or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy? - Page 5

post #121 of 3048
Quote:
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that every time a post deals with high end audio gear, there is this group of "super heroes" that feel it necessary to save everyone from the "evils" of the high end industry.
Oh posh. All we're doing is providing information. It's the Thought Police like you who think the provision of that information should be restricted.
Quote:
So much so, serious discussion about the original post is lost.
How so? If someone asks, should I buy X, what's wrong with the answer, "No you shouldn't, because X isn't any better than what you have now"? The problem isn't that our posts aren't responsive to the OP. The problem is that you don't like our responses. Well, tough.
post #122 of 3048
While I certainly agree with scientific principle, and certainly have seen snake oil presented (which I believe to be the exception to the rule - not the norm) Im always troubled by some of the things science has uncovered in all facets of audio.

Specifically the lack of people's ability To hear differences in MP3 128k and WAV formats. Or blind test studies which have uncovered peoples inabilities to distinguish from SACD and PCM redbook standards. I've read articles on lossy Dobly Digital vs TrueHD where people have been unable to hear the difference between either format.

This has lead be me down a fork in the road - either Blind Tests have to be examined further in the specific case of hearing (which to my understanding is a topic of debate with the likes of the AES as more and more DBT are revealing we can't hear many differences amongst anything let alone a compentantly designed solid state amplifier) or the DBT is the ultimate method and audio was perfected many years ago and there's no point going forward - which make websites like AVS and a host of others redundant when it comes to audio,
post #123 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamblers View Post

The notion that all amps sound the same given the vast differences in engineering and technologies involved is ridiculous. I thought Julian Hirsch had passed away, but he apparently lives on at AVS.
smile.gif

Paul Frindle (chief designer of SSL and Sony Pro audio consoles) in his Audio Engineering Society paper titled, "ARE WE MEASURING THE RIGHT THINGS? ARTEFACT AUDIBILITY VERSUS MEASUREMENT" , has this to say about amplification (in this case, a very simple version of it called a "buffer"):

'A design [of ABX blind testing apparatus] we have used, consisted of a switching box utilizing mercury wetted relays and high quality stereo level controls to ensure good left right level matching. The internal amplifier for buffering the output from the inputs was specially designed using a hybrid OPAMP and transistor stage and was itself subject to ABX tests before we accepted it. After it took me 3 days to design a simple buffer amp that was transparent in an ABX test, I began to wonder if a transparent A/D [analog to digital] converter would ever be a realistic goal!”

As with the level matched, blind Swedish LTS tests I post before, the ultimate litmus test is whether an amplifier is transparent to its input. It is really strange to me that people don't spend energy conducting such tests as they appear to be more revealing of such differences. Instead we have some dusty tests of random selection of amps compared with each other that is being used as inductive proof that amps have that have never been tested must perform in a transparent way.

Personally I am always disappointed in negative outcomes here. The results are ambiguous since the cause may be that our test was not revealing enough. Deep knowledge of the equipment under test is necessary to know how to exercise the weak points. We don't test audio compression the same way we test speakers. The former is done with heavy insight into how the algorithm works. And it matters not that 90% of the time there is no audible distortion. We care about the 10% as to better the design and not make blanket assumptions of transparency.
post #124 of 3048
Quote:
While I certainly agree with scientific principle
I'm afraid the rest of your post calls this into question. You doubt science because you don't like the results. That's not adherence to scientific principles. That's its opposite.
Quote:
While I certainly agree with scientific principle, and certainly have seen snake oil presented (which I believe to be the exception to the rule - not the norm) Im always troubled by some of the things science has uncovered in all facets of audio.

