This again proves to me beyond doubt that the average person really doesn't give a rats behind about what we audiophiles look for. If most of the participants in this test thought the boom and sizzle from their car stereo with dual 15" subs is what great sound is all about then what conclusion can one draw from this test? When I talk about soundstaging, my friends think I am a freak with dolphin ears. My girlfriend admitted she was greatly impressed by a Bose surround system once. Why should we care about what people with tin-ears think is great sound?
iPod vs CD: WSJ CES
from 'Portals,' a column by Lee Gomes in today's WSJ (apologies in advance for any cross-posting), a quote of interest to some here:
"Portals became an official exhibitor at T.H.E. Show last week. I set up a room with two sound systems, identical except for one component. Everything except the speakers were hidden behind screens."
(sic - I'd use the singular 'was' here, WSJ!) snip...
"With the same music playing on both, participants used a remote control to switch between the two, and then tell me which sounded better. One of the tests compared a high-quality MP3 file from an iPod with a CD on a $3,000 player. Three-quarters of the 24 people taking this test preferred the CD. That was no surprise. However, when I played .wav files on the iPod - these are digital but uncompressed files; I was connecting the headphone jack to the amplifier - 52% of the 21 who took this test preferred the iPod."
(what, three test subjects dropped out? what is this, a presidential primary?)
"That made me smile, not because snooty audiophiles got the 'wrong' answer, but because it suggests great sound can come from popular but cheap gear."
(then the article goes on to make fun of expensive gear some more - you can tell who now owns the WSJ, can't you? - but he does mention that John Atkinson and Mikey Fremer in fact CAN tell the difference between a cheap and an expensive cable in his test.)
- and if you work for the WSJ, or that paper's new owner, please don't read this thread until tomorrow ;-)
"Portals became an official exhibitor at T.H.E. Show last week. I set up a room with two sound systems, identical except for one component. Everything except the speakers were hidden behind screens."
(sic - I'd use the singular 'was' here, WSJ!) snip...
"With the same music playing on both, participants used a remote control to switch between the two, and then tell me which sounded better. One of the tests compared a high-quality MP3 file from an iPod with a CD on a $3,000 player. Three-quarters of the 24 people taking this test preferred the CD. That was no surprise. However, when I played .wav files on the iPod - these are digital but uncompressed files; I was connecting the headphone jack to the amplifier - 52% of the 21 who took this test preferred the iPod."
(what, three test subjects dropped out? what is this, a presidential primary?)
"That made me smile, not because snooty audiophiles got the 'wrong' answer, but because it suggests great sound can come from popular but cheap gear."
(then the article goes on to make fun of expensive gear some more - you can tell who now owns the WSJ, can't you? - but he does mention that John Atkinson and Mikey Fremer in fact CAN tell the difference between a cheap and an expensive cable in his test.)
- and if you work for the WSJ, or that paper's new owner, please don't read this thread until tomorrow ;-)