'ing the units. I didn't say all CD players sound alike but I did say that two of my players were in that original group for the blind test that scored random and they were priced at $3500 and $250 respectively. Those two units sounded the same for all practical purposes.

I have no knowledge of the price of DAC devices, sorry. I would venture to say that the difference between one and another would probably be a matter of cents rather than dollars in large quantities but I don't have the information. Perhaps someone who purchases such devices can help. Don't let marketing get confused with engineering, however.

If you ask me whether or not you should spend a lot of money on a CD player I would say probably not, if the purpose is better better performance and probably yes, if you have other reasons than sonic performance for wanting the more expensive unit.

I'm going to get criticized for a lengthy post again but understand that sampling and digital/analog conversion is a mature technology and it is trivial for a designer to design an accurate unit given that technology. Yes, one can foul up and make an incompetent design and I have run into a few but not many. Competent ones would be very, very difficult, if not impossible to ID in a properly conducted blind test.

 

[fmw]

Why did Horowitz always play Steinways?
It's a little like wine tasting isn't it.

Horowitz played Steinways either because he was a paid endorser of Steinway (I think he was) or he had a personal preference for the feel and touch of the Steinway or both. Oscar Peterson, the most recorded jazz pianist of all time would only play Baldwins (also a paid endorser, I believe.) My own preference is for the Yamaha which has a key weight somewhere between Steinway (heavy) and Baldwin (light.) Many European pianists prefer the Bosendorfer or other European brands that are every bit as good as the American Steinways and Baldwins. Each brand of piano has a typical feel and touch and they really are fairly distinct.

All the top brands are capable of great sound and great music just like all the brands of wine are capable of complementing a great dinner.

 

[UFObuster]

Horowitz played Steinways either because he was a paid endorser of Steinway (I think he was) or he had a personal preference for the feel and touch of the Steinway or both. Oscar Peterson, the most recorded jazz pianist of all time would only play Baldwins (also a paid endorser, I believe.) My own preference is for the Yamaha which has a key weight somewhere between Steinway (heavy) and Baldwin (light.) Many European pianists prefer the Bosendorfer or other European brands that are every bit as good as the American Steinways and Baldwins. Each brand of piano has a typical feel and touch and they really are fairly distinct.

All the top brands are capable of great sound and great music just like all the brands of wine are capable of complementing a great dinner.

Thanks, you're putting what I meant into better words. Point was, not was Steinway better than Balwin, but it takes experts to really hear some difference. Piano was not a good example since, as you correctly noted, there is the action involved. Most people would never know the difference.

That said, it lends credence to the subjective part of an assessment of sound quality in any matter (our topic, CDPs). I, too, lean heavily toward a scientific comparison but I don't rule out subjective opinions from an informed listener. "Placebo" effect really only counts AFTER you dropped a wad and now you have to justify it. Also, as you pointed out, the brain is actively engaged with the ear, it makes the subjective impression of a "good listener" even more important.....the wine taster analogy.

 

[Sheep]

Thanks, you're putting what I meant into better words. Point was, not was Steinway better than Balwin, but it takes experts to really hear some difference. Piano was not a good example since, as you correctly noted, there is the action involved. Most people would never know the difference.

That said, it lends credence to the subjective part of an assessment of sound quality in any matter (our topic, CDPs). I, too, lean heavily toward a scientific comparison but I don't rule out subjective opinions from an informed listener. "Placebo" effect really only counts AFTER you dropped a wad and now you have to justify it. Also, as you pointed out, the brain is actively engaged with the ear, it makes the subjective impression of a "good listener" even more important.....the wine taster analogy.

Fmw is saying that although they feel different they all SOUNDED great. Being a paid endorser pretty much kills all your credibility.

A CDP can feel one way, and still output similar sound to one that feels different. One's heavier, big whoop, it still sounds the same in a properly conducted blind test. Or you could measure them and plot it. After all, a microphone is much more accurate then a human ear. Comes "I just spent a grand on a CDP" bias free too!

SheepStar

 

[fmw]

That said, it lends credence to the subjective part of an assessment of sound quality in any matter (our topic, CDPs). I, too, lean heavily toward a scientific comparison but I don't rule out subjective opinions from an informed listener. "Placebo" effect really only counts AFTER you dropped a wad and now you have to justify it. Also, as you pointed out, the brain is actively engaged with the ear, it makes the subjective impression of a "good listener" even more important.....the wine taster analogy.

Not to me. I put no stock at all in sighted subjective listening tests. They mean absolutely nothing to me because they aren't reliable. They aren't reliable with expensive equipment. They aren't reliable with inexpensive equipment. And I can prove and have proven that this is true. Lot's of people fall prey to it. I did too for many, many years. In other words, I rule out subjective opinions of sound quality completely.

