Separates are no better than AV Receivers, Objectively

AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
The signal dynamics in studio use is so far removed from commercial music playback use, that the two can not even begin to be compared. In the studio, you can often start out with un-compressed closed miced tracks of instruments, and such tracks typically may have 30dB dynamics, and can have 40 dB dynamics in some cases. Commercial music releases average around 15dB dynamics, with newer pop releases coming close to 10dB dynamics. In the 80's, better dynamic examples will have 25dB dynamics, such as would be found on Steel Dan music from that era. This is also the approximate dynamic range for most classical music with good recording quality. In some very rare instances, 30+dB dynamics can be found in some classical pieces - these are exceedingly rare.

-Chris
What about DVD-Audio & SACD?
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
I think the big obstacle in conducting bias-controlled testing is the amount of work involved. Subjectivist hi-fi reviewing is a lazy activity, there is no discipline or scholarship involved (indeed, such concepts are viewed with ridicule by many of the prominent magazine wags!) Also, in the absence of an ABX box (a bit hard to come by I'd wager) you need some extra bodies on hand, without an ABX comparator it's pretty much impossible to do it solo.
No question about it. It is a time consuming hassle and requires at least two people. Three is better. In fact best is having a panel of testers like we did.

An ABX box is nice but not necessary. You can have one person make physical changes in the setup as long as the tester doesn't know what is being connected and as long as it doesn't take so long that "muscle memory" doesn't forget. We used to do it by working an exact routine for making the changes so the noise, time etc. wouldn't give away what we were setting up. Level matching is critical. People will choose the louder presentation every time even if it is barely louder. A voltmeter across the speaker terminals and a test tone is the best way to level match. An SPL meter with a test tone will usually be close enough.

I said earlier that I didn't know why more people (magazines particularly) don't get involved in bias controlled testing. I think 3db probably answered that pretty well. If I did magazine reviews I wouldn't say anything about audible differences unless they were bias controlled test results rather than opinion. I suspect nobody would want to read my reviews.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
If I did magazine reviews I wouldn't say anything about audible differences unless they were bias controlled test results rather than opinion. I suspect nobody would want to read my reviews.
Are you kidding? You would be the next AUDIO CRITIC.:D

I think there are more people who want the statistical proven truth than people who just want thin opinions.
 
bandphan

bandphan

Banned
the opinions are tough, and criteria would be hard to determine based on individual listening preferences, however having a full spectrum of tests and the correlation between them would be interesting(looking at the individual test imo has limitations)
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
Are you kidding? You would be the next AUDIO CRITIC.:D

I think there are more people who want the statistical proven truth than people who just want thin opinions.
I don't think so. I think people would rather read prose than test results. Why do they read Stereophile instead of the Audio Critic? Stereophile does print some measurements and electronic test results. Then it prints prose that is nothing short of flights of fancy. I would imagine few people actually read the measurement sections in Stereophile. They read the prose. It is more entertainment than informational.

Even newspapers aren't that interested in the truth these days. That isn't what sells. I think you and I are in a minority.
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
the opinions are tough, and criteria would be hard to determine based on individual listening preferences, however having a full spectrum of tests and the correlation between them would be interesting(looking at the individual test imo has limitations)
Indeed. I remember back in my audiophile days, the audio writers would recommend you balance your preferences against the preferences of the writers. How would you do that? "I usually agree with this guy so this review is meaningful to me?" "I'm not so sure about that guy so I'll read what he has to say and then ignore it?"

It's pretty hard to deal with human biases and preferences. That's why the listening tests are spectacularly meaningless and the magazines offer up entertainment as a replacement for useful information.

As an example, I remember reading the review of the Wilson WAMM speaker system when it was introduced many years ago. In the intervening years I believe they have sold a little more than 50 of those units. So is it useful and valuable to the readership to have reviews of speakers that are so expensive and exotic that only 50+ of them are sold in a quarter century? Not really. But it is entertaining. That's what it's all about. It isn't about truth or reality or practicality or anything else. It is about entertainment. I have no problem with that. I just don't like that it is held out to be the universal truth.
 
Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
Well, no offense, but, you have to understand that we have no way to know that you know what you're doing with those tests. ;) Why do all these companies mentioned recommend larger power?
...
Companies are in business not primarily to make music sound good, nor are they in business to actually educate people. They are in it for the money. That is why there is a price tag on the item when they make it. Higher power requires that you part with more of your money. What company wouldn't want to recommend that?

In their defense, when it is needed, more power is better, and when it is not needed, it makes no difference to the sound, so consequently it does no harm to the sound. But buying more power than you ever need generally involves wasting your money, and making them richer. They get richer whether you need the power or not, so for them, it is always good to get people to buy more power.

Fortunately, one way to make more money is to make a better product that some people will appreciate. Unfortunately, another way to make more money is to con people into believing that one has created a magical device that makes everything good. Some companies primarily operate with one of those methods, others primarily operate with the other method, and still others use both methods (though not necessarily simultaneously).

If you don't like being a sucker, then it is a good idea to examine the various claims made, including those of people with whom one does not agree. Of course, some people are suckers their whole lives and never realize it, so they never are vexed with having been fooled. They simply waste money and effort on things that do not help, without ever realizing that that is what is happening. Smarter people, however, catch on to such things after a while (the smarter the sooner, but better late than never, and certainly smarter late than never).

Anything with a price tag on it is about money, no matter what the manufacturer or salesperson may claim. Their job is to get you to part with your money, regardless of whether you will get a real benefit or not. The more money you part with, the better they are doing their job. It makes no difference to this fact whether you part with your money for something that actually does something or not.
 
E

Emig5m

Enthusiast
Well I know in my own personal experience it wasn't some placebo effect. Not expecting any real changes (other then upgrading to 5.1 for movies) and after getting it all hooked up I was then caught way off guard once I started playing my normal 2 channel music CDs - it sounded no where near as good as before (I've already mentioned the differences I noticed in my previous posts - won't bother explaining again.)
 
Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
Well I know in my own personal experience it wasn't some placebo effect. Not expecting any real changes (other then upgrading to 5.1 for movies) and after getting it all hooked up I was then caught way off guard once I started playing my normal 2 channel music CDs - it sounded no where near as good as before (I've already mentioned the differences I noticed in my previous posts - won't bother explaining again.)
So, you mean you personally did level-matched, double blind tests to prove that it was not a placebo effect? If you did not do such a test, how do you know what was going on? Surely it was not your personal experience that proved anything, if you did not personally experience a proper test.

But from looking at your past posts, I see that you were using a TFM amplifier from Carver. Bob Carver altered the sound of some of his amplifiers in interesting ways; you can read a little about him at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver

And, from looking at your previous posts, you say you have 4 ohm speakers. It is quite possible (you don't say what multi-channel receiver you selected) that the receiver you selected was not made for 4 ohm speakers. (Additionally, some speaker manufacturers have been known to be overly optimistic in their nominal impedance ratings of their speakers, given the sometimes very low minimum impedances that some speakers have.) This can make a difference, but it is not a difference that is a result of it being a receiver vs. a separate power amplifier. Rather, it is a difference based upon what the manufacturer chose to put into the receiver, and what the manufacturer of the separate amplifier chose to put into it. It costs more to make an amplifier that can handle a broader range of impedances, and since most speakers are not rated at 4 ohms, this can be an effective way of saving money. If you were using a receiver that was not made to handle 4 ohm speakers, you were lucky if all you got was inferior sound and no smoke coming from a burned up amplifier in the receiver.

So, in your case, we have at least three possible explanations for what might be going on.

