<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I see where Mr. Van Woofer gets the brunt of his inspiration!</td></tr></table>
Yep! And proud of it!
Notice the author didn't say
why he disagrees with their stand on the audibility of electronics, except that to agree with it would render audio mags (and perhaps by extension the hobby itself) "boring" and so "what's the point"? Well, truth is truth whether we like it or not. The fact that all competently designed solid state electronic components* are audibly identical may dismay those of us who need a reason to constantly diddle with gear and spend fortunes thereby, but for those of us who want to deploy our resources where they'll do the most good it's nice to know. And its a tribute to the engineers, designers, and theorists who have brought us to this point. In any other field of endeavor such a state of affairs would be seen as a golden age!
And at any rate, there are still good reasons to spend extra on a better than mass-market bit of gear. I've mentioned intangibles like "pride of ownership" and "prestige". But features, ergonomics, build quality (hence reliability), the best available electrical performance (measurable, if not audible) and the ability to drive difficult speaker loads are all good reasons to move upmarket. To use the old car analogy, a Chevy and a Mercedes will both get me to work equally well, but I'd rather do it in a Mercedes (or, for that matter, my Subaru WRX!) I will seldom use my WRX's ability to accelerate from 0 to 60 in less than six seconds on the street (well, maybe on an empty on-ramp for fun!). But it's nice to have it, and I didn't mind paying for it. And if I could afford it, I woudn't mind having, say, a Porsche Boxter and an S-class Mercedes. Or a Bryston or Krell amp and prepro system for that matter. (Donations gratefully accepted)
Peter Aczel, the editor, is far from the only one who "claims" that ABX** testing demonstrates the above. As far as I can tell, ABX testing by everyone from EE's to average audiophiles has confirmed it. And yes, he is a bit cranky. Given the state of audio journalism it's easy to understand. He's definately a "man on a mission"!
I was also a fan of the oft-maligned Stereo Review. I cut my teeth way back when on their similarly scientific and objective view of audio. That perhaps explains my orientation.
--------
*To repeat myself, this assumes flat frequency response across the audio band, negligable distortion and noise, and low output impedance. Nearly all modern gear meets these criteria and they are the only things we can hear. There is no unknown "X factor" that affects audibility. Tube gear, and solid-state boutique gear that tries to emulate it, are exeptions.
**ABX testing is a double-blind protocol. It removes all experimenter bias. Using a switching device called a comparator, the subject is allowed to listen to fully identified item "A" and fully identified item "B" for as long as desired, and then switch to "X" without knowing whether it's A or B. The comparator selects either A or B randomly when in the X position, so that neither the test subject or the experimenter knows which is being listened to. A readout function in the comparator tells which one was X for each trial after the test is complete. The subject must then guess whether X is A or B. After several trials (enough to give a statistically valid result) the results are tabulated. A result of about 50% correct is considered a "null" result -- the same as could be gotten by sheer guessing or a coin flip. There's a plus or minus tolerance -- I don't know what it is. It is important that the levels of the two items under test be matched within 0.1dB because any greater difference is audible and the louder one is usually percieved as "better", even though it is not obviously louder. This is a well-known psychoacoustic phenomenon that has been accepted among scientists for decades.
ABX testing is roundly condemned by the golden ear types, of course. When logically examined their objections are bogus.</font>