[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] The Emperor's New Sampling Rate By Paul D. Lehrman Mix Magazine April 2008
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> I shall be interested to read your article.
No promises yet!
> Like I said, my opinion (and this is _ALL_ about opinions and perceptions,
> at base) is that the BAS tests are not useful except to show that most
> people on a system not their own don't have finely-atuned hearing and that
> CD's and hi-rez sound close enough to lead most people most of the time to
> choose preference in a semi-random fashion when not on the system they are
> atuned to. "Passing" or "failing" the test isn't going to convince most
> people with an opinion about this to change it.
All very true, but also a criticism of many if not most such "tests" My
objections pertain more to the equipment design and the unspoken assumptions
made.
clark
>
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clark Johnsen" <clarkjohnsen@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The Emperor's New Sampling Rate By Paul D. Lehrman
> Mix Magazine April 2008
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sure we'll get the usual chorus about how listening tests are
>>> notoriously (fill in the blank) but I am not about the challenge the
>>> Boston
>>> Audio Society on their findings.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Then allow me. The Meyer and Moran (BAS) tests were seriously flawed, and
>> that the JAES published the article attests to a highly questionable
>> peer-review process. The errors in their setup have been discussed on
>> other
>> forums, and perhaps even here, so I won't go into them unless some
>> interest
>> is expressed. A small group of us is preparing a reply for publication,
>> because we hate to see that shoddy "work" left standing.
>>
>> Clark Johnsen, AES Life Member
>>
>>