Crown XLS 1502 amp Impression

[Irvrobinson]

Hells no. I do have my limits when it comes to cheap amps!

But I do trust The Audio Critic's assessment of the amp.

I wouldn't. You know better than anyone here that the Linkwitz Orions are very good, but they do not sound better than all box speakers, though that is what Aczel was saying right to his last publication. Even Linkwitz moved on to the LX521, which has a different design. (I haven't heard the LX521, so I can't judge SL's claims about it.) If Aczel is religious and dogmatic about a speaker, why would you trust his judgement about an amplifier?

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

You guys have seen the Audio Critic review and measurements of the very cheap $180 Behringer amp, right?

http://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/audio_critic_web2.htm#ba

Bottom line: the measurements won’t look as pretty as audiophile amps, but the sound is good.

And I believe the Crown, QSC, Yamaha amps are better quality than that cheap-a$$ Behringer.

Actually, the inexpensive, Pro, Class AB Behringer amp is world famous. As seen here:
http://matrixhifi.com/contenedor_ppec_eng.htm

 

[Irvrobinson]

Actually, the inexpensive, Pro, Class AB Behringer amp is world famous. As seen here:
http://matrixhifi.com/contenedor_ppec_eng.htm

That makes it world famous? More like Behringer's marketing and sales channels make it world famous.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Hells no. I do have my limits when it comes to cheap amps!

But I do trust The Audio Critic's assessment of the amp.

I trust Mr. Aczel's assessment too.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

That makes it world famous? More like Behringer's marketing and sales channels make it world famous.

The blind test results make it world famous. I see you weren't there to participate in the blind test with all the others. Pity. They could have chosen any other Pro Class AB amp rather than the Behringer as the placebo and they would have gotten the same results.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I see you weren't there to participate in the blind test with all the others. Pity.

Having participated in several single blind comparisons (and two a/b/x comparisons) I decided they were worthless and annoying for audio purposes. I was done with them forever several years ago. I do think, however, that every audiophile (and I don't use that term pejoratively, as is common here) participate in a few single blind tests as part of their audio education. I think they are very enlightening.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Having participated in several single blind comparisons (and two a/b/x comparisons) I decided they were worthless and annoying for audio purposes. I was done with them forever several years ago. I do think, however, that every audiophile (and I don't use that term pejoratively, as is common here) participate in a few single blind tests as part of their audio education. I think they are very enlightening.

"I decided they were worthless and annoying for audio purposes."

Of course. That's because they didn't produce the results you were expecting through your own biases. Science is always worthless and annoying for subjective audiophiles.

 

[Irvrobinson]

"I decided they were worthless and annoying for audio purposes."

Of course. That's because they didn't produce the results you were expecting through your own biases. Science is always worthless and annoying for subjective audiophiles.

Dead wrong. My issues with comparison testing for audio equipment is that I've never seen them produce statistically relevant results even when there are substantial differences in the measured outputs. Humans are terrible at audio comparison testing; the participants are always guessing, except in the grossest comparisons. As for me finding science worthless and annoying, that's stupid.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

"Dead wrong."

That's only because science conflicts with your expectation biases.

"As for me finding science worthless and annoying, that's stupid."

I agree sir, but you said it.

"Humans are terrible at audio comparison testing; the participants are always guessing"

I know. Especially when they can't hear a difference.

 

[TechHDS]

Hells no. I do have my limits when it comes to cheap amps!

But I do trust The Audio Critic's assessment of the amp.

So you are keeping the Crown amp? how's about an ole switch-a-roo? . Hey bet you never heard of that one before.. You get a almost pristine 5 channel amp that weighs as much as a boat anchor, not the anchors that we use on the P row boats down here in the bayou that would sink the P row.

 

[Irvrobinson]

"Dead wrong."

That's only because science conflicts with your expectation biases.

"As for me finding science worthless and annoying, that's stupid."

I agree sir, but you said it.

"Humans are terrible at audio comparison testing; the participants are always guessing"

I know. Especially when they can't hear a difference.

I occasionally make the mistake of mud-wrestling with one of you born-again scientists. So if you were once one of these subjective audiophiles that you accuse me of being, complete with thinking that there are audible differences between cables, how did you become such an expert on amplifier design and statistical analysis?