And, I advise you to pay attention to impedances when matching amplifiers (either in receivers, in integrated amplifiers, or in separate power amplifiers) to speakers. You might want to use a receiver with a preamp output and use a separate power amp when using low impedance speakers, as it can be difficult to find a receiver that is really made for low impedance speakers. It could be made, but for most people with higher impedance speakers, the extra expense would be for nothing, and consequently most people could buy something cheaper from someone else that would work just as well for them. This is probably why they don't tend to put power amplifiers in receivers that are made for low impedances.
 
C

cfrizz

Senior Audioholic
It's an endless useless battle Emig5m. They aren't going to change thier minds & we aren't going to change ours.

But what irritates me alot is the implication that we are supposedly hearing something that is not there. We are either delusional or liars. That is what I truly resent.

If I didn't hear a change for the better, I wouldn't spend the money. I upgraded from my old Rotel 855 cd player to a new 1072 player, because I figured the technology had to be better after over 15 yrs. I discovered that it hadn't! There was no real discernable difference to my ears. I could have saved my money for 2 yrs until the 855 finally kicked the bucket on my brother.

Why can't you control test people accept that there just might be people out there that have very good hearing and can tell the difference? When you can give us credit for that, I might be more willing to give your tests more credit.


Well I know in my own personal experience it wasn't some placebo effect. Not expecting any real changes (other then upgrading to 5.1 for movies) and after getting it all hooked up I was then caught way off guard once I started playing my normal 2 channel music CDs - it sounded no where near as good as before (I've already mentioned the differences I noticed in my previous posts - won't bother explaining again.)
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
But what irritates me alot is the implication that we are supposedly hearing something that is not there. We are either delusional or liars. That is what I truly resent.
You aren't delusional. You aren't a liar. You are human. All humans hear things that aren't there when audible differences aren't gross. I hear them too. You insist on being a victim to reality. There is no reason for it. Do the tests. You can argue until you're blue in the face but we have done the tests. We actually know what we are talking about.

Why can't you control test people accept that there just might be people out there that have very good hearing and can tell the difference? When you can give us credit for that, I might be more willing to give your tests more credit.
It is a broken record. We don't think such people exist because WE HAVE DONE THE TESTS!!!! We've disproven it. I can prove to you that you don't have golden ears and that people with every level of hearing suffer from the same phenomena we've been discussing. It isn't opinion. It isn't rocket science but it is science and it is fact. Go do the tests yourself. Then you won't have to continue arguing with people who have done the tests an know better than you do. What on earth posseses people to refuse to seek the truth and then argue against it? Do the tests yourself. Enough.
 
C

cbraver

Audioholic Chief
Companies are in business not primarily to make music sound good, nor are they in business to actually educate people. They are in it for the money. That is why there is a price tag on the item when they make it. Higher power requires that you part with more of your money. What company wouldn't want to recommend that?
Depends on who you buy power from. If you buy a big amp from a consumer retailer, yeah, pony up sucker. If you buy from someone like QSC or Crown, it's not so bad. For the price of one high powered consumer amplifier, I can buy three or four entry level pro-amps that will probably blow it out of the water. I mean, if Dynaudio told me I only needed 20 watts I'd probably still have a pro-amp because they are affordable and durable. In other words, I'm not on the defensive of my past purchases.

In their defense, when it is needed, more power is better, and when it is not needed, it makes no difference to the sound, so consequently it does no harm to the sound. But buying more power than you ever need generally involves wasting your money, and making them richer. They get richer whether you need the power or not, so for them, it is always good to get people to buy more power.

Fortunately, one way to make more money is to make a better product that some people will appreciate. Unfortunately, another way to make more money is to con people into believing that one has created a magical device that makes everything good. Some companies primarily operate with one of those methods, others primarily operate with the other method, and still others use both methods (though not necessarily simultaneously).

If you don't like being a sucker, then it is a good idea to examine the various claims made, including those of people with whom one does not agree. Of course, some people are suckers their whole lives and never realize it, so they never are vexed with having been fooled. They simply waste money and effort on things that do not help, without ever realizing that that is what is happening. Smarter people, however, catch on to such things after a while (the smarter the sooner, but better late than never, and certainly smarter late than never).