Specifically the lack of people's ability To hear differences in MP3 128k and WAV formats.
DBTs actually show the opposite. If you know what to listen for, and you're testing with the right file, you can do it at higher bitrates as well. Yo are misinformed here.
Quote:
Or blind test studies which have uncovered peoples inabilities to distinguish from SACD and PCM redbook standards.
That shouldn't surprise you if you understand the technical differences between the two formats.
Quote:
I've read articles on lossy Dobly Digital vs TrueHD where people have been unable to hear the difference between either format.
I'm not familiar with such tests, but I suspect you are wrong here, as you were on MP3s.
Quote:
either Blind Tests have to be examined further in the specific case of hearing (which to my understanding is a topic of debate with the likes of the AES as more and more DBT are revealing we can't hear many differences amongst anything let alone a compentantly designed solid state amplifier)
I don't know of any debate within AES about DBTs. You couldn't get an article relying on listening tests published in the JAES if you didn't use them.
Quote:
or the DBT is the ultimate method and audio was perfected many years ago and there's no point going forward - which make websites like AVS and a host of others redundant when it comes to audio,
This is certainly not the case. DBTs have not shown that everything sounds the same or that nothing matters. What they have shown is that some things matter and others do not, and some things matter a lot more than others. Open-minded audiophiles should be grateful for that information.
post #125 of 3048
Quote:
As with the level matched, blind Swedish LTS tests I post before, the ultimate litmus test is whether an amplifier is transparent to its input. It is really strange to me that people don't spend energy conducting such tests as they appear to be more revealing of such differences. Instead we have some dusty tests of random selection of amps compared with each other that is being used as inductive proof that amps have that have never been tested must perform in a transparent way.

Personally I am always disappointed in negative outcomes here. The results are ambiguous since the cause may be that our test was not revealing enough. Deep knowledge of the equipment under test is necessary to know how to exercise the weak points. We don't test audio compression the same way we test speakers. The former is done with heavy insight into how the algorithm works. And it matters not that 90% of the time there is no audible distortion. We care about the 10% as to better the design and not make blanket assumptions of transparency.
Pseudoscientific rationalization in defense of sales.
post #126 of 3048
Mcnarus - please show me DBT results showing audible differences between my outlined formats thanks.

BTW - your first reaction and assumption was an is entirely wrong and frankly sir ignorant.
post #127 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2+2=5 View Post

Mcnarus - please show me DBT results showing audible differences between my outlined formats thanks.

The first one I found was a tester reliably distinguishing 320k MP3 here, using the foobar2000 ABX plugin. There are many more, just search the Hydrogen Audio listening tests forum.
Edited by rock_bottom - 8/22/12 at 3:48pm
post #128 of 3048
Quote:
BTW - your first reaction and assumption was an is entirely wrong and frankly sir ignorant.
People who accept scientific principles do not describe themselves as "troubled" by the results of scientific tests. Puzzled, perhaps, but not troubled.
post #129 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_c View Post

Read the threads, when I tried to pin it down to a number, the threads went from being not worth it to it's subjective and a number can't be put on it.

????

What post numbers?
Quote:
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that every time a post deals with high end audio gear, there is this group of "super heroes" that feel it necessary to save everyone from the "evils" of the high end industry.

So you never see the posts saying things like they feel sorry for people who have never heard a good high end system? The ones that say that they never heard audio until they heard megabuck equipment, etc,. etc? The ones that suggest that jelousy and class warfare are behind the posts they disagree with?

Quote:
So much so, serious discussion about the original post is lost.

Bad logic and a one-sided view can do that.
Quote:
The point about giving a monetary value to a perceived price point these posters seem to have was a sarcastic attempt to make a "sticky note" so we no longer will need these discussions. To pin it down, every time we a discussion like this comes up we can point to the sticky that says " Any speaker priced over this amount is a scam it says so in such and such article or blind test or whatever the proof is" Then we may be able to actually have serious discussions about audio and the "super heroes" will be free to take on more important matters like health care, politics and other important matters.

So much for simplified, black and white discussions of a more complex area.

Quote:
People this is capitalism, companies will charge what people are willing to pay. No one is forcing anyone to buy a Krell, Emotiva, Panasonic or any other device. There is no conspiracy, no one telling you have to buy a particular device, no government mandate. If a $100 set speakers makes you happy why can't a $20,000 set speakers make someone else happy, without the rhetoric.

And the counterpoint is that repeated attempts to do the best possible job of supporting the alleged sonic superiority of high end and ultra high end products have this nasty habit of failing.

