I want to upgrade my AV-Reciver but am very affraid!

[CosmicOne]

why it seems that u don't belive on performance differences between different audio equipment & differnet levels of them (entry level ,mid level,high end)???

I wasn't aware that audio is based on a belief system? Is it? Then I must be in the wrong church.
I need facts, not a belief system. Simple.

if this was true so why people upgrade there audio components atall???

Marketeers have trained the consumer public for centuries, you need to get the lates.
There is a place when quantum advances are made, from stereo to multi channel, from analog to digital.


Would u rate the quality & performance of for example a Yamaha RXV750 to a Yamaha Z9?????

What would that tell you? More power? Is it audible? Do you need that 1dB-3dB extra power? Does one have something you must have while th eother doesn't?
Or, is one new and the latest tease?


SO mtrycrafts
from what u are saying,i get that if i go with AV Phile advice & get the Rotel with the B&W i will not get much difference from them more that some more DB louder than my system now,
So i understand from u that if a customer goes from a 300$ amp with something like Bose speakers to a Z9 or Denon 5805 with B&W's or Tannoys or KEF's he will be a victem to markting????!!!!!!

Also u see that we shall not upgrade unless there's something breackthrough & new like going from Stereo to Surround so i get from that all people with Stereo amps from the 80's should still be using them if they want stereo only & don't consider upgrading at all to a new 2004 stereo reciver!!!!!

Anyway Dude,for me if i upgrade to something like the RXV750 or RXV1400 i will not only get new amp i will getTS , DTS:ES ,DolbyprologicII & IIx,DTS:Neo,maybe THX,more power,DolbyDigital:EX lots of inputs & outputs which i don't have in the KenWood which is only do DolbyDigital & DolbyPrologic.

 

[CosmicOne]

AV Phile,
thanx dude for advice but i can't get the B&W with the Rotel coz it's way way way out of my budget also in my country we don't have any separets at all also the B&W & the Rotel are only one peice from each found only on one shop,the brands widly available are Yamaha,Onkyo,Pioneer.

Guys i took with ur advice & tried repositioning the speakers & repositioning my siting place & results where very good,(STEREO ONLY)

but First i have something to say about my room where my system is that i think it's good on the Acoustics side coz it's Rectangler shape with walls & wooden floor which is covered with carpet(but not all of it there's large wood spaces) & glass is very very rare in my room also chairs are wood.

So,i repostioned the speaker angle a little bit away from me (they was directly facing me) also i move my sitting position backword to increase the soundstage & that was very very good move coz now my system moved from 2d & lifeless sounding to really 3d sound that fill around me & separate me from the rest of the room while the vocals is concentrated in the center (Using 2 speakers only,the 8.4s) & i hear musical instroments all over the place with some of them like geting from behind me & that was with old but orginal & in very good shape CD (i was listing to too much MP3 latly without using my CD's) the song that really was very 3d was an old song called "Always" be "Erasure",so that means no problem now with positioning or room acuistics.

but while the sound is very good i switched the CD & the same song to different outputs:
1-used a small Onkyo stereo only amp with 35watt per channel (consumes 110W) that came with a whole system including EQ(which i turned off coz i love natural sound) a cd player & tape Deck,i used the CD player with the system & connected the system to the Wharfedale 8.4 & the sound was as i mentiond.

2-then i connected the onkyo CD player to the KenWood amp througt optical out also with the 8.4 & while the KenWood was in only 2ch mode which should have near the 110W power as rated it gave me the same sound & the same power as the Onkyo.

3-I connect my Sony DVD to the KenWood amp & listined & the sound was the same it was good but no changes from 1 & 2.

4-i put the CD into my CD-ROM on my pc & used the builtin Soundstorm soundcard & sound was the same while this should be the most underperforming combo.

So i get from this that am right about the AMP & it's Overall power handling???

Also 5.1 sound stayed the same with no improvments like in Stereo mode.

Sorry guys for posting such a long post but i really really need ur opinions WHICH IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED.
thanx again.

 

[Polkfan]

And let me say, if you are just getting similar mass products from Yamaha, Pioneer, Onkyo, Sony, etc., you really can't expect that much difference from your current Kenwood-Wharfedale set-up. You will just be moving around in circles. Never getting any higher to better sonics. Try auditioning separates from NAD, Rotel, Arcam, Krell, Lexicon, Bryston, Parasound, etc., and speakers/subs from B&W, REL, Sonus Faber, Martin Logan, Mission, etc. And hear for yourself the differences that can define excellent sonics from the merely adequate. I know you've heard a Rotel-B&W set-up. And rightly impressed. That's a start. Now hear the others.

I am pretty sure the other manufacturers listed are mass producers. And very good sound can be had with a decent receiver from the first four famous 'mass producers' listed.

 

[mtrycrafts]

While I agree that no listening test were performed (which is where the true test is), it just seems that the Kenwood is sub par as compared to the others. The reference to the capacitor issue is found by clicking on the Kenwood transformer in the photo of the receiver. And this is the heading of the photo:

"Power Transformer and Power Supply:
The Kenwood’s power supply is most odd. While the power transformer is large enough to provide adequate output capability, the unit has no central power supply capacitors. Not only is this unusual, it’s also highly questionable."

