Quote:
Originally Posted by moon
I'd agree with that.
Some low-end gear can sound OK (like the DMP3) but certainly not all. I'd be very wary of pres in a cheap interface.
The best value for money is probably found in good quality mid-range items like the Duet where the manufacturer has put a bit of care and attention into the product. After that, like you say, you spend huge amounts of money for small improvements. That could be worth it - depends on the budget and your aims - but you can still make some very good music with cheaper gear.
As Fran says, the double blind test is important  |
I agree some moderate priced equipment can yield quite good results. And I also agree that after certain level ( i would categorize it mid price to middle high price ) the percent of sonic improvement per dollar drops off.
That said,I think one should be very leary of making any conclusions based on A/B tests posted on the internet. There are simply far to many variables and unknowns to draw any accurate conclusions.
For example In the link above the greatriver vs the art. The test is frankly in practical terms functionally invalid. The poster clearly states in the OP that he used two different recordings going into the two different pre amps. He then attempts to dissmis this glaring flaw as
"Yes, I know this is not a "perfect" test, because each take has its own subtle variations. But this is good enough to determine the sonic differences between these two pres. If cheap pres are as awful as folks claim, there should be no need for a "perfect" test to hear the quality difference. It should be obvious." he is however categorically mistaken the test is flawed from the get go period.
The best way an AB test is really going to reveal much useful info is if you are sitting in the room. Even then there are variables, room acoustics etc.. It is a matter of eliminating as many variables as possible. Which is not as easy as it sounds BUT At the very least there should be only one signal split for comparison.