Please Help Me! :)

[buddhabreath