I just wonder why there are no power supply caps in there high end model. Could be a new design.

Thanks for pointing out how to navigate their pictures. Yep, no caps in sight, bummer

 

[mtrycrafts]

Having a receiver that claims 5x110wpc but only consumes 190 watts is suspect to me.

Be careful how you read the specs. It doesn't saye what you think it does.


I read the posts from people here who claim that 100 watts is a 100 watts,

If not, then the evidence should be obvious and available?


that,sonically,there is no difference between receivers.

Or, maybe what is stated, that if there is one, it is not mysterious why but it is obvious why. After all, DBT listening has shown differences between amps, for well known reasons.

Unless the 100wpc isn't really 100wpc,as av_phile has argued in the past.

Arguing without evidence is not worthwhile. Maybe, he is confusing what one receiver will drive all channels at the same time vs another? But, this is really a useless comparison if you will never come to that bridge when this condition will happen. Something like a car capable of driving 240 mph. Yes, show me the highway sign where this can be tested, away from a racetrack




I just recently hooked an old 2x100 wpc amp to my Yamaha 3300(6x130wpc claimed) & guess what? My Axioms suddenly have a warmer sound & more bass.The 3300 consumes 500 watts,the amp 650 watts.

What does that power consumption mean? Oh, perhaps when all channels are at full power, that is what it will consume, right. When will that happen?


I don't know squat compared to most people in here,but I do know what sounds good to me.And I know that an amp can't put out unless it's taking in 1st.

Well, yes, an amp has to take it in. Some amps are way over designed, others are designed realisticly?

A better receiver will probably make a difference but it probably won't be a cure-all.[/] Maybe, in rare circumstances, if those ever come, when all channels are screaming for full or nearly so, power?

 

[mtrycrafts]

You need to read this amp comparison, a cheap Yam integrated and a $15k hi end one.
Interesting that 3 audiophiles couldn't differentiate them apart. I wonder why that is.

I wonder what makes those amps cost $15K? Certainly not its superior performance, right?

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=501fl6$ac3@oxy.rust.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups?q=sunshine+stereo+yamaha+abx+nousaine&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=501fl6%24ac3%40oxy.rust.net&rnum=1

 

[mtrycrafts]

SO mtrycrafts
from what u are saying,i get that if i go with AV Phile advice & get the Rotel with the B&W i will not get much difference from them more that some more DB louder than my system now,

Is that what I said? Please, re-read what I said because I didn't say that. Firstly, you are comparing two speaker systems, right?
Second, You have to compare components carefully, eliminating your biases which doesn't work on a on-off switch.
Speakers and your room acosutics makes the vast difference, not really up for debate. So, while you indicate your acousits is ok, who is to say that it is? Maybe it is not and no matter what you do, you will be dissatisfied. Maybe it is your over all expectations are not realistic? Too many unknowns.


So i understand from u that if a customer goes from a 300$ amp with something like Bose speakers to a Z9 or Denon 5805 with B&W's or Tannoys or KEF's he will be a victem to markting????!!!!!!

Is that what I said? I don't think you can find that sentence anywhere. It would be a better discussion of the real issues if you stick to what is written, not what you think is implied.

Maybe you should try that $300 amp with different speakers, under bias controlled conditions?

Better yet, read this link of just such a DBT test, $300 Yam and a $15k amp; no audible difference on the same speakers, get it?

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=501fl6$ac3@oxy.rust.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups?q=sunshine+stereo+yamaha+abx+nousaine&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=501fl6%24ac3%40oxy.rust.net&rnum=1



Also u see that we shall not upgrade unless there's something breackthrough & new like going from Stereo to Surround so i get from that all people with Stereo amps from the 80's should still be using them if they want stereo only & don't consider upgrading at all to a new 2004 stereo reciver!!!!!

Well, the data and history will not support you that your move will make an audible difference. Reality sucks.

Anyway Dude,for me if i upgrade to something like the RXV750 or RXV1400 i will not only get new amp i will getTS , DTS:ES ,DolbyprologicII & IIx,DTS:Neo,maybe THX,more power,DolbyDigital:EX lots of inputs & outputs which i don't have in the KenWood which is only do DolbyDigital & DolbyPrologic.

If you need all those bells and whistles, that is a preference issue; cannot say anything about your preferences.

 

[av_phile]

You need to read this amp comparison, a cheap Yam integrated and a $15k hi end one.
Interesting that 3 audiophiles couldn't differentiate them apart. I wonder why that is.

I wonder what makes those amps cost $15K? Certainly not its superior performance, right?

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=501fl6$ac3@oxy.rust.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups?q=sunshine+stereo+yamaha+abx+nousaine&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=501fl6%24ac3%40oxy.rust.net&rnum=1

I once champion ABX testing. It's probably about the only thing that can really yield an objective unbiased conclusion when making comparisons. But the results seems to be merely statistical. I'm not so sure now that it really matters in this hobby.