I have very little experience with wine tasting. I have a tendency to prefer the wines that the experts don't particularly like. I don't like wines with a lot of tannins so I tend not to drink Cabernets until they are too old. My favorite reds are the Burgundies. I don't like the way the California wineries age Chardonnays in oak barrels and destroy the taste of the grape. So I drink French Chablis which is, for me, a much more appealing version of the Chardonnay. I like wines from grapes that are grown further south in California than the experts like so that they are "fruitier". I don't particularly value "complexity" in wines. I'm a poor subject for it, I'm afraid, even though I drink wine often and enjoy it. Perhaps it is my natural distaste for subjective testing. I think placebo effect affects wine tasting as well and blind testing is a good idea there just like it is in audio.

 

[jostenmeat]

Battle of the Long-Winded commences!

..what makes the piano difficult is the polyphony. The guitar is polyphonic too and difficult for the same reason.

You can say that again.

I studied classical guitar for a couple of years and just couldn't seem to make much progress with it. I was never able to leave my fingernails alone either and they need to be strong and long. It's pretty foreign instrument for a keyboard player. I still have my Yamaha student guitar. I keep it tuned but rarely play it. I have a lot of respect for people who have mastered the guitar. It isn't easy.

Very different instruments indeed. I appreciated the previous solfege/harmony/composition teachers that really understood that. Something like Asturias by Albeniz is actually a lot easier on the guitar, although written for piano. I think the pianist's eyes have to pop instantaneously in opposite directions! Then the guitar can play three simultaneous voices that are all at least an octave or more apart. A pianist could not, due to the span of their hands, outside of playing with their nose as well. Also, scordaturas or alternate tunings. I once gave a semi-tribute to Bach on his 319th (my lucky number) b-day, the vernal equinox. I performed with 5 different tunings. (standard, drop D, drop E flat, 3= f#, and 6=E flat + 2= B flat). Im glad I invested in +$500 Rodgers tuners... (and those are the cheapest... hand-made are actually are more precise, and they are fine-tuning, which does make changing strings slightly a nuisance....) Piano has a much larger range, power, closer voicings..
Fwiw, some people take a Yamaha guitar and sand off the finish (its like super-automotive grade, haha), to let the top breathe easier. My friend and former professional colleague used a chisel! We were both hoping for more improvement, but there was a bit. Anyways, Yamaha and Takamine seem to make the best valued entry-level classical guitars around the $500 mark, at least in the US.

I heard Oscar Peterson live three times. Once in Portland, OR, once in Denver, CO and once in Chicago at the famous London House. In Chicago, when the trio took a break at one point, Oscar stayed at the piano and played Bach for about 20 minutes. He may be a fan of Chopin. I don't know. But he is certainly a Bach fan and he plays it well. His left had was just fine, thank you.

You are one lucky man! I bet your jaw hit the floor. That's very interesting to me that he performs Bach. When I took a Bach performance course during my Masters program, the professor would often say that the baroque-style was the closest thing there was to jazz.

....His dream was to study with Oscar Peterson and he applied. Oscar invited him up to his home in Toronto to talk about it. When he arrived, Oscar talked to him a little and suggested that he go back to his hotel and practice "Satin Doll." My friend said he played Satin Doll all the time and would happy to jump into it right now. Oscar smiled and told him no. Go to the hotel and practice and we'll meet in the morning. In the morning, my friend showed up and Oscar showed him to his Baldwin. He said. Let's do Satin Doll, key of B. Ready, go.

My friend said. It's written in B flat. Nobody plays it in B. Oscar said. Well, but you should be able to handle it in B, shouldn't you? When you think you can play it in B come on back up and visit. My friend returned to Colorado feeling pretty down and out. He was a fine pianist but not yet good enough to study with Oscar Peterson. That was in 1966. I haven't heard from that piano player since I left Colorado.

Great story. If he really wanted to study with him, I bet he did. Outside of a few huge figures, I think that both the classical and jazz worlds are so small respectively, that if you wanted to meet or study with almost any of them, its only a matter of, er, fearlessness and/or simply contacting them. (I once drank the better part of a bottle of wine out of pure fear just prior to calling a certain virtuoso in Italy. Guess what, his brother slept on the couch while I in his bed during my stay, unbelievable). One could not contact easily, say, Tiger Woods, Al Pacino, *Insert Name*.

