The Audio Path In Consumer-Grade Products

[TheWarrior]

But the truth is that very few are experts.

To use an analogy, there are poetry readers, poetry critics, and poets. Lots of people with a little education can learn to read poetry and interpret it. Some people are poetry critics and analyze poems and criticize a poem's structure and meanings. And then there are poets. The people who design complex analog circuitry and produce great results (balancing performance, cost, and power) are the poets, and really the experts. Everyone else isn't, and that includes me. I'm in the reader category.

Reading is a requirement of anyone, elementary to expert, that desires to set up their own slice of audio nirvana. The question becomes, did you read a marketing pamphlet, or the results of repeatable objective testing? It's 2017, sound reproduction is far from the black magic many companies still try to get you to believe. But so many still find comfort pseudoscience....

...Whoops, I just compared Audioholism to Human Nature.

 

[Bucknekked]

But the truth is that very few are experts.

To use an analogy, there are poetry readers, poetry critics, and poets. Lots of people with a little education can learn to read poetry and interpret it. Some people are poetry critics and analyze poems and criticize a poem's structure and meanings. And then there are poets. The people who design complex analog circuitry and produce great results (balancing performance, cost, and power) are the poets, and really the experts. Everyone else isn't, and that includes me. I'm in the reader category.

Irv
I like your metaphor using poets. I just read the entire thread from its beginning. I am qualified to do that so I can at least obtain and claim reader status. I understand many of the assertions made and find myself able to offer some constructive thought.

I am a listener and did participate in a recent "amplification upgrade" to feed my new speakers. That gives me substance enough to make a comment or two. My first would be that the article that started the thread was well written and employed a fair amount of interesting technical detail. Much better than we usually see in these types of discussions where the point is to devalue the audio quality of AVRs compared to straight amplification choices. Make no mistake, that was the point of the article.

While I enjoyed the technical detail, the context assigned to the technical detail by the authors was monotonously consistent: all the design choices in the AVR were to cut corners or cut costs. No one made any decisions about audio quality in the design apparently.

Here is the final paragraph of the article, without edits :

Customers of Marantz, Denon, Yamaha, Onkyo, etc., likely aren't willing to pay the significantly higher prices for state-of-the-art sound quality in AV units. These customers seem to be more feature-driven. That doesn't mean the units don’t represent good value. They are likely designed with the goal of providing the best quality and features at a given price point. State-of-the-art audio performance is not the primary consideration.

Here is where the article leaves the realm of a technical discussion and goes off the rails. Define for me if you will what "state of the art sound quality" is exactly? "State of the art audio performance is not the primary consideration". Again, what does that mean? Its a pejorative set of conclusions. It says AVR's are substandard in some way to the "state of the art" which I take to mean the author's preferred method of amplification Its like complimenting your little brother on getting a participation trophy.

I'm with several other posters on this idea, MrBoat and AcuDefGuy and others. If I can't hear an audible difference between two choices, then from a product engineering point of view the manufacturer has created a distinction (claims of state of the art) without a difference (audible results).

 

[Bucknekked]

Reading is a requirement of anyone, elementary to expert, that desires to set up their own slice of audio nirvana. The question becomes, did you read a marketing pamphlet, or the results of repeatable objective testing? It's 2017, sound reproduction is far from the black magic many companies still try to get you to believe. But so many still find comfort pseudoscience....

...Whoops, I just compared Audioholism to Human Nature.

To quote a famous person who I can not remember "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who can not read". True stuff.

Most peoples conversations about something they read go like this : "I did some research on the internet. I read an article, well, not the whole article, but I did read the headline".

I think your sentiment is well taken. Our hobby isn't black magic. If you choose, you can educate yourself rather quickly and learn quite a bit by choosing the right materials. Marketing materials play a role, but don't make those the main course.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

What about the other mediocre design areas that the units owner identified in the $4,000 AVR:

• Low Voltage Signal Path
• Volume Control ICS Limitations
• Output Buffers
• Power Rails
• Gain

I would agree if they want to use better quality components and design. I'm all for better quality, which I think equates to better reliability.

But just don't say that it translates to significantly better SNR. Because I just proved them wrong. A $300 AVR can have better A-Wt SNR than a $3,000 Benchmark amp. It is proven.