That article sounds like blind testing will lead to the conclusion that a ride on a Toyota Corolla will be the same as a ride on a Mercedes Benz S-class. All that blind ABX testing seems to say is that statistically, both cars can efficiently deliver you to any destination. Nothing more. That's the utilitarian point. And it's just statistical.

But fortunately or unfortunately, this hobby goes beyond utilitarianism. Listening to home playback system can overreach the Hi-Fidelity objective so that it assumes pride of ownership and a personal and social statement. Even political. Much like owning a Benz, rather than a Corolla.

Ofcourse, if a pundit proclaims that a $300 receiver sounds the same as a $15,000 amp, fine. That's very comforting to those who can't afford. No different from saying, whether you're in a corolla or a benz, you'd sitll be stuck in traffic. A very consoling fact. (Afterall, gridlock traffic is a great social equalizer. )

Never mind if that $15,000 amp carries a lifetime warranty. Never mind if that $15,000 amp is built like a tank requiring 3 people to carry. Never mind if that $15,000 amp was almost hand-built by a team of dedicated audiophile technicians using cost-no-object parts on uncompromising circuit designs that only deliver 50 units a month to the dealers nationwide. Never mind if that $15,000 amp can drive 1 ohm loads without ever getting too hot. Do they have anything to do wth sonics? What about performance?

So for those who subscribe to this idea, you're lucky that you don't have to overreach your wallet's capacity to own a benz or a $15,000 amp. Just get the cheapest you can come across. It will take you to your listening destinaton just the same. What a dreary world. I would hate to see everyone owning the same $300 receiver. It reminds me of TV scenes about the old Brezhnev Kremlin and Mao-Tse Tung China with their identical lookng cars and drab grey outfits.

 

[Polkfan]

Regardless of how a $15,000 piece of audio equipment theoretically performs, very few people are going to shell out that kind of cash for audio equipment. But it is not wise to buy the cheapest equipment either. Somewhere in between is just right.

 

[CosmicOne]

SO mtrycrafts
from what u are saying,i get that if i go with AV Phile advice & get the Rotel with the B&W i will not get much difference from them more that some more DB louder than my system now,

Is that what I said? Please, re-read what I said because I didn't say that. Firstly, you are comparing two speaker systems, right?
Second, You have to compare components carefully, eliminating your biases which doesn't work on a on-off switch.
Speakers and your room acosutics makes the vast difference, not really up for debate. So, while you indicate your acousits is ok, who is to say that it is? Maybe it is not and no matter what you do, you will be dissatisfied. Maybe it is your over all expectations are not realistic? Too many unknowns.


So i understand from u that if a customer goes from a 300$ amp with something like Bose speakers to a Z9 or Denon 5805 with B&W's or Tannoys or KEF's he will be a victem to markting????!!!!!!

Is that what I said? I don't think you can find that sentence anywhere. It would be a better discussion of the real issues if you stick to what is written, not what you think is implied.

Maybe you should try that $300 amp with different speakers, under bias controlled conditions?

Better yet, read this link of just such a DBT test, $300 Yam and a $15k amp; no audible difference on the same speakers, get it?

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=....net&rnum=1


So u are saying u didn't say that,Yes u didn't say that by word but u SURE pointed at that from what u said & it's very obvious,Ask anyone how is reading this thread,
And this is some sentences quted form u which is very much directing to this:

why it seems that u don't belive on performance differences between different audio equipment & differnet levels of them (entry level ,mid level,high end)???

I wasn't aware that audio is based on a belief system? Is it? Then I must be in the wrong church.
I need facts, not a belief system. Simple.

if this was true so why people upgrade there audio components atall???

Marketeers have trained the consumer public for centuries, you need to get the lates.
There is a place when quantum advances are made, from stereo to multi channel, from analog to digital.


Would u rate the quality & performance of for example a Yamaha RXV750 to a Yamaha Z9?????

What would that tell you? More power? Is it audible? Do you need that 1dB-3dB extra power? Does one have something you must have while th eother doesn't?
Or, is one new and the latest tease?



As Polkfan said,while i didn't made up my mind (if so i woudn't even need to post to ask advice)many people told me to change the KenWood Reciver & that KenWood is not that good neither in power nor in quailty.

Many people tell me that psychics can tell you stuff, talk to the dead. Even my sister tries to tell me this. What do you think? Are psychics for real? Is alien abduction for real? Can Yuri really bend the spoon or is it a trick?

You need to evaluate facts, the quality of opinions as they are varied by a large margin.

Also u see that we shall not upgrade unless there's something breackthrough & new like going from Stereo to Surround so i get from that all people with Stereo amps from the 80's should still be using them if they want stereo only & don't consider upgrading at all to a new 2004 stereo reciver!!!!!

Well, the data and history will not support you that your move will make an audible difference. Reality sucks.

Anyway we are not gonna fight over this & thanx for ur advice.

 

[CosmicOne]

So guys,what do u think about my last findings on my post #22 ??????

 

[Rob Babcock]

It would be nice to think you'd get a lifetime warranty with a $15k amp, but this isn't usually the case. If I'm wrong please correct me, and post a list of the companies you know of that offer a lifetime warranty. I know Bryston offers 20 years, but many very expensive boutique lines offer very little warrenty. Worse, oftimes these companies fold leaving the consumer holding the bag.