Anything with a price tag on it is about money, no matter what the manufacturer or salesperson may claim. Their job is to get you to part with your money, regardless of whether you will get a real benefit or not. The more money you part with, the better they are doing their job. It makes no difference to this fact whether you part with your money for something that actually does something or not.

I'm not niave to how business works. But, as an engineer I know that even though companies are money driven, their engineers are still interested in building the best product they can. There is passion, even though it's not at the top.

It makes sense why an amplifier company would tell you that more power is needed, but not speaker companies. Unless they are just part of the gang. ;)

It's an endless useless battle Emig5m. They aren't going to change thier minds & we aren't going to change ours.

But what irritates me alot is the implication that we are supposedly hearing something that is not there. We are either delusional or liars. That is what I truly resent.

If I didn't hear a change for the better, I wouldn't spend the money. I upgraded from my old Rotel 855 cd player to a new 1072 player, because I figured the technology had to be better after over 15 yrs. I discovered that it hadn't! There was no real discernable difference to my ears. I could have saved my money for 2 yrs until the 855 finally kicked the bucket on my brother.

Why can't you control test people accept that there just might be people out there that have very good hearing and can tell the difference? When you can give us credit for that, I might be more willing to give your tests more credit.
I know I don't have golden ears, but, I'm pretty sure that power helped my system. I could be wrong though. My problem with the tests we are talking about is that I have no idea of the credibility of the testers. I'm sure they are nice guys and that they are trying to teach us, but, I don't have any idea if they actually know what they are doing. So, I'm just listening and taking everything into account and being appreciative they are taking the time to talk to me about their findings.

It has me thinking, so, I'm going to do some checking on my own... I'm going to ask some of my electrical engineering friends who certainly would know about this or could find out for me. Us ME's know some EE's. ;)

I mean, that's all we can really do when it comes to the Internet. Get some ideas and then check 'em out on your own. In my industry, for example, there are forums that talk about our products... and many people on the forums are completely out of their element. That's why I try to keep an open mind on this stuff. On the 'net, people can have incredible knowledge, or they could be completely over their head and not know it.... but it's awesome they are talking to us about it so we can check it out on our own!

I hope that makes sense and doesn't offend anyone.. I'm appreciative of everyones input!
 
C

cfrizz

Senior Audioholic
Best of luck to you with it CB!

In the meantime so long as the testers stop trying to tell me & those of us who are interested in getting amps or that already have them that we don't need/shouldn't want amplifiers whenever the subject comes up I'll be happy.

Live & let live. They can test to their hearts content & I'll enjoy my unscientific but great sounding system provided by my amplifiers power!
 
C

cbraver

Audioholic Chief
Best of luck to you with it CB!

In the meantime so long as the testers stop trying to tell me & those of us who are interested in getting amps or that already have them that we don't need/shouldn't want amplifiers whenever the subject comes up I'll be happy.

Live & let live. They can test to their hearts content & I'll enjoy my unscientific but great sounding system provided by my amplifiers power!
Thanks bro. Like I said, my experience is that in speakers I own (which happen to be low impedence, low sensitivity), amplifier power has made a significant difference in solidity and midbass. I don't mean... oh, I think I can hear it... I mean readily apparent for just about anyone at the same levels (from an SPL meter rather than the preamp, obviously). Moreso than sources, pre-amps, and certainly anything lower level than that... as long as they are decent. Speakers and power, are what, I've found to make a big difference for me. But, that's not to say there isn't a lurking variable that I haven't realized. Maybe it wasn't the power, but something else about larger amplifiers that makes the difference.

