Another "flawed" test and highly subjective author.......................... just my .02 y'all understand.
Are you for real? Your test results CLEARLY indicate that 67% of the participants heard a difference and had a preference. Since when does price paid automatically correlate with sound quality?How can it be possible that a basic system with such a price difference against the "reference" one, poorly placed, using the cheapest signal cables found, couldn't be distinguished from the more expensive one?
Forward extremes, boom and sizzle. Sucks a listener in at first, eventually to spit them out fatigued and dissatisfied over the long haul. Or, maybe to 37% it did sound better.And, most of it all, how come the cheap system was chosen by so many people as the best sounding of the two?
Best? Best at what? Could you get any more subjective than that?Shouldn't the differences be so evident that it'd be a child's game to pick the best?
EDIT: Logically, amplifier and digital source should be about the 2 least influential components in any given system. To have either or both impart a significant audible difference suggests an obvious flaw, or intentional voicing characteristic. The loudspeakers chosen for the test might be a "bottleneck" with limitations that prevent less subtle differences from being immediately noticeable.................... they should have used Altecs!
Surely, the folks selling Behringer gear and Sony DVDP's will want to hand out reprints.![]()





Bookmarks