Anyway, for fifteen-thousand dollars, you could also buy a stack of fifty $300 recievers and discard one each year.

As for being made with the very best parts, I'd tend to disagree. How many different $15,000 amps have you cracked the case on, AV Phile? Probably the same amount as me; none! But from what I've heard from designers, the parts quality often is little or no higher than that of cheaper products. Did you ever hear of the 'Mark Levinson Scandal'? It appears he bought very, very cheap integrated amps in the far east and merely rebadged them with the Red Rose label. He then multiplied the price by a factor of 10 or 15 over what they sold in Asia! He'd have gotten away with it too, if is wusn't fer that meddlin' internet.

A large part of the cost of "high end" gear is the inefficiency of the manufacturing methods. Certainly being handmade seems like it would be a good thing, but there are things machines can do to much higher tolerences, and for a lot less money. In medieval times nails were handmade and therefore quite expensive, but they were not better than wire nails that were later machine made.

Alas, you hit on the true appeal of those products. Legendary speaker designer Brian Cheney once said that a fellow high end manufacturer told him, "Brian, to make your products sexy, tack a zero to the end of the price." Sadly, that's the snob appeal of that type of product- you're paying for the name. Whether it's B(l)ose, Ferrari, etc. It appeals to the vanity or insecurity of the owner, and his need for conspicuous consumption. But try as you might to validate yourself by spending money on trinkets that display your status or wealth, never lie to yourself about why you're doing it.

Buying a $500k car, $5k IC cables, or a $15k amp is making a social and/or psychological statement. Whether that statement reflects positively on a person is another matter. Is it moral to buy a Ferrari to poison the planet and suck down tons of irreplaceable fossile fuels merely for the pleasure of being seen in it? To stroke your own ego? Is it justified to do that simply for pleasure? That's up to each person to look into his soul and see where his priorities lie, and what kind of person he/she is. And while it's not immoral, per se, to buy a $15k amp or $5k cable, it does seem Kafka-esque that some people buy these things while many others, perhaps down the street, are going to bed hungry.

At any rate, I think you protest too much, AV Phile. I think that all Mtrycrafts was saying is that in hundreds of ABX tests, including the one he linked to, none of the Golden Ears were able to tell the amps apart. No one says you can't spend more money, or even that it's a bad idea. I certainly don't dismiss aesthetics or build quality from consideration. But certainly the truth of DBT testing shouldn't be so threatening to you. Repectfully, if you world view can't survive contact with the truth, perhaps your world view needs adjusting.

 

[Polkfan]

Did you ever hear of the 'Mark Levinson Scandal'? It appears he bought very, very cheap integrated amps in the far east and merely rebadged them with the Red Rose label. He then multiplied the price by a factor of 10 or 15 over what they sold in Asia! He'd have gotten away with it too, if is wusn't fer that meddlin' internet.

I'd never heard of that scandal. Not very surprising though. Just proves that because something costs more does NOT mean it's better.

Sadly, that's the snob appeal of that type of product- you're paying for the name. Whether it's B(l)ose, Ferrari, etc. It appeals to the vanity or insecurity of the owner, and his need for conspicuous consumption.

True! So true!

 

[av_phile]

It would be nice to think you'd get a lifetime warranty with a $15k amp, but this isn't usually the case. If I'm wrong please correct me, and post a list of the companies you know of that offer a lifetime warranty. I know Bryston offers 20 years, but many very expensive boutique lines offer very little warrenty. Worse, oftimes these companies fold leaving the consumer holding the bag.

Anyway, for fifteen-thousand dollars, you could also buy a stack of fifty $300 recievers and discard one each year.

As for being made with the very best parts, I'd tend to disagree. How many different $15,000 amps have you cracked the case on, AV Phile? Probably the same amount as me; none! But from what I've heard from designers, the parts quality often is little or no higher than that of cheaper products. Did you ever hear of the 'Mark Levinson Scandal'? It appears he bought very, very cheap integrated amps in the far east and merely rebadged them with the Red Rose label. He then multiplied the price by a factor of 10 or 15 over what they sold in Asia! He'd have gotten away with it too, if is wusn't fer that meddlin' internet.

A large part of the cost of "high end" gear is the inefficiency of the manufacturing methods. Certainly being handmade seems like it would be a good thing, but there are things machines can do to much higher tolerences, and for a lot less money. In medieval times nails were handmade and therefore quite expensive, but they were not better than wire nails that were later machine made.

That post was more in direct response to mtrycrafts hypothetical question as to what makes those $15,000 amps cost so much. I enumerated what COULD possibly cause such a sticker price. Also a hypothetical response.

I really couldn't care less if the makers of these products are inefficient or not. They probably are. Any labor intensive job is. So if I were to use my hands to make a couple of DIY amps, use cost-no-object circuit design and parts, use real heavy casing, offer lifetime warranty and sell them for $100,000 each as that is what I think is the VALUE of my personalized hand-built contraptions, not cost-based, and surprisingly I get back orders from new customers from word-of mouth advertising, am I putting one over them? Aren't we supposed to be in a free-market economy?