But if they believe that using better quality components is a good thing, then I would agree.

Yes, by all means, use better quality parts and design and pay more for them.

I use a PrePro that cost $7,500 and is FULLY BALANCED from INPUT TO OUTPUT. I like better quality parts and design.

My ATI Amps are FULLY TRULY BALANCED from INPUT TO OUTPUT.

I'm hoping that these high quality components will be the last components I will ever buy.

 

[PENG]

I think that's a pretty damn good circuit analysis, and it makes good technical sense. Compared to that nonsense on another link you posted from Benchmark about digital inter-sample overs, this one is excellent. I suspect the circuit differences they describe result in fully measurable advantages, but the real question is, are they audible? My guess would be that with the ATI3000 amp I use, on the balanced inputs, which have a gain of 28db, the answer would be maybe. It would be nicer to have more output than 2.4v if you have inefficient speakers in a very large room, and you like to listen at high volume levels. Otherwise, I doubt it.

I use a Benchmark HDR as a preamp-DAC in my music system, and it does run hot. It's unlikely a pre-pro designer would allow himself so much power dissipation and heat for so little circuitry, not to mention a bunch of expensive higher-voltage components. There's some logic to that blog post. For someone like me, yeah, I dislike cheap circuits enough to spend money on things like Benchmark preamp-DACs. To someone else, I could understand if the conclusion was that it wasn't a compelling argument.

Without getting technical, if you believe what he's saying, then people who claimed adding an external amp to their mid range AVR opens up their speakers, night and day difference, more low level details etc are proven bs or merely Placebo effects. Another point I would like to make is that he appeared to be lumping the 8801 and 8802 together when he talked about the low level signal path. Did he looked inside the 8801 only? If I remember right, and I'll try to post links if I can find them, Marantz defended the 8801's use of some low cost LSI chip cited by Dr. Rich, but did eventually revamp the volume control as well as the HDAM modules in the 8802.

On the practical side, as I mentioned multiple times, it is very hard for me to say my Denon AVR-3805 sound different or not as good as my much more expensive separate components, using high resolution media source that I know are of very high quality. I don't have the $25K Revel speakers that you have, so my be my R900 and LS50's used in my comparisons are the limiting factor. Still, while his analysis may be sound and accurate, the question of audibility remains especially for people who don't own the best speakers in a quiet room with extremely low noise floor, that's just my 2 cents.

 

[<eargiant]

...that bias towards heat reduction,...

Pun intended I presume.

 

[Goliath]

No, because in this "exercise", "audibility" will be an endless debate. I already know where I stand in that respect.

My AVR listed below may or may not be designed and constructed like the Marantz but it has never ever sounded as good in pure 2 channel as other amplification that I have heard. Whether listening through speakers or various high quality headphones the results were the same. How am I ever going to convince anyone of that? I wouldn't even try...

You don't need to convince me. I believe you. However there are many strong influences that can lead to that conclusion and they are :

1) Sighted bias - knowing you are listening to an AVR/stereo amp can lead to all sorts of conclusions that agree with your expectations and preconceived notions and may have nothing to do with sound quality.

2) Mismatched volume levels - unless formally done, you'll hear a difference based on poor level matching about 100% of the time. Unless this step is taken, impartial judgments of sound cannot be made.

We won't even cover auditory memory and how there are time-limits for that as well. Fact is, audiophiles in general make a big deal out of stereo amps sounding so much better for music, but if they really could "hear" this "OMG" improvement they would have no problem demonstrating this in a controlled test, which ... we know they cannot do.

Fact is, many audiophiles like to brag about their hearing abilities and like to brag about their audio gear but very few have the chops to put their hearing abilities to the test. When they hear "blind test" they run ... far, far away.

Fact is, if you were forced to judge sound quality on the basis of using your 2 ears (no peeking allowed) with levels carefully matched, it is highly unlikely you would think 2 channel amps sound fantastically better for music.

 

[Goliath]

At that point I say we can all save ourselves the time and agony of an endless courtroom debate if one just puts their money where their mouth is and tries the Benchmark so that they can have hands on experience and then they can let me know if they continue to feel the same way about the assertion that was made.