For example, earlier someone mentioned impedence matching. I know from experience that if I try a 6-ohm stable receiver with my speakers the sound, especially at high volumes, is obviously distorted. Not like an audiophile hearing some distortion... I mean.. like .... anyone could hear it and know something is wrong. Someone could have some 4-ohm jobs on a 6-ohm stable reciever and then move to a 4-ohm stable larger amp and go "whoa!" .. when the difference was really that the amp was designed to handle the load, rather than just the power.

But, like you said, the difference was so substantial for me that I'm having a hard time believing that I'm imagining it. I highly doubt I am, but it's possible that power isn't the reason... maybe it's something else.. and it's also possibe I'm crazy. It's something though ;)
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
, just do it like S & V with 1,2, & ACD numbers so that I get a clear concise idea of what I will actually get for power. Although why anyone measures just one channel by itself doesn't make any sense either.
]
The ACD is really meaningless in reality. So why test it?
As to that 1 ch test? That is what will happen most of the time, one channel driven to max power.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
...

To put it in a non-audio way, when you're used to driving a Ford Lightning f150 and then drop down to a standard f150, you notice real differences right away (power, top speed, handling, etc - truly noticeable performance differences.) I wouldn't enjoy driving a standard f150 after being used to the certain level of performance I had before - same thing with my separates system vs all the receivers I've tried so far. So if it isn't the amps of the receiver vs the separates, then what is it? It was a big enough difference for me to totally stop listening to 2channel music for the last six years since I've jumped to surround receivers, or am I just messing around with too cheap of receivers?
Unfortunately, the car analogy is not a relevant parallel comparison at all in audio. But, I guess it makes people feel better.

And, I bet your CD player comparison was biased and uncontrolled.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
I'm a big believer in the placebo affect, but I'm not sure that's the answer in this case. .
But, you are not sure and are speculating until a proper, levels matched bias controlled test is conducted. Then, we can say it is audibly different or not.

I don't think FMW's intentions are to rag on us or call us crazy, we are just having some conversation. I'd like to see what they have to say on the matter also, and what they mean by more control. My understanding is that control is lost when an amplifier starts to clip.
The control he is talking about, I am pretty sure, is controlling for human bias, the placebo effect. You need to conduct a levels matched DBT, enough trials for a valid result.
Most do the comparison in a sighted listening test. You cannot will your subconscious bias to be off.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
I've never understood why this point is so hard to get across. It's all about what you hear - not what you "know". Good tests are the purest form of listening, because they make sure you aren't being persuaded by non-auditory factors.
But then, you don't get that nice glowing tubes or that external amp, or that external DAc, etc:D What fun is that?:)
 
C

cfrizz

Senior Audioholic
And the other side of that reality is that no one listens to just 1 channel so why only test that?

Everybody is speaking a separate language in this whole mess. The manufacturers speak one, the magazines speak another, and us poor consumers are left trying to figure who to believe & WTH both are talking about.

Since it starts with the manufacturers and what they print for specs which is ACD then the magazines should follow suit.

I am willing to put more trust into independent magazines then I am the maker of the receivers so if I get close matches on 1 & 2 channels driven but get a totally different lower number for ACD then what the manufacturer quotes (Which is what most consumers look at) I'll believe the magazine.

Until standardization becomes a reality, some should do the best they can to give us uniform information. S & V has at least started to do so by posting a more accurate ACD number. Whether it's reality or not, it is what the manufacturers print for the specs of the receivers. So it is matching apples to apples.


The ACD is really meaningless in reality. So why test it?
As to that 1 ch test? That is what will happen most of the time, one channel driven to max power.
 
C

cbraver

Audioholic Chief
But, you are not sure and are speculating until a proper, levels matched bias controlled test is conducted. Then, we can say it is audibly different or not.



The control he is talking about, I am pretty sure, is controlling for human bias, the placebo effect. You need to conduct a levels matched DBT, enough trials for a valid result.
Most do the comparison in a sighted listening test. You cannot will your subconscious bias to be off.


Oh my god okay!
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top