Furthermore you have posts like post 112 that show that not only is high end gear not a reliable road to better sound, it can be a road to poorer quality reproduction.
post #130 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

smile.gif
Paul Frindle (chief designer of SSL and Sony Pro audio consoles) in his Audio Engineering Society paper titled, "ARE WE MEASURING THE RIGHT THINGS? ARTEFACT AUDIBILITY VERSUS MEASUREMENT" , has this to say about amplification (in this case, a very simple version of it called a "buffer"):
'A design [of ABX blind testing apparatus] we have used, consisted of a switching box utilizing mercury wetted relays and high quality stereo level controls to ensure good left right level matching. The internal amplifier for buffering the output from the inputs was specially designed using a hybrid OPAMP and transistor stage and was itself subject to ABX tests before we accepted it. After it took me 3 days to design a simple buffer amp that was transparent in an ABX test, I began to wonder if a transparent A/D [analog to digital] converter would ever be a realistic goal!”

I've spent some time conversing directly with Mr. Frindle, and often wonder about many things he says. Just because a project based on a high end hybrid op amp and some discrete parts, doesn't mean that it sounds or even measures any better than the right $0.50 op amp. Doug Self has published some of his tests of discrete and hybrid op amps that show disappointing performance given the cost and hype.

I know for sure that when we were doing similar things for our own tests we were able to typically breadboard something that passed ABX testing the first time we built it.
post #131 of 3048
Says who? Are you also an expert in psychology and or human behavior? Perhaps the English language or verbal meaning. Enough with the semantics.

I offered what I thought, you may disagree - I posed a very honest question, judging by your post count and passion for 'being right' I'll leave well enough alone sir. Please ignore all further comments.
post #132 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post


Doug Self has published some of his tests of discrete and hybrid op amps that show disappointing performance given the cost and hype.

Samuel Groner has also published lots of distortion measurements of op-amps (mostly of the IC variety, but also some discrete ones) here.
post #133 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

blind Swedish LTS tests I post before,
Oh, you mean the one that you couldn't answer a relevant question? http://www.avsforum.com/t/1340051/seeking-education-about-those-ultra-expensive-interconnects/2130#post_20732920
post #134 of 3048
Thread Starter 
Really the greatest argument is providing examples of placebo experiments found in this article:

http://socyberty.com/psychology/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect/



There were 129 of 199 patients given a placebo drug that gave positive marks, subjects given fake alcohol and acting drunk and people given 4 different bottles of the same water in different labels and different stories with one having a yellowish tint giving marks of 5.26, 7.4, 6.5, and 8.08.

If you read many articles talking about how a speaker cable or amplifier is superior you're going to start believing and even expecting these results once you hear the product especially stuff that is more subjective and hard to tell the difference like water or a drug as opposed to seeing two tvs side by side.

Really, I think people who hear these "audio improvements" might not understand that they are falling in to the same category as these test subjects and are giving the "bad" uglier amplifier a 5.26 and the "great" pretty amplifier a 8.08.

And really, lets face it, who can or wants to accept that they might have been duped? Tons of people aren't willing to admit even the possibility that they could be wrong it makes you feel like an idiot and it's completely understandable.
Edited by ComputerTech0903 - 8/22/12 at 11:21pm
post #135 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by rock_bottom View Post

Samuel Groner has also published lots of distortion measurements of op-amps (mostly of the IC variety, but also some discrete ones) here.

I checked that document out earlier this year. The problem with true (as opposed to presumed) amplifier experts with good communication skills whether Self, Groner, or Cordell is the vast number of zeroes that precede the differences that they concern themselves with. Of the bunch, Self seems to have the best handle on that situation. It's got to be frustrating to be trying to make progress in an area that is already so far removed from audible performance issues as op amps, ADCs and DACs.
post #136 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2+2=5 View Post

Says who?

Who knows when we have obscure posts by someone who clearly has an axe to grind but hasn't mastered the art of quoting and replying to other's posts.
Quote:
Are you also an expert in psychology and or human behavior?

I don't think that one needs to be an expert to read the handwriting on the wall. One does have to have had some success with overcoming denial.
Quote:
Perhaps the English language or verbal meaning.