Ironically in the courtroom your claims would be dismissed for lack of evidence. You may even be fined for wasting the courts time.

 

[<eargiant]

Ironically in the courtroom your claims would be dismissed for lack of evidence. You may even be fined for wasting the courts time.

Nope. Not if I take the Marantz and the Benchmark combo to the trial with a pair of Sennheiser 800S headphones. The evidence is incontrovertible.

Which is what I think some people need to do. Listen and compare more.

I know it's not what some want to hear but a $300 AVR is NOT going to audibly perform as well as properly designed equipment that is not cutting every corner and adding every bell and whistle that is out there.

When you come across an amp that is playing at a very high SPL and turn it off and hear NOTHING, I mean NOTHING (ear 1/2 inch from tweeter or with efficient closed headphones like M-50s), as if the unit were turned off -you know you have a special machine.

BTW, I have these also...

 

[Bucknekked]

I miss seeing TLS Guy commenting on this line of thought. Mark is a big proponent of separates and he often makes his points in very detailed style. Everytime I read one of his posts about the advantages of separates over AVRs I am tempted to go shop for separates. Tempted.

What I do to fight that temptation is I go sit down in my listening room and fire up some tunes. I pick some favorites and I get totally wrapped up in the sound. After about an hour, I'm over any temptation or thought that my AVR isn't cutting it.

 

[Mikado463]

Thank you for stating what should be the obvious question. Without audible improvements, improved circuitry becomes engineering without a function.

true, but one persons audible perception can be totally different from anothers .........

 

[PENG]

I would agree if they want to use better quality components and design. I'm all for better quality, which I think equates to better reliability.

But just don't say that it translates to significantly better SNR. Because I just proved them wrong. A $300 AVR can have better A-Wt SNR than a $3,000 Benchmark amp. It is proven.

But if they believe that using better quality components is a good thing, then I would agree.

Yes, by all means, use better quality parts and design and pay more for them.

I use a PrePro that cost $7,500 and is FULLY BALANCED from INPUT TO OUTPUT. I like better quality parts and design.

My ATI Amps are FULLY TRULY BALANCED from INPUT TO OUTPUT.

I'm hoping that these high quality components will be the last components I will ever buy.

Same here, I would buy the highest quality components that I can afford regardless of whether they sound better, as long as they have better specs and measurements.

 

[TheWarrior]

You don't need to convince me. I believe you. However there are many strong influences that can lead to that conclusion and they are :

1) Sighted bias - knowing you are listening to an AVR/stereo amp can lead to all sorts of conclusions that agree with your expectations and preconceived notions and may have nothing to do with sound quality.

2) Mismatched volume levels - unless formally done, you'll hear a difference based on poor level matching about 100% of the time. Unless this step is taken, impartial judgments of sound cannot be made.

We won't even cover auditory memory and how there are time-limits for that as well. Fact is, audiophiles in general make a big deal out of stereo amps sounding so much better for music, but if they really could "hear" this "OMG" improvement they would have no problem demonstrating this in a controlled test, which ... we know they cannot do.

Fact is, many audiophiles like to brag about their hearing abilities and like to brag about their audio gear but very few have the chops to put their hearing abilities to the test. When they hear "blind test" they run ... far, far away.

Fact is, if you were forced to judge sound quality on the basis of using your 2 ears (no peeking allowed) with levels carefully matched, it is highly unlikely you would think 2 channel amps sound fantastically better for music.

I think I am going to open a new store called 'Better Buy'. It is going to offer a selection of similarly priced audio products that the buyer does not see, but instead selects after a series of double-blind testing that objectively rates the listener's speaker/equipment preferences.

It'll simultaneously be a huge success for it's ability to sell equipment in volume thanks to the novelty of it's approach, while also being a disaster for the industry as a whole because of how quickly it will weed out inferior/overpriced products.

Want to open a franchise?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I have these also...

That's very low quality stuff, man. I'm disappointed. Niles? Please!