With regards sonics, I can agree that the psychological power of suggestion plays a large measure on the subjective and biased perceptions of the listener. How can a $300 amp sound the same as a $15,000 amp? And that is precisely the gist of my post. This hobby is all about perceptions. That's why I question the place of ABX testing in it. What's the point concluding that a $300 reciever or amp sounds the same as a $15,000 amp? And yet after the ABX session, the participants continue to cling to their cherished expensive equipment? Did anyone owning a Bryston converted to owning a Sherborne? But it does give a lot of solace to those who can't afford, doesn't it?

With regards that infamous MarK Levinson thing, I suppose the same logic should indict all accounting firms because Arthur & Anderson botched their services at Enron. Even Theta is known to re-house some Pioneer DVD players lock stock and barrel into a more robust and hefty case and sell them at 15x the cost of the same pioneer model. But the customers like what they see in the craftsmanship and if they can afford one, patronize the product over the same pioneer housed in a flimsy shell. Ofcourse they sound the same, but people who can afford couldn't care less. They will own a Theta, not a mere Pioneer. Perceptions, perceptions.

Alas, you hit on the true appeal of those products. Legendary speaker designer Brian Cheney once said that a fellow high end manufacturer told him, "Brian, to make your products sexy, tack a zero to the end of the price." Sadly, that's the snob appeal of that type of product- you're paying for the name. Whether it's B(l)ose, Ferrari, etc. It appeals to the vanity or insecurity of the owner, and his need for conspicuous consumption. But try as you might to validate yourself by spending money on trinkets that display your status or wealth, never lie to yourself about why you're doing it.

Nope, I don't think people who buy Guccis and Ferraris are so insecure as to lie to themselves. They're vain. Yes. They're rich, yes, filthy or not. And they just happen to buy what strikes their fancy. Should they get a $300 receiver because it sounds the same as a $15,000 one? ABX testing says so. Not on your life. The compulsion that drove them to get a Ferrari instead of a Toyota would likewise dictate their choice for a sound system. It's their lifestyle. And they like to make a defining statement about it in any of their possesions. Apart from this hobby bieng about perceptions, it is also about lifestyle. It's not about ABX testing.

I wonder if they are anymore insecure as those peasants who envy and wish they were as rich. NEED for conspicuous consumption??? Seems to me you're the one in need of it but just can't win the Lotto. Being poor, I probably am too, but I'm not in any state of denial.

Buying a $500k car, $5k IC cables, or a $15k amp is making a social and/or psychological statement. Whether that statement reflects positively on a person is another matter. Is it moral to buy a Ferrari to poison the planet and suck down tons of irreplaceable fossile fuels merely for the pleasure of being seen in it? To stroke your own ego? Is it justified to do that simply for pleasure? That's up to each person to look into his soul and see where his priorities lie, and what kind of person he/she is. And while it's not immoral, per se, to buy a $15k amp or $5k cable, it does seem Kafka-esque that some people buy these things while many others, perhaps down the street, are going to bed hungry.

You live in a capitalist economy right? An individualist society? Read my posts, I said I would hate to see everyone own the same $300 receivers as what those ABX testing will have me do. Like what I saw on TV news with those same looking cars and clothes in communist countries in the past. And while I agree it can be downright obscene that someone can buy a $15,000 amp while so many are dying of hunger elsewhere on the planet, that's entirely between their conscience and their pockets. But I wouldn't mind if you can form a crusade against this in this capitalistic society. Come to think of it, this hobby is more a luxury than a necessity. And spending a single cent on it is probably just as obscene when other people can't afford to by a decent meal or a can of milk for their baby. So maybe once your spending habits border on the luxurious, $300 is just as obscene as $15,000 on any gear when others are finding it hard just to get by.

At any rate, I think you protest too much, AV Phile. I think that all Mtrycrafts was saying is that in hundreds of ABX tests, including the one he linked to, none of the Golden Ears were able to tell the amps apart. No one says you can't spend more money, or even that it's a bad idea. I certainly don't dismiss aesthetics or build quality from consideration. But certainly the truth of DBT testing shouldn't be so threatening to you. Repectfully, if you world view can't survive contact with the truth, perhaps your world view needs adjusting.

Yup, I do protest a lot, expecially with assertions that I find too pressumptious. And if you understood my posts well enough, I did say that ABX testing has its worth. But I strongly doubt its place in this hobby. What is the TRUTH that ABX testing would want us to see? What's the point? To show you how dreary and mundane life could be? It's results are purely statistical. Statistical, my goodness!! ABX applied to religion, if majority of the respondents tell you they don't see any difference between a godless society and one that is god-fearing, will the conclusion that God is not important be the truth?

 

[Rob Babcock]

Of course, the same guy could get therapy and rehab himself into a useful human being far cheaper than buying the car! Anyway, I don't imply all expensive gear is rebadged cheap stuff, but seriously, a fancy case doesn't make better gear. Surely is soothes the ego, but if a you would rather have a Theta than a "mere Pioneer," and you know sound isn't the reason, then you have my blessing.

