BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="John M Robinson" data-source="post: 1761004" data-attributes="member: 61814">This debate reminds me of the early Stereo Review magazines almost total reliance on engineer measurements of different electrical criteria in their analysis of audio components. It got to the point that numbers don't lie, if say one transistor amp had incredibly low distortion, say .01%, all things being equal, in their mind that was clearly better than some other high end tube amp that measured in with over ten times the distortion, regardless the fact that most actual listeners much prefered the more "musical" tube amp. Back in the seventies I bought into the measured perameter approach to buying stereo equipment, and I had some killer gear that sounded great. Then one day I bought an old, dusty Dynaco amp in a garage sale for $25.00. I brought it home and cleaned it up, then plugged it into my system and was blown away at the sound! It was a tiny thing, but it was a magic amp. I would take it into high end stereo stores and blow away the salesmen. That's when I re-evaluated my pure numbers approach to audio eqipment. I now have some very nice old McIntosh tube amps that are as musical and as impressive to listen to as anything I have heard, there is more to it than simple numbers.Since I have gotten into optics I notice that there are certain signature views, such as Leica and Nikon, that I prefer over others. Now the reality may be that the views I prefer are not as accurate as maybe a Zeiss or Swaro, I don't know, and don't really care, the Leica view works for me in a subjective way that brings a smile to my eyes. Not to discount objective measurements, I imagine others prefer other products for the same subjective reasons.John</blockquote>

Verification