Instead of using the cheap Radio Shack SPL and Niles speaker selector, I would recommend the $120 Galaxy Digital SPL and the $500 ADCOM speaker selector. They have much better accuracy and noise floor, respectively.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Without getting technical, if you believe what he's saying, then people who claimed adding an external amp to their mid range AVR opens up their speakers, night and day difference, more low level details etc are proven bs or merely Placebo effects. Another point I would like to make is that he appeared to be lumping the 8801 and 8802 together when he talked about the low level signal path. Did he looked inside the 8801 only? If I remember right, and I'll try to post links if I can find them, Marantz defended the 8801's use of some low cost LSI chip cited by Dr. Rich, but did eventually revamp the volume control as well as the HDAM modules in the 8802.

On the practical side, as I mentioned multiple times, it is very hard for me to say my Denon AVR-3805 sound different or not as good as my much more expensive separate components, using high resolution media source that I know are of very high quality. I don't have the $25K Revel speakers that you have, so my be my R900 and LS50's used in my comparisons are the limiting factor. Still, while his analysis may be sound and accurate, the question of audibility remains especially for people who don't own the best speakers in a quiet room with extremely low noise floor, that's just my 2 cents.

I believe what he's saying, but I am skeptical that the differences are audible, as I've mentioned already. One could successfully argue that many audio products are really over-engineered. I just happen to like some of those products, and enjoy that they are over-engineered.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Same here, I would buy the highest quality components that I can afford regardless of whether they sound better, as long as they have better specs and measurements.

I just buy what Gene buys.

....Unless the components weigh over 120 LBS each.

But seriously, who would argue against owning excellent quality components that are "over-engineered" or "overkill" ?

Just leave it at that- better quality component is a great thing for people who are willing to buy them. No apologies or excuses needed.

 

[<eargiant]

That's very low quality stuff, man. I'm disappointed. Niles? Please!

Instead of using the cheap Radio Shack SPL and Niles speaker selector, I would recommend the $120 Galaxy Digital SPL and the $500 ADCOM speaker selector. They have much better accuracy and noise floor, respectively.

That's true but all that equipment isn't helping you much is it? If you can't hear audible noise in your Denon something is wrong.

Go ahead, try it. Use your equipment to calibrate the gear and compare that Denon to a unit like the Benchmark combo and tell me you don't hear a noise difference. I'm not talking about mosquito buzzing that some may miss, it's pretty obvious.

You may not appreciate that silence which denotes a higher level of gear, but I do.

 

[Bucknekked]

If you can't hear audible noise in your Denon something is wrong.

Go ahead, try it. Use your equipment to calibrate the gear and compare that Denon to a unit like the Benchmark combo and tell me you don't hear a noise difference. I'm not talking about mosquito buzzing that some may miss, it's pretty obvious.

You may not appreciate that silence which denotes a higher level of gear, but I do.

eargiant:
I read your post and I must say formulating a decent response that isn't a nasty one is more difficult than one might think.

If you can't hear audible noise in your Denon something is wrong.
I listen to my Denon quite often and I'm very particular about "noise". I don't hear any. Any.
Is there something wrong? Yes. The supposition that AVR's make noise and some audiophile choice pieces of equipment do it better.

You may not appreciate that silence which denotes a higher level of gear, but I do
One of the hallmarks of my system that I enjoy is the utter lack of noise in between tracks.
Utterly black silence. From an AVR.

I can deal with the point of view in your prior posts because they at least had some content.
This last post was just snotty.

 

[Swerd]

true, but one persons audible perception can be totally different from anothers .........

It's been shown by such researchers as Toole & Olive, that audible perceptions differ less among various listeners than many assume.

Audible preferences, however, are quite a different matter.

 

[<eargiant]

eargiant:
I read your post and I must say formulating a decent response that isn't a nasty one is more difficult than one might think.

If you can't hear audible noise in your Denon something is wrong.
I listen to my Denon quite often and I'm very particular about "noise". I don't hear any. Any.
Is there something wrong? Yes. The supposition that AVR's make noise and some audiophile choice pieces of equipment do it better.

You may not appreciate that silence which denotes a higher level of gear, but I do
One of the hallmarks of my system that I enjoy is the utter lack of noise in between tracks.
Utterly black silence. From an AVR.

I can deal with the point of view in your prior posts because they at least had some content.
This last post was just snotty.

Yes, I apologize. I fell for the trap set by a troll...