To my ears, they have provided huge bang for the buck upgrades, in many cases comparable with speakers.
How is this possible? I mean, with transducers we see gross shifts in frequency response, alone.
To my ears, they have provided huge bang for the buck upgrades, in many cases comparable with speakers.
How is this possible? I mean, with transducers we see gross shifts in frequency response, alone.
I agree. These conversations go too far into hypotheticals and generalizations, and reality gets left behind.
Imagine if a dozen audiophiles were together in a room and comparing a DAC upgrade vs. a speaker upgrade. Then see who thinks the DAC is making a bigger difference.
Never made that claim.
True, I twisted your words. What I meant about hypotheticals and generalizations is statements like this:
"A DAC upgrade could transform this system"
"I wonder if your DAC upgrade would survive a blind test"
"I don't think you can prove anything with a blind test"
"I hear ___"
"I don't see how that's possible"
etc, this is the gist of many conversations.
If the people having this conversation were in the same room and talking about the same exact sound system, there should be more agreement about what does / does not transform the system. Otherwise they just talk about what everyone believes.
It just might.:bIf I considered the Bel Cantos my baseline, a poweramp upgrade (costing 10x the Bel Cantos) would "transform" my system.
Can anyone give an example of a bias that isn't predetermined? I can't think of any at the moment.
(...)
I think reviews should tell us in detail what a piece of equipment is comprised of, how it is built and what characteristics it has:
The buyer should take responsibility for his decisions.
What I hate is reviews with the following sort of lines:
- To get full potential of this gear, you should connect it with this very expensive cable!
So he is now selling the cable too?
- You would think small speakers cannot play an orchestra at real life levels, but his ones can!
Who are you trying to fool?