Appears to be an obvious attempt to avoid the issue being discussed and distract the discussion away from being helpful.
Quote:
Enough with the semantics.

That would be your issue not mine. Just a helpful hint - if you want to address someone's comments forum protocol is that you reproduce them as part of your post. The posting software facilitates it, but you have to click the "Quote" button not the "Reply" button. Hope this helps your efforts in the future.
Quote:
I offered what I thought

Hard to tell since your comment is hanging out there in space, completely detached from the posts that you seem to claim that you are replying to.
Quote:
you may disagree - I posed a very honest question, judging by your post count and passion for 'being right' I'll leave well enough alone sir.

That would be a very passive aggressive comment, espcially given that it is again as I said above, detached from every other post in the universe.
Quote:
Please ignore all further comments.

Pretty much guaranteed by their chronic obscurity.
post #137 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Oh, you mean the one that you couldn't answer a relevant question? http://www.avsforum.com/t/1340051/seeking-education-about-those-ultra-expensive-interconnects/2130#post_20732920

The first sign of shall we say confusion is the characterization of single blind (which is to say inherently grotesquely flawed) evaluations as being "blind tests". The Swedish evaluations (which fail the meaning of the word "test") were apparently a mixture of sighted evaluations and single blind evaluations, which means that any thoughtful reader should simply activate his red herring management system and move on to the next post.
post #138 of 3048
arnyk - Are there any peer reviewed studies on the inaudibility of differences between amp designs or any papers published in JAES on this? I think it would be an important topic for AES to address if they haven't.
post #139 of 3048
Quote:
Are there any peer reviewed studies on the inaudibility of differences between amp designs or any papers published in JAES on this? I think it would be an important topic for AES to address if they haven't.
It may seem like an important topic to you, but it's not an important topic to scientists in the field, because it's such old news. So no, this topic just hasn't been addressed by JAES or any peer-reviewed journal. There have been numerous DBTs of amps in the general audio press over the years, summarized in an AES conference paper (not itself peer-reviewed, although chosen for conference presentation by a panel of scientists) written by Tom Nousaine. Abstract here; the full paper will cost you, but here's Tom's bottom line:
Quote:
In summary, there has been no evidence to support the conclusion that factors other than linear response and output capability contribute to the sound of well designed power amplifiers...

This does not suggest that amplifiers are perfect and they will never be found to sound different. It does suggest to purchasers of today's audio amplifiers that as long as the product in question meets basic traditional measured performance standards, has enough output capability, and adequate quality of construction, it will be sonically indistinguishable from all others meeting those criteria.

And, since nothing is more peer-reviewed than a textbook, here's something from one of the leading psychoacoustic textbooks in the field, An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing by Brian Moore:
Quote:
The basic performance of even a moderately priced hi-fi amplifier is likely to be so good that improvements in technical specification would make little audible difference. For example, a moderately good amplifier will have a frequency response from 20 to 20,000 Hz +/– 1 dB, distortion less than 1% and a signal-to-noise ratio greater than 90 dB (for input signals with a reasonably high level, such as from a CD player). These values are better than the limits required by the ear.
post #140 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlittlejeans View Post

arnyk - Are there any peer reviewed studies on the inaudibility of differences between amp designs or any papers published in JAES on this?

No.

The last round of JAES papers about differences between amp designs related to the TIM/SID controversy. That controversy resulted in some papers with exceptional claims about audibility being published in the JAES. This happened because at the time the AES had no effective way judging them in an impartial way.

One reason that ABX was embraced so quickly by the AES because it provided a logical, impartial, scientific way out of the conundrum of what to publish.

Unfortunately the papers with the exceptional claims remain in the public record, largely unrebutted. At the time that was probably a good thing because the controversy needed to get settled out. But, long term the fact that they were never rebutted left some misapprehensions in place.

In the view of the AES review board, there have really not been any significant developments in amplifier designs since the SID/TIM controversy in the late 1970s, early 80s. That would be based on the record of articles published in the JAES. Either no such papers were ever submitted or given at conferences, or they were rejected.
Quote:
I think it would be an important topic for AES to address if they haven't.

