Tvad notes:
first, we formulate a theory of what data indicate audible differences and,
then we set about to confirm that theory (i.e. "objectivise" the subjective)...
Very commonplace info can be *indicative* of sound -- for example, yr VAC uses a linear amplification device (tube) whereas the Technics uses a switching amplification device... and the circuits are different of course as are the equivalent circuits of the system as a whole with one or the other component; also the design objectives (the engineering compromises made, if you will) in one case & the other are different.
For example, I (and probably others) would *expect* better sonic performance fm the VAC -- and poorer value for money
Just to repeat the obvious about "data"/"specs": it often depends on what one measures (and measures for).
Cheers
Data is data(...)Whether the specs in the data correlate to improvement in sound is open to subjective interpretation.I'd agree in principle with what follows -- BUT data and their correlation would be "objective". You probably mean that,
first, we formulate a theory of what data indicate audible differences and,
then we set about to confirm that theory (i.e. "objectivise" the subjective)...
Very commonplace info can be *indicative* of sound -- for example, yr VAC uses a linear amplification device (tube) whereas the Technics uses a switching amplification device... and the circuits are different of course as are the equivalent circuits of the system as a whole with one or the other component; also the design objectives (the engineering compromises made, if you will) in one case & the other are different.
For example, I (and probably others) would *expect* better sonic performance fm the VAC -- and poorer value for money
Just to repeat the obvious about "data"/"specs": it often depends on what one measures (and measures for).
Cheers