I could have reliably chosen between the two source I described because I can even express pretty clearly what the differences were. The DPAs had a smoother sound across the board and better detail. The Gefells were a little brighter and had less detail on the bottom end. I have no doubt I could have said 10 outta 10 times without knowing which was which "This recording is technically superior - it has more detail particular on the low end and better balance across the entire range". I am also sure I coulda said 10 outta 10 times "This recording is definitely brighter, a little rougher, and the bottom end is lacking in the clarity and detail of the other recording. But it has a raw sort of punchy in your face sound that makes me feel like I am at the show and I really dig that kind of sound over the other IMO reasonably objectively technically superior recording".
I'm not knocking the concept, I think it is great idea. I am just questioning the feasibility. You would have to not only have a lotta controlled experiments, you would have to have a lot that covered the pretty wide range of stuff people tape. For what I mostly tape and the sound I like, for rock to me the Gefells just absolutely rock.
I am sure that taping a different genre of music I would have liked the detail of DPAs better. You would have to not only have a lotta controlled experiments, you would have to have a lotta controlled experments that covered the pretty wide range of stuff people tape too. That is quite a library of experiments to capture and especially if you are really serious about controlling all the non-gear variables.
And then beyond that you still have real world to ultimately deal with. IMO by far the biggest variables are two which I have in one case no control over and in the other case, often very limited if any control over - venue and location. Those are major practical factors that are hard to incorporate into an organized program that already requires a lot of control over a lotta gear over a lotta genres to even be useful as a concept.
Let's face it, with any gear there are some situations so abysmal Jesus could not pull a good tape. But what about the practical taper like me who is often faced with a mix of sometimes pretty sweet spots, other times where location and or venue is definitley compromised, and the occasional situation where I go and put gear up because that is what I do, with the attitude of hey I like to see shows, like to tape shows, and do, but as far as the results, before I even hit record I already know what I am gonna get can be described as nothing more flattering than "I documented the show".
Add those variables, and not only does the matrix start becoming really huge, seriously how many of us have the desire, much less the time and opportunity to extend a large matrix of equipment and genres to also include "let's also set up as many controlled experiments with as wide a range as possible of gear in shitty location and or shitty rooms?
But that is not only a real consideration, but also really a primary consideration.
And to use the DPAs again as an example. Please don't be offended anyone, but as far as the higher end gear I see people actually run regularly if it cames to say Scheops vs DPAs, it would not even be a decision for me. I think for the taper community and admittedly a broadly brushed stereotype, to me at least the DPAs are really the premier line i see in any sort of regular rotation.
And don't interpret my next statement as me presenting as "fact", it is definitely not - I've never even owned a pair. But I've heard the same thing from more than one taper I respect highly and that have run many kinds of gear that while DPAs make stellar recordings, higher quality also comes with less forgiveness. Again that is pure anecdote, and second hand anecdote at that. But having heard the same thing and from the people I've heard the same thing from, I am by no means ready to just dismiss that there may be some merit to what they have said.
Don't get me wrong. What you are proposing is very logical. It has many genuinely useful merits. And I respect that the level of effort of trying to follow though is truly admirable.
I'm just not convinced that concept of gold standards caneven be applied for the real world tapers in the real world environment faced with so many real scenarios.
But again, not trying to discourage, just suggesting that I think the approach of meeting fellow tapers at the kind of shows you tape, exchanging dialogue and then eventually exchanging gear and occasionally managing to just try to get together somewhere every once in a while and do some kind of basic collaboration at a show, while far from scientific, is still a strategy that while not yielding metrics, can nevertheless provide some genuinely valuable exposure to make hopefully what to to you personally prove to be equipment purchases that you feel were seriously worthwhile changes...