Whether amp design variations are important or not would be a judgement call. The last truly scientific power amp tests that I know of were published in Stereo Review January 1987 (p. 78-84).

Any such tests need to be organized and performed by advocates of the superiority of one design over any and/or all others. The fact that nobody from the "pro differences" viewpoint has done so for at least 30 years would appear to tell us what we need to know: In reality, they have nothing to offer.

Again based on what is actually getting presented and published, the high rez controversy is probably the big current hot button.
post #141 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2+2=5 View Post

This has lead be me down a fork in the road - either Blind Tests have to be examined further in the specific case of hearing (which to my understanding is a topic of debate with the likes of the AES as more and more DBT are revealing we can't hear many differences amongst anything let alone a compentantly designed solid state amplifier) or the DBT is the ultimate method and audio was perfected many years ago and there's no point going forward - which make websites like AVS and a host of others redundant when it comes to audio,

The above would seem to be an excluded middle argument. It also lacks discernment.

The most obvious lack in discernment show above is its conflating the many different kinds of DBTs that are used into just one thing. Just as there are many kinds of cars that are obviously very different in terms of usage and application, there are many kinds of DBTs. One of the more obvious differences is between two very popular but different audio DBT procedures, one called ABX and the other called ABC/hr.

The excluded middle is the apparent idea that unless we can continue to make progress with solid state amplifiers, we can't make any other meaningful forms of progress in audio. In fact loudspeakers, room acoustics and producing media are probably the three most important things related to SQ. Progress in all 3 areas has been excruciatingly slow, partially because of all the effort that is and has been wasted obsessing over power amplifiers and digital converters.
post #142 of 3048
Guys - I love the web for these debates.

Let's see, my Mountain Bike forum we;ve had these discussions.
Why a $175 bike helmet cost so much more than a $40 bike helmet, yet when you do a analysis they are 99% same; molded shell, injected foam, head suspension/retention system (straps/etc)

Why a $600 front shock is so similiar to a $250 front shock....
yada-yada-yada

This is basic Good/better/best marketing 101, all industries learn this, some go beyond that and offer mid points along the way.
Balance of stock complexity (many sku's), the service parts stocking/storage, etc, best business case.

Supply and demand.......

Silverstone curve..........

Perception of value gained for incremantal $$$'s spent, .
ie, you get 80% easily, then 10% more peforemance costs some non-linear more, then for that 95-97% tier ya gotta shell out the $$$'s.
post #143 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

No.
The last round of JAES papers about differences between amp designs related to the TIM/SID controversy. That controversy resulted in some papers with exceptional claims about audibility being published in the JAES. This happened because at the time the AES had no effective way judging them in an impartial way.
One reason that ABX was embraced so quickly by the AES because it provided a logical, impartial, scientific way out of the conundrum of what to publish.
Unfortunately the papers with the exceptional claims remain in the public record, largely unrebutted. At the time that was probably a good thing because the controversy needed to get settled out. But, long term the fact that they were never rebutted left some misapprehensions in place.
In the view of the AES review board, there have really not been any significant developments in amplifier designs since the SID/TIM controversy in the late 1970s, early 80s. That would be based on the record of articles published in the JAES. Either no such papers were ever submitted or given at conferences, or they were rejected.
Whether amp design variations are important or not would be a judgement call. The last truly scientific power amp tests that I know of were published in Stereo Review January 1987 (p. 78-84).
Any such tests need to be organized and performed by advocates of the superiority of one design over any and/or all others. The fact that nobody from the "pro differences" viewpoint has done so for at least 30 years would appear to tell us what we need to know: In reality, they have nothing to offer.
Again based on what is actually getting presented and published, the high rez controversy is probably the big current hot button.

Thanks Arny.
post #144 of 3048
I have a denon 4311ci receiver. I wanted to run a 11.2 system, so I bought a NAD T955 5 channel amp. I originally only used 2 channels of the amp and all 9 internal channels of the receiver. I later used all 5 channels of the amp for LCR and 2 main surrounds and let the receiver handle the other 6. In both cases I ran audyssey. It sounds better using the 5 channels of the amp. I have an old 5.1 Marantz receiver with pre-outs. I hooked up the NAD amp and the NAD amp sounds better. I wasn't playing anywhere near loud enough to produce clipping.