 

[Mikado463]

Actually, the inexpensive, Pro, Class AB Behringer amp is world famous. As seen here:
http://matrixhifi.com/contenedor_ppec_eng.htm

Nice try....'world famous' ?? the pics alone tell volumes, piling all that 'crap' out in front and in between the speakers, total nonsense and the speakers, while 'nice' are not 'World Class / famous'

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

I occasionally make the mistake of mud-wrestling with one of you born-again scientists. So if you were once one of these subjective audiophiles that you accuse me of being, complete with thinking that there are audible differences between cables, how did you become such an expert on amplifier design and statistical analysis?

Strawman.

 

[Swerd]

My issues with comparison testing for audio equipment is that I've never seen them produce statistically relevant results even when there are substantial differences in the measured outputs. Humans are terrible at audio comparison testing; the participants are always guessing, except in the grossest comparisons.

The lack of statistical significance is usually caused by far too few participants in the listening test. For example, if two items are compared in a blind A/B listening test, and the goal of the test is to determine if people can or cannot hear a difference, it takes many people before a clear, statistically significant answer emerges. At least 50 to 100! With numbers in that range, a simple yes/no answer could be valid. A much larger trial, with 300-1000 people, would be required if you want to estimate what percent of listeners can or cannot hear differences. Yes, estimating human perception is absolutely sloppy, and large numbers of participants are required to deal with that.

Such a test would have to also include built-in controls that estimate how many people falsely identify identical items as sounding different (an A/A comparison, a measure of false positives),and another to estimate how many people fail to identify two items that are well known to sound different (a measure of false negatives). I've never seen a listening test use both of those controls.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Nice try....'world famous' ?? the pics alone tell volumes, piling all that 'crap' out in front and in between the speakers, total nonsense and the speakers, while 'nice' are not 'World Class / famous'

Denial.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I wouldn't. You know better than anyone here that the Linkwitz Orions are very good, but they do not sound better than all box speakers, though that is what Aczel was saying right to his last publication. Even Linkwitz moved on to the LX521, which has a different design. (I haven't heard the LX521, so I can't judge SL's claims about it.) If Aczel is religious and dogmatic about a speaker, why would you trust his judgement about an amplifier?

I do trust The Audio Critic's overall general assessment, but not "religiously" or verbatim.

For example, Peter Aczel was correct that the Orion speakers were great sounding speakers. But everyone has a different opinion. So he may have thought the Orion were the best speakers at the time. But that was just his opinion. He was still correct that the Orion sounded great.

Same with the amp. His assessment was that the amp sounded great, although the amp didn't measure as great.

Based on every amp I've heard (audiophile and pro amps), there is no reason for me to doubt Aczel's general assessment that the amp sounded great.

 

[Swerd]

"Dead wrong."
Only because science conflicts with your expectation biases…

Irvrobinson is certainly not one of those subjectivist science deniers. You would do well if you didn't treat him as such. Irv would probably say he can defend himself and doesn't need anyone's help.

You're a relatively new member at AH, and my words are meant as only a gentle admonishment – nothing more .

 

[Irvrobinson]

The lack of statistical significance is usually caused by far too few participants in the listening test. For example, if two items are compared in a blind A/B listening test, and the goal of the test is to determine if people can or cannot hear a difference, it takes many people before a clear, statistically significant answer emerges. At least 100! With numbers in that range, a simple yes/no answer could be valid. A much larger trial, with 300-1000 people, would be required if you want to estimate what percent of listeners can or cannot hear differences. Yes, estimating human perception is absolutely sloppy, and large numbers of participants are required to deal with that.

Such a test would have to also include built-in controls that estimate how many people falsely identify identical items as sounding different (an A/A comparison, a measure of false positives), and another to estimate how many people fail to identify two items that are well known to sound different (a measure of false negatives). I've never seen a listening test use both of those controls.

I always enjoy the feedback of someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

However, I still think that for those of us with real-world resources, blinded audio testing is still a waste of my time, and I hate it.

Comparing properly functioning solid state amplifiers, I have never been able to definitely hear differences even in sighted testing while switching back forth, unless the amps were somehow stressed beyond their design limits.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Blind listening tests aside, at the end of the day if you listen to music at home with a Behringer, Crown or QSC power amp, it's okay.

Now finally you can sell that 120 LB $5000 'bling' amp in the audiophile classifieds. And while you're at get rid of those $2000 speaker cables, you know the ones with the huge box built into the cables. I know you've always wondered what's inside, but you were too scared to look.

 

[Mikado463]

Denial.

Yes, you are .............