I'm no saint, either. You know that guy you see on the news? The one that won the lotto but says he's going to keep working his job a couple more years til retirement? The one who keeps driving his old pickup every day? The guy who says the money won't change him? Well I'm not that guy! I'd build a big mansion with gold crappers & put a full sized friggin' copy of Stonehenge in my back yard. And I'd buy the expensive gear, mostly due to a lack of courage: I'd spend it 1) because I could and 2) just in case.

I do happen to think a lot of conspicous consumption is due to poor self image and insecurities, but I doubt either of us is a mental health expert. It's just my opinion, as again, I'd probably burn thru money like a drunken sailor on his first shore leave in 6 months.

At any rate, more power to the free market. But as far as perceptions go, knowing the component cost more might make it sound better to you. At least until you learned enough to reprogram your preconceived notions. This only comes from experience, and lot's of hobbiests do it. I think that someone who really loves music and good sound will learn to value the sound over the appearance of gear. That's JMOHO, and not everyone ever gets to that point. But to me that's the last stage of the journey to audio nirvana. To follow the sound even if it's not trendy or impressive to your fellow audiophools is not easy, and not everyone ever acheives this level of "enlightenment."

No offense to your views, and of course I think a person should buy what makes them happy, be it an iPod or a re-badged Mark Levinson. But anyone who's really serious about the science of reproducing sound should, IMO, not be afraid of the truth. That's all I'm saying.

As far as dreary and mundane, to me that would be blindly accepting the old stereotype that good sound= expensive gear. I want to break that particular cycle of ignorance. That's what's drab to me: conformity to those tired old cliches.

 

[zipper]

At the risk of having my reply dissected & analyzed,I wanted to respond once more on this issue.Look,I ain't rich.I love good sound & the effects of DD sound in movies,but,short of winning the lottery,I'll never be able to afford to spend the kind of money asked for some of the gear out there.The $800 I spent on my Axiom 60's represents the most I've ever spent on any stereo item.Like a kid outside a candy store,i've been drooling over a B&K amp that,even for the sale price of $2K,is beyond justification for this "hobby" of mine.
I found an old Optimus MPA-250 amp in a pawn shop & got it for $80.It's basically 100wpc as it clips above that.Thing weighs about 30 lbs.It's got 2 10k caps in it(I took the cover off & cleaned inside) & as big a transformer as my 3300.I like the warmer sound I get now with it hooked up.Just bought another one on ebay for $65.They can be mono'd & that what I'm going to do.They will drive my mains & the yammy will drive the rest.I usually only listen to music in 2ch stereo,so I'm set.I'm done spending for a while.And I haven't exceeded my means to do so.Some of you may scoff at my meager setup,but guess what? It works for me.I think many might be surprised at the quality of sound that can be achieved w/o going broke or deep in debt.
I think this is the part of the hobby that's most satifying to me.Being able to improve my sound within my budget.Trust me,I'd love to have some of the stuff I've seen you guys post pictures of.But it's great that there are ways for guys like me to be able to achieve good sound even if I can't have what I want.
I can live with a Toyota.

 

[av_phile]

I think that is the problem: Getting down to the truth. Putting blind ABX testing aside is not a manifestation of fear about the truth. It is simply casting doubt both to its validity and, more importantly, to the relevance of its results in this hobby. Afterall, it's results are only statistical. Not definitive. And we are talking about a hobby. A hobby that often becomes a passion, a lifestyle - a subjective, personal and biased hobby where individual VALUES interplay. And those values almost always become a set of beliefs that assume religious dogma for the hobbyst.

Is what I value in this hobbyst beliefs truthful? Well, you might as well ask the same thing about Christians and Muslims and Buddhists. Should it matter? The hobby is giving me hours of listening pleasure. It's giving me something to while my time. It's giving me pride of ownership. It's giving me a social statement. It's giving me a lifestyle. It's givng me reason to splurge my hard-earned cash. It does everything that an expensive hobby should.

Will knowing that all cables and amps sound the same do these for me? Will knowing that all 12-cylinder engines function the same way dissuade me from getting a Ferrari?

And what is truth? Isn't it a virtue so much like Beauty? It's all in the eyes of the beholder, right? Your truth may be different fom mine.

Perhaps we should not confuse truth with facts. Scientific facts are one thing. Like technical specifications done under lab measurement conditions. These are facts. Extracted under defined conditions or proven assumptions. But even facts are subject to the value perceptions of individuals in this hobby. Hardly ever taking precedence.

It is a fact that a tube amp spews out inordinate amounts of even high-ordered harmonic distortions and is bandwidth-limited because of those output transformers. But a passionate tube enthusiast doesn't care. Because his Jollida gear is giving him hours of listening pleasures and is making positive personal and social statement to his neighbors, apart from imparting so much pride in owning one.

It is a fact that LPs wobble, have surface noise, have lower S/N ratios and are played on turntables with wow and flutter, motor rumble noise, cartridge-arm resonances, cantilever angle tracking errors, tangential tracking erors, horizontal tracking erros, etc. But do analog lovers care?