I didn't do any level matching or double blind testing. I just plugged it in and played .If audyssey works as advertised, it should do all the required adjustments.

I'm not imagining things nor was I hoping the amp would sound better, but it clearly sounds better to me. It sounds better to my wife too. Is the sound difference worth the extra cost for the external amp? No, but I can hear a difference.
post #145 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn 
I didn't do any level matching or double blind testing. I just plugged it in and played .If audyssey works as advertised, it should do all the required adjustments.

In both cases you ran Audyssey and in both cases you may have completely altered the in-room frequency response due to mic placement alone.
post #146 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

In both cases you ran Audyssey and in both cases you may have completely altered the in-room frequency response due to mic placement alone.

Could be. I don't really care why it sounds better. I'm just happy it does:)
post #147 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

I have a denon 4311ci receiver. I wanted to run a 11.2 system, so I bought a NAD T955 5 channel amp. I originally only used 2 channels of the amp and all 9 internal channels of the receiver. I later used all 5 channels of the amp for LCR and 2 main surrounds and let the receiver handle the other 6. In both cases I ran audyssey. It sounds better using the 5 channels of the amp. I have an old 5.1 Marantz receiver with pre-outs. I hooked up the NAD amp and the NAD amp sounds better. I wasn't playing anywhere near loud enough to produce clipping.

So, do you think this was a comparison that would apply to most people reading this thread or not?
Quote:
I didn't do any level matching or double blind testing.

So your biases and absence of a rigorous test could be affecting what you report?

Quote:
I just plugged it in and played .If audyssey works as advertised, it should do all the required adjustments.

Since Audessey is based on acoustical measurements, the level matching was only approximate.
Quote:
I'm not imagining things

Do you think that there is a possibility that your unconscious thoughts might affect your perceptions?
Quote:
nor was I hoping the amp would sound better,

Even though if the amp made no difference, your recent purchase of the NAD amp would be in vain?
Quote:
but it clearly sounds better to me. It sounds better to my wife too. Is the sound difference worth the extra cost for the external amp? No, but I can hear a difference.

Absence of reliable information noted.
post #148 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by pottscb View Post

See Art Dudley's article "Skin Deep" in Stereophile this month...I think its Pulitzer level material...he brow beats audio companies for charging 500X more for something that performs 1% better, and rightly so.

I haven't received my September issue yet, though I'm surprised to see that in Stereophile. The notion that the last 1 percent of performance costs a lot more but might be worth it to the well-heeled is misguided IMO. Paying exorbitant prices often gets you worse performance. Not always, of course, but often.

--Ethan
post #149 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2+2=5 View Post

Specifically the lack of people's ability To hear differences in MP3 128k and WAV formats.

It depends entirely on the program material. On some sources the difference between Wave and 128 kbps lossy is indeed inaudible. This is not to say there's never a difference, but without knowing the specifics it's impossible to judge the validity of the tests. You can encode an electric bass track at 32 kbps and probably not notice the degradation.
Quote:
Or blind test studies which have uncovered peoples inabilities to distinguish from SACD and PCM redbook standards.

Those two formats are indeed indistinguishable, other than a poor design etc.
Quote:
I've read articles on lossy Dobly Digital vs TrueHD where people have been unable to hear the difference between either format.

Same as above. With some types of program material there is no meaningful difference.

--Ethan
post #150 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_c View Post

the point I was trying to make is that every time a post deals with high end audio gear, there is this group of "super heroes" that feel it necessary to save everyone from the "evils" of the high end industry ... No one is forcing anyone to buy a Krell, Emotiva, Panasonic or any other device.

Donald Trump is welcome to waste his money any way he sees fit and I won't say boo. My concern is for people who have limited funds, and genuinely want to know if the various claims they read are true. If that makes me a super hero, I'll wear that badge with honor.

--Ethan

scienceman.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?