Yes, bad tests are being done. So? Does that mean that the concept is bad? Of course not. And still, even if someone does a bad test, is that a reason to call all pro-DBT's deaf or clueless?
You don't need that Andre.
jd
All I'm saying is don't believe everything that you read, first check if the test is done in such a way that it is possible to get a correct answer. Some only stare at these 'tests' and never think or try for themselves.
Yeah. The best example of that perhaps being the review of the Harmonic Technology CyberLight interconnect cables.
JA at the end of the measurements section:
If this review were of a conventional product, I would dismiss it as being broken.
MF from the review:
No matter how I try to deny it, after many months of listening to these cables with a wide range of associated gear, their superiority to anything else out there that I've heard is undeniable.
Basically the CyberLights were a fiber optic analog cable that used electro-optical converters at each end to convert from electrical to optical at the source end and optical to electrical at the load end.
They had a decidedly non flat frequency response...
And produced gobs of harmonic...
And intermodulation distortion.
No. They only do measurements on regular electronic components. They don't even do measurements on regular interconnects and speaker cables, but an exception was made here seeing as the cables were in fact electronic in nature.
se
Odd definition of shuffling. They always give precedence to the reviewer's listening but Atkinson will voice his opinion on the test results, pointing out both possible corroboration and conflict. Wavac is another example. Measurements take a back seat as a matter of policy, just because you disagree with that policy doesn't make it ambiguous or dishonest.
You guys kill me. They published a suite of measurements that put Fremer in a very questionable light and you rag on them? Is Hirsch the prefered model, publish only happy face results from advertisers? Here's Atkinson's FULL comment on that cable, bolded for honesty:
And you claim the voice of science?
You guys kill me. They published a suite of measurements that put Fremer in a very questionable light and you rag on them? Is Hirsch the prefered model, publish only happy face results from advertisers? Here's Atkinson's FULL comment on that cable, bolded for honesty:
And you claim the voice of science?
Last edited:
Don't know what you mean, but I read this statement as that the cable is technically deficient or bad or broken etc, whatever one may think of the sound. In other words, one may have whatever opinion about the sound, the fact is that technically it's broken, technically flawed, as shown by the graphs above. Is that not how you read it?
jd
Yes, it is an odd definition of shuffling.
Why?
Because my post was never intended to give any sort of definition or example of shuffling.
My post was given only as an example of "something which is clearly a terrible component gets a rave 'subjective' review."
I thought that would have been rather obvious to anyone who read my post seeing as all I did was quote JA saying if it were a review of a conventional product he'd dismiss it as being broken, followed by a quote from MF saying they sounded better than anything else out there, followed by the graphs to illustrate why JA said what he did.
Nothing more, nothing less.
How you managed to get from that that it was supposed to be some example of "shuffling" is beyond me.
se
Yep, and that Atkinson makes the same observation and recommends against the product.
When you data mine, don't forget your helmet.
Fremer seems to make a habit of this stuff:
Stereophile: KR Enterprise VT8000 MK monoblock power amplifier
Fremer seems to make a habit of this stuff:
Stereophile: KR Enterprise VT8000 MK monoblock power amplifier
As long as we're piling on here, there's also the review of the $300,000 Wavac SH-833 monoblocks.
I begged for another month with the magical Wavacs. I was lucky enough to get it.
Edit: Oh, and this review does give an example of what one might call "shuffling."
JA:
I can't explain why Michael found its sound so seductive; all I can do is point to the measurable problems or audible idiosyncrasies that must be listened through to hear what it does right.
That's the classic "shuffle." That the thing must be doing some unknown "something" so right that it manages to effectively negate the huge pile of things that it does wrong.
se
Last edited:
Yes, I did, and nothing further modifies or counters the opening statement. Maybe I'm ESL, enlighten me.
SY, an example of 'shuffling' from your nugget:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.