BBIBH if you re-read my post you are the one missing my point.
I did not disagree with you as audio is entertainment and i also believe it should be the general goal. However, i also pointed out that for some, the technical and historical side of things, NOT just what they hear, IS the fun part about audio and there are alot of those ppl out there.
The thread started by those who sneered at someone interested in the NRC speaker graphs but maybe that is his cup of tea.
Saturn,
In reply to:
Are the people on here more of "experts" than the ever so trustworthy "audio afficionados" of Stereophile Magazine Are you saying Alan is bunk?
I would take the opinions of everyday users (as a whole) that are not bent on audio jargon or marketing over a person who writes for an audio magazine.
I would also take the opinion of someone who does or has been involved in controlled science over someone who is only providing their personal, subjective opinion.
Some ppl like Alan fall into several of these categories but even then, each opinion provided must be weighted on its own merit. Why trust an individual's opinion implicitly and without waiver? That would only make a person a blind fool.
Information from any source must be scrutinized for accuracy and if you think the material that contract writers put into audio magazines is always thorough, factual and accurate....
We could almost start a poll on this.
Which media source is perceived as having the most accurate information?
CNN?
Stereophile magazine?
Newspapers?
Internet webzines?
Scientific journals?
None of the above (for the cynics)
