Originally Posted by mookie b
this was rampant pre-release on multiple sites. I thought a rep from mcintosh put it to rest....and earlier in these threads the insides of the machines were compared and found not similar. I don't know how to interpret graphs because I don't listen to graphs so I can't comment on what that means. I'm sure Super Kal can though...
Haha! Good point, mookie. I'm sure that not even Super Kal can see a graph and know what it would sound like. I've been engineering professionally for 20 years, and involved with electronics for much longer, and yet preamp graphs (with the exception of certain large and obvious curves) tell me practically nothing about the sound. Believe it or not, when I want to know what something sounds like I listen to it. Last week I was calibrating microphones with another engineer and we noticed ENORMOUS differences between them. One sounded plastic and distant whereas the other was utterly phenomenal. Looking at the two graphs, they were frighteningly similar. In fact, their "frequency response" was similar, but there's much, much more involved in the sound of a device than its ability to faithfully reproduce the proper decibel at the every frequency. We could have swept test tones across the entire spectrum and the volumes would have matched between the two mics, but record a singer with each and your jaw would drop. You can't "see" that, you have to listen.
I'm not suggesting that graphs are worthless, I'm suggesting that, for this, graphs are worthless.