It is a fact that many Japanese receivers do not power rate their gears with all channels driven into full bandwidth, and are often power starved for their over-hyped rating into 4 ohm loads. Who cares, their owners derive sonic pleasures from them.

It is a fact that only resistance, inductance and capacitance are the only variables affecting signal transmission in audio cables. I doubt if a hobbyist who just changed cables and personally and subjectively noticed a marked sonic improvement using expensive Valhala cables would care.

I have no quarrel with people who aim to achieve an inexpensive hobby to achive sonic nirvana. Who wouldn't want to get everything for almost nothing. But this hobby crosses the luxury threshold. Let no one have any illusion or expectation that this hobby can be indulged with cheaply.

I can admit that blind ABX testing is a valid pursuit in order to verify suspicious claims and beliefs. But it's nothing like a definitive pursuit to end all speculation. Once the results are out, I wonder how many who have heard about their results immediately junked their Nordost cables for a set of ZIP cords. Or dissuaded them from getting one. Or replaced their Lexicon preamps and Bryston amps with Pioneer receivers. They rightly should. Afterall, ABX tests have revealed all cables and amps sound the same. But it's really amazing that there is still a thriving market for such exotic and expensive appliances. Not that hobbysts who care to know don't know about those ABX results. In fact, the market is still there DESPITE of and INSPITE those ABX results. Why.

I think most hobbyist are getting a sense of fulfillment in their hobbies as they are. And applying those statistical ABX test results just won't. Those results will just diminish much of the fun and excitement in the hobby. That's what I think is the problem with these blind ABX tests. I don't dismiss them, but I find them irrelevant in pursuing sonic nirvana. Let me repeat, this is a personal hobby -a personal quest to sonic nirvana. You're welcome to choose the road you want. Let no one question that choice. It is not a scientific pursuit.

But if there are hobbyists out there who'd like to put some scientific exactitude in their quest, I have no problem with that. That's just another road to it. Perhaps more straight and narrow. But I will just have to wonder though, what greater heights of sonic glory and expectations are reserved in a hobby where you've reached your sonic nirvana, using zip cords on $300 recievers?

 

[av_phile]

At the risk of having my reply dissected & analyzed,I wanted to respond once more on this issue.Look,I ain't rich.I love good sound & the effects of DD sound in movies,but,short of winning the lottery,I'll never be able to afford to spend the kind of money asked for some of the gear out there.The $800 I spent on my Axiom 60's represents the most I've ever spent on any stereo item.Like a kid outside a candy store,i've been drooling over a B&K amp that,even for the sale price of $2K,is beyond justification for this "hobby" of mine.
I found an old Optimus MPA-250 amp in a pawn shop & got it for $80.It's basically 100wpc as it clips above that.Thing weighs about 30 lbs.It's got 2 10k caps in it(I took the cover off & cleaned inside) & as big a transformer as my 3300.I like the warmer sound I get now with it hooked up.Just bought another one on ebay for $65.They can be mono'd & that what I'm going to do.They will drive my mains & the yammy will drive the rest.I usually only listen to music in 2ch stereo,so I'm set.I'm done spending for a while.And I haven't exceeded my means to do so.Some of you may scoff at my meager setup,but guess what? It works for me.I think many might be surprised at the quality of sound that can be achieved w/o going broke or deep in debt.
I think this is the part of the hobby that's most satifying to me.Being able to improve my sound within my budget.Trust me,I'd love to have some of the stuff I've seen you guys post pictures of.But it's great that there are ways for guys like me to be able to achieve good sound even if I can't have what I want.
I can live with a Toyota.

I can relate to your experience in this hobby. During my college days, I used to drool over those Integra and Elite Pioneer separates at our local stores. I ended up with a DIY set of separates using the best I could lay my hands on. They sounded great but the dream of getting those real toys remained. I now have a pre-owned Acurus and Rotel gears that I saved up after years of aiming for them. While I strongly believe this hobby is an expensive bank account-draining pursuit, I agree with you that you can have some semblance of sonic nirvana within the budget you've alloted yourself with the right planning and determination. But I was aiming high, drooling after Perreaux Amps and Krell preamps. Ending up with an Acurus-Rotel setup, that while far from my dream set-up, delivers MOST of the sonic expectations I crave for. And it gave me a sense of fulfillment getting one step at a time closer to my quest. But it doesn't end there.

But just imagine if I had fully subscribed to those blind ABX test results and happily set my eyes on just zip cords and $300 receivers. I probably would have gotten such gears a lot earlier and not miss much. But what fulfillment can I expect from such a hobby. I probably wouldn't even call it a hobby.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I doubt anyone "junked" their Nordost when the "learned" that all cables sound the same (for the sake of argument only- I'm not saying they do). A guy who owns the top-o'-the-line Nordost cables can't serious own them for any purported sonic purpose. It was the psychic difference that drew him to the line, in all likelihood. The "snob factor", having a monetary trump card. You know the type. Maybe you are the type. The "I am a true audiophile because I have more money than you do" guy. The guy that thinks he can ligitimize his view by spending the money. I hope that's not you.

If we were sitting down face to face over a brew, you might find we don't see things that differently. The filter of having to convert our thoughts to typewritten words (and in my case, trying to figure out how to spell words I use every day) probably distorts our views.