Anyways, you really remind me of a certain music lesson I once received. I, like many, at one point believed that jazz piano was the greatest thing ever. I sought lessons, veritably starting from scratch, 2-octave scales and all, (while continuing classical studies). I was the worst student, of course. I picked the brain of the best student (I feel funny calling him a student), and I can't remember if I paid him (surely I did), and received a 3-hr lesson which had the theme of "symmetrical scales" (I'll get to that in a moment). He was playing for me some Parker tunes (Donna Lee, Anthropology) and Bach inventions. He asked me to pick any key. I asked him for the original key, and being the diabolical man I am, I asked for it at the tri-tone. BAM. Even with the Bach. Now, that was disgusting. Any key.

Well, as I was looking for help to expand beyond chordal tones, etc, he went off on symmetries of scales and superimposing them over chord changes. Chromatic (infinite), whole-tone scales (only 2 of them), minor-third (only 3 of them), (etc, etc). So, if you think about it, say with the major-third scales, thats only 10 total scales to learn. You can fit the chromatic anywhere, the whole-tone superimposes on major/minor 7ths, augmented chords, or wtheck not on your ubiquitous "7s" etc. The minor-3rd scale superimposes on stuff like diminished triads, fully diminished 7th, and wtheck not on minor 7ths. etc. Of course, the major-third is two consecutive whole-tones, and so you can pretty much apply them to the aforementioned whole tone stuff. This is pretty obvious to many musicians, but his delivery of the material at the time floored me. (I did not get to quartal/quintal stuff!)

I appreciate your comments regarding "listening experience". ...and it's easy to teach my friends and family how to hear it also.
Many of my classically trained friends have no trouble identifying a conductor and an orchestra just by listening to them on a recording. There is also truth to the matter that many good musicians hear the differences in manufactured instruments and that builders rely on it. Martin guitars use varied woods for different instruments for a reason. Most listeners wouldn't know the difference when heard, but a "good listener" would... I would always first rely on opinion from someone who knows what the music was supposed to sound like BEFORE it was recorded. Not just an audiophile whose level of expertise extends from the microphones to my speakers.

You know, I could never identify conductor/orchestra very well (unless I already knew the recording). That's always been very impressive to me. Even if some couldn't point out exact ensemble, they could sometimes at least just say which part of the world they were from. I appreciate your comment about the sound "before it was recorded". I think that persons that actually do play music, particularly on acoustical instruments, are much more familiar with elements such as attack and decay, but I really just might be talking out of my butt. However, it must be said that the insane audiophiles whose main goal is to tweak a system would know more about such things...

Which brings me to something I almost forgot to mention, to fmw. I appreciate, more than you can possibly know, the red-flag warning/confirmation of the most dangerous aspect of audiophila. I waste too much damn time on this crap; it is really addictive. I try to look at it as a hobby to pass time, and not a passion. I'm going to try and keep it that way. Maybe, I can even be successful enough to cut my time on boards such as these in the future. Seriously though, I appreciate it more than you know.

Help me out a little more with this. Are you saying that a Burr-Brown DAC is no better than a cheap generic one? I'm learning here. Don't the quality of the power sources/transformers matter? Wouldn't these produce some differences in playback quality that is audible? If it's true that cheap components work as well, then why wouldn't builders use them to price down a little and at the same time make more profit? If cheap is really just as good...what's gone wrong with the market ($$) forces here?

I have no knowledge of the price of DAC devices, sorry. I would venture to say that the difference between one and another would probably be a matter of cents rather than dollars in large quantities but I don't have the information. Perhaps someone who purchases such devices can help. Don't let marketing get confused with engineering, however.

UFO, here is a thread, while only topical, and speaking mostly of Cambridge players, two of them will know about DACs. You will know which persons I am talking about. One of them, Jonomega, is really nice young fellow who is a both an organist and organ tuner, and lives among Berklee music students. I'd ask him maybe, if so inclined.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=927024

Steinways? Its been a while since a heard one. I found them to be a bit dry. Very good (or very bad if you are not an excellent performer!) for extremely exposed stuff. I think of Haydn, Bach, etc. Didn't really sound so good for fluffier stuff like Gaspard de la Nuit or something. My tastes... I can't remember Baldwins, and I probably also prefer Yamahas... I also personally prefer spruce tops to cedars with guitars, though takes year(s) instead of month(s) to break in...

Had responded to Sheep w/ honest q's, but hit the 10k character mark! Sorry, instead, I decided on ignore list. I am sure I will miss out on plenty of good info, but the delivery is hard to swallow for the moment. Cheers to all.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Not to me. I put no stock at all in sighted subjective listening tests. They mean absolutely nothing to me because they aren't reliable. They aren't reliable with expensive equipment. They aren't reliable with inexpensive equipment. And I can prove and have proven that this is true. Lot's of people fall prey to it. I did too for many, many years. In other words, I rule out subjective opinions of sound quality completely.

