Denna artikel ger insyn i Hi-End recensentens perspektiv angående mätningar och lyssningar, tillvägagångssätt, testmetodik, hans syn på objektivt vs subjektivt, - kort sagt debatten som har pågått i många år nu. Jag kan tillägga att jag tycker att han gör några allvarliga tankefel eller glömmer/undviker några centrala frågeställningar, men artikeln är trevligt skriven och ett seriöst försök till förklaring/presentation av ett synsätten som ofta dyker upp i debatten. Artikeln är, om inte annat, en sammanfattning av olika begränsade synsätt, sett från flera olika positioner, som ofta råder inom HiFi-världen. Nog om detta, läs och begrunda själva, de som vill!
http://www.avguide.com/servlet/com.abso ... wnload=yes
(Man måste 'regga sig', men det är gratis!)
"Abstract:
This essay is an expanded treatment of an Audio Engineering
Society paper Robert Harley presented at the 1991 AES convention
in New York. The bibliography (citations noted as numbers
in parentheses) will be published with Part 2.
Abstract
Critical observational listening can reveal aspects of audio equipment
quality not exposed by traditional measurement techniques.
Observational listening impressions are, however, often dismissed as
mysticism, even when conducted by conscientious, technically oriented
practitioners.
This paper outlines the methods and underlying philosophy of
critical listening, explores why critical listening is rejected by some
within the scientific audio community, and draws the distinction
between serious listening and pseudoscientific claims.
about reproduced sound.
Introduction
“To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally
convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of
reflection.” Jules Henri Poincaré as quoted by Bertrand
Russell in the preface to Science and Method.
..........
No one doubts the necessity of observational listening.
Yet value judgments of sound quality expressed in product
reviews are criticized as capricious, fantasy-inspired, biased,
a result of the placebo effect, or influenced by external variables,
while value judgments made at every other point in
the recording/reproduction chain are accepted without
question. Audio equipment reviewers are singled out for
attack by objectivists ....."
..."
Any inquiry that attempts to explore “The Great
Debate” must address the underlying philosophical structures
of both positions rather than rehash the same tired
arguments. Although documenting observational-listening
methodology is useful, a more fruitful approach examines
the underlying source of the conflict. In addition to
presenting the basic tenets and methods of observational
listening, I shall attempt to establish a wider framework
for the debate. Indeed, “The Great Debate” is symptomatic
of the question of science’s capacity to encompass
within its domain all forms of knowledge.
My profession gives me a unique insight into this
conflict; I am a full-time reviewer of so-called “highend”
consumer audio products. In the course of my
work, I have evaluated the sound qualities of more than
300 products and measured their technical performances.
My job has been listening to, and measuring,
audio equipment. My experience overwhelmingly indicates
that many aspects of audio-equipment quality are
revealed in the listening room, not in the test laboratory.
This simple thesis will be regarded by most audio
professionals as a given truth unworthy of debate, yet
others will denounce it as heresy and a threat to science’s
role in audio engineering, and, indeed, a threat to science
itself.
This article will explore why."
!! 
Om man bortser från att det Robert Hartley pysslar med knappast främjar framsteg inom ljudåtergivning så är det ju faktiskt.se ganska kul om man tänker efter. "Western thought" Mowahahahaha....
!, är nog första gången ngn benämnt A*vslappnad!
? 
.