That said, you throw up a helluva a smoke screen, AV P! You summon visions of jackbooted stormtroopers, scenes from "The Wall" and conjure visions of despots living and dead, all to demonize a pretty innocent idea. That idea being that, gee, Mr. Golden Ear, maybe all that stuff you like to puff your chest out & strut around over, maybe it's all the Emporors New Clothes. All your neo-Socratic platitudes over truth vs beauty are fun to read (and fun to type, I wager), but it's pure sophistry. No one is saying you can't have fun in your million-dollar-Barbie-audio-playhouse. Just like a well heeled, aging widow can buy a Harry Winston collar for her tabby, you can buy your expensive audio baubles. And you can tell yourself you're banishing the Demons of Conformity, or that you're slaying whatever dragon you fancy. But you're thrashing the hell out of a dramatically constructed straw man of your own devising.

Let's be honest: there's a lot of types of audiophools. Some seekto acheive the most accurate representation of the source material they can. Others seek to create the most subjectively pleasing playback they can. Some seek to impress other people. From an objective sociological point of view, I suppose each type of guy has as valid a reason as the other guy for his hobby. Just don't fool yourself into thinking "this hobby" has to be expensive. For the guy who designs his system with an eye towards impressing others, then yeah, that guys gonna spend a lot of money to maintain airs and "audio cred." The guys who just want good sound, they're in luck. That's not so expensive.

As for each type of audio fetishist, I don't know or care what led each to his respective kink. The really humorous thing is that the reason he thinks he likes his gear probably has nothing to do with why he actually does. For example, he's convinced he likes the "sweetness" of tubes, but if he can't really hear any difference, then why does he still persist in that thought? Probably because it's fun. We all pick our Party Line, then we mix it up. We tend to like & feel kinship with the guys who choose the same fetish. Doesn't matter if it's real or not, we'll make our alliances and wage our little wars. That's what makes this hobby fun.

___________________________________________________________________

Honestly, I should go back and delete this post and just leave this summary: Give me something more than sophistry, more than rhetoric, more than just smoke & mirrors to make your point. You don't like ABX testing: why? Don't say because it threatens your views, that would be lame. Besides, you're so close I can almost taste it. I think you're close to a reason I can agree with.

 

[av_phile]

Well, I probably should thank you BOB for giving me credit more than I deserve. For one thing, I am not sure I am as sophisticated a writer as you've implied to engage in the "rhetorics." "sophistry," "neo-Socratic platitudes" and "Smoke Screens" that you so eloquently ascribed to my post. Their points are quite simple, honest and straigthforward to my mind.

And I am neither frightened, threatened nor deterred by what all those blind ABX test reveal. Like I said, if you noticed, I am not against those ABX test. I just find them irrelevant to the personal pursuit of sonic nirvana. Not only do their results shout mere statistical probabilities, but I find them too myopic and confining to allow me to enjoy this hobby. Why limit my choices to zip cords and $300 recievers tops?

I have thoroughly defined what this hobby means to me. It is personal, subjective, etc. etc. It is not about blind tests nor scientific explorations. People are free to choose the road they want or the belief system they like and engage in whatever stupidity makes them happy in pursuit of sonic nirvana. This is a free society. A market capitalist society. Vendors who make ridiculous appliances at ridiculous prices are there just like anyone else competing for a share of the audiophools' market. And unlike most poeple in this forum, they do not IMPOSE their beliefs or VALUE system on others, expecting them to follow at the expense of being branded audiophools.

And no, neither am I rich enough like my colleagues who have nicely plunked thousands of $$$$ on their Martin Logans, SF Cremonas, Meridians and Brystons and have relegated their Pioneers and Yamahas to their servants quarters. They're not show-offs by any stretch of suspicion. It's just unfortunate they've had about 30 years toiling for some companies that would have made them even richer had their audiophoolish hobbies not taken a greater part of their paychecks everytime. Like me they started from Japanese receivers and DIY kits and can now find fulfillment in their outlandish boutique set-ups. To some of us, that's what this hobby is about Taking one step at a time to where your VALUE perceptions are. Not to where a statistical ABX testing result will have you. And I agree it doesn't have to be that expensive. I just do not have the illusion sonic nirvana can be achieved cheaply. Those ABX tests, however, are so comforting in their conclusions and implications that anyone can. Maybe. But like I said, rephrasing it, what's the point of this quest for sonic nirvana if that sonic nirvana is just about a zip cord and a $300 reciever?

And frankly, what is expensive to you can be cheap to others. And vice-versa. So I really wouldn't furter pontificate on whether this hobby can be or should be expensive or not. It is going to be expensive for people like me. And it's gonna be cheap for poeple who find solace behind their ABX results.

So like i said, I have no quarel with anyone who likes to inject some scientific discipline into this mad hobby. It's just another road to sonic nirvana. Anyone can take whatever road they want to achieving this in a free capitalist economy. Just don't tell me you are on higher grounds because you have your ABX results behind you. I don't have pressumptions of the sort. I think Catholics who preach in Muslim countries are sometimes beheaded.