If you were to disguise an expensive CDP and a cheap one by putting them in a cheap-looking box and a fancy-looking box, respectively, the nicer-looking one would almost certainly score higher in a sighted listening test (all other variables being carefully controlled, of course.)

 

[jostenmeat]

..what makes the piano difficult is the polyphony.

I am sure music reading conventions have evolved for good reason... but, I wish music companies would publish music with color. A different color per individual line. I knew musicians who hand copied their music using colored pencils.

When I look at a piano score, its sometimes difficult to follow inner voices that jump from staff to staff (hand to hand). I wonder if reading one huge staff is doable, or if simply having 3 or 4 lines of staves is actually feasible. (hey, there are those who can sight-reduce orchestral scores!?!!)

 

[fmw]

Piano was not a good example since, as you correctly noted, there is the action involved. Most people would never know the difference.

No it's a good example. You could put a Steinway grand next to a Baldwin grand and let non-pianists play the keys blindfolded. They would be able to ID the pianos every time because the key weight is that different. It would be quite obvious to anyone.

The sound of some audio componenets is also that different. I'm not trying suggest that everything sounds the same. I am trying to suggest that, if you want reliable listening test results, a properly administered blind test is the only way to get it.

 

[fmw]

I am sure music reading conventions have evolved for good reason... but, I wish music companies would publish music with color. A different color per individual line. I knew musicians who hand copied their music using colored pencils.

When I look at a piano score, its sometimes difficult to follow inner voices that jump from staff to staff (hand to hand). I wonder if reading one huge staff is doable, or if simply having 3 or 4 lines of staves is actually feasible. (hey, there are those who can sight-reduce orchestral scores!?!!)

Yes, and sometimes we play bass notes with the right hand and treble notes with the left. Yes, orchestral composers and arrangers and, of course, conductors can often sight read orchestral scores. I wouldn't be a very good arranger or conductor, I'm afraid.

My Yamaha, by the way, has a cedar top. I doubt it is worth going through much with it. I think I paid about $600 for it 15 years ago. It has a slightly thinner neck than the concert guitars so it's a little easier to play - hence the "student" terminology, I guess. It has decent tone but nowhere near the volume of the concert instruments.

I attended an Andres Segovia recital in Portland way back in the late 50's. I'll never forget how that instrument filled the Portland Civic Auditorium with music without any amplification at all. Just a man on a stool in the middle of the stage with his guitar. It was very cool. I heard Arturo Rubinstein give a Chopin concert in that same auditorium.

I can't tell one top orchestra from another either. I've noticed that tempos have slowed a little over the years as CD's have more storage space than vinyl records. It's kind of fun to play the same composition from two eras. The difference in tempo can be pretty remarkable. It's not a problem to fit Beethoven's 9th on a CD or even most Mahler symphonies. You can't fit Beethoven's 9th on a single vinyl record, however.

 

[jostenmeat]

Yes, and sometimes we play bass notes with the right hand and treble notes with the left.

Ah yes, the cross-over. Forgot about that. I guess two staves is best/easiest then: but with color!

hmmm... still, not being a pianist, are there ever any moments when a written-in x-over is actually avoidable or perhaps even not the best solution? I suppose that could be rare, if ever.

Speaking of long-typed posts and piano technique.... lol, a concert pianist friend of mine once saw the world record for fastest typed alphabet (+enter key). It was a tad over 2 secs, and he said "I can beat that!". He trained for two days and halved the record! I've seen him do it, fully deployed with cross-over and all, LOL.

 

[jostenmeat]

My Yamaha, by the way, has a cedar top. I doubt it is worth going through much with it. I think I paid about $600 for it 15 years ago. It has a slightly thinner neck than the concert guitars so it's a little easier to play - hence the "student" terminology, I guess. It has decent tone but nowhere near the volume of the concert instruments.

I attended an Andres Segovia recital in Portland way back in the late 50's. I'll never forget how that instrument filled the Portland Civic Auditorium with music without any amplification at all. Just a man on a stool in the middle of the stage with his guitar. It was very cool. I heard Arturo Rubinstein give a Chopin concert in that same auditorium.

I can't tell one top orchestra from another either. I've noticed that tempos have slowed a little over the years as CD's have more storage space than vinyl records. It's kind of fun to play the same composition from two eras. The difference in tempo can be pretty remarkable. It's not a problem to fit Beethoven's 9th on a CD or even most Mahler symphonies. You can't fit Beethoven's 9th on a single vinyl record, however.

Interesting comments about tempos.... My newly acquired Gardiner Beethoven cycle is on steroids. I think now, some parts might be too fast! However, sometimes faster tempo makes it easier to assimilate the whole, at times. But with compromises I am sure. I never have owned a single vinyl, and have nothing to add there.

Segovia and Rubinstein too, fantastic.

oh, thinner necks have no bearing on "student" guitars. Some actually have fatter necks. I think "student guitars" get their name from the price-range.

 

[fmw]

hmmm... still, not being a pianist, are there ever any moments when a written-in x-over is actually avoidable or perhaps even not the best solution? I suppose that could be rare, if ever.

No, not rare. Usually, piano music doesn't indicate how to finger the notes. You just look ahead to see what's coming and let your fingers do the walking. Just after dinner this evening, I was playing Beethoven's Fur Elise. There is one part of the score in which you play nothing but E notes over a span of five octaves. I remember stumbling there and deciding how I wanted to finger it. I played it 3 or 4 times until I had worked out a decent solution and then played on. It isn't always a slam dunk. I think Fur Elise would be a nice piece for guitar. It's a pretty melody. I've never heard it played on guitar, however.

 

[UFObuster]

No it's a good example. You could put a Steinway grand next to a Baldwin grand and let non-pianists play the keys blindfolded. They would be able to ID the pianos every time because the key weight is that different. It would be quite obvious to anyone.

The sound of some audio componenets is also that different. I'm not trying suggest that everything sounds the same. I am trying to suggest that, if you want reliable listening test results, a properly administered blind test is the only way to get it.

Actually, I was referencing recorded sound of them. I'm sure you're right...but I was keeping this in the reference of hearing recorded sound. I doubt very much if the average listener could tell if he/she was hearing a Steinway, Baldwin, or Bosendorfer.....I couldn't...but some people can.


Yes, I lean heavily toward scientific testing. BUT, there is always some merit to the trained listener's ability to hear a little bit more. Let me put it this way: I'd like the blind A/B testing done on better than average listeners....that would satisfy my requirements for comparing audio components.

 

[UFObuster]

Good Stuff...

While I'm at it...

I've really enjoyed following these posts, especially between "jostenmeat" and "fmw". You guys share a wealth of experience and excellent perspective. I don't think I've read a better thread.....

...thanks

 

[MDS]

I'm a long time lover of music and pretty well versed in all the technobabble surrounding the electronics but the talk in the 'science of music' if you will is a bit over my head. I like reading about it nonetheless. Some small amount of it will probably sink in.

But...I have a question that maybe jostenmeat and/or fmw could address. I often wonder about the notion that anyone 'knows' how music should sound. The oft-stated goal of the audiophile (meaning lover of music and not freako tweak that believes a green marker can affect a 680 nm laser ) is to build a system that as accurately as possible can reproduce the sound of live music.

Live music is played by humans and humans are not perfect at all times. The listener is affected by myriad factors (mood, temperature, environment, hearing abililty, etc). So how is it that one trained in music (whatever that means - MS degree in Music or life-long musician) can know that a reproduction meets or falls short of the ideal given that the live version can itself vary?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think I can in many instances hear a difference between recordings or even percieve a 'flaw' but it does not detract from my experience. I'd rather have ANY version of a song I like than none at all. I listen right through the flaws....

 

[fmw]

Actually, I was referencing recorded sound of them. I'm sure you're right...but I was keeping this in the reference of hearing recorded sound. I doubt very much if the average listener could tell if he/she was hearing a Steinway, Baldwin, or Bosendorfer.....I couldn't...but some people can.

I certainly agree. Just the recording venue would have a noticeable effect on the sound.

Yes, I lean heavily toward scientific testing. BUT, there is always some merit to the trained listener's ability to hear a little bit more. Let me put it this way: I'd like the blind A/B testing done on better than average listeners....that would satisfy my requirements for comparing audio components.

Better than average listeners? I'm not sure I understand that. I would undertand better than average writers or better known reviewers but not better listeners. While the subjective magazine reviewers write as though they have a special gift for hearing, they don't. They have normal hearing like the rest of us. They are entertaining writers and that's why they have a job with the magazine. Audible differences are audible to anybody with normal hearing. A person who hasn't spent years doing subjective listening tests might not know what causes an audible difference or how to describe it in entertaining prose but they would still hear it. When there are audible differences their preference might be different from yours or mine but the test score would be the same.

The blind tests I've conducted have either been group tests with members of an audiophile club or tests with my wife and I alone. My wife has no feel at all for high fidelity. She could care less but her hearing is normal.

And thanks for your comment.