I see Linn still market their audio 'sound' in demos via the tune dem mantra. And apparently, according to Linn, if it sounds better, it is better, - unless of course you you listen and claim that Bose sounds better than Linn, in which case I would presume one would be persona non gratis in Linns eyes.
Or the "pace rhythm and timing" alleged superiority of the Naim 'sound'.
Bo$e are obviously rubbish. Avi are the subject of a little mistrust here.
Naim have never marketed themselves as PRaT, this is what the media and forums like to chat about. Linn don't really say that:
https://www.linn.co.uk/tunedem
You can prefer Bo$e to Linn. I doubt if you could buy both in the same shop. You would also be wrong.
Linn and Naim arguably turned all that upside down in the 70's with a wholly subjective approach to assessing sound, with their Pace Rhythm and Timing, and Tune Dem mantras, and the search for HiFidelity sound in terms of science, closely controlled listening tests, and objective measurement gave way to almost completely subjective assessment of kit - at least in the so called Flat Earth world.
I'd argue that the wheel has swung the other way back towards objective measurement, and much more tightly controlled listening tests these days, especially with tech savvy 30 something buyers not easily taken in by the subjective mantras and methodology of assessing the merits or otherwise of HiFi equipment.
I won't restart the debate on what a properly controlled audio demo it. The Flat Earth thing also got people listening. With similar measuring products isn't that one way of deciding? Obviously they will be some influence to prefer the "better" product but that is another discussion.
Tech savvy? As many as there always were. You really must highlight where the measurements are in a modern digital system and amplifiers where you can reliably tell which system sounds best. We are way beyond most thresholds. We also get a great sound out of equipment that doesn't hit every threshold such as some valve amplifiers.
Dont forget we are arguing about apodising filters first brought to my attention by Meridian and onto their MQA- does that do everything they claim? Remember the debate over how much jitter can you have before you hear it. Jitter is a known engineering problem but it didn't surface on the magazines for a while but that doesn't mean it wasn't there!!
DAC makers are giving us a selection of filter types, why? Because there is no right answer? Marketing for them? The chipset allows them so they do? What measurements do we believe? Do we get switchable dither types? Is this still relevant with 24 bit (ha, good luck being accurate to 24 bits- I know as I have tested them and breathed on the chip and watched the errors) recordings?
I work with tech savvy people but they aren't audio engineers so they are seduced by some spec. Others will study everything and not just get on and listen. Casual listening in a relaxed environment can often give very effective results. Also what are we listening for? Dont forget the tech savvy yoof of today sometime prefer squished MP3 sound to that of full Red Book.
Magazines have moved away from filling the reviews with test as it doesn't sell the magazine. I know the likes of Paul Miller and Martin Colloms have got good test rigs but for a modern DAC how deep do you need to go to find out the measurement that quantifies the difference. Specifically the difference between filter types when we can't agree on what sounds best. (have a look at the thread on what measures "good sound"). I know John Atkinson and MC try to relate measurement and sound quality. This is probably easiest for speakers as they are the part of the chain that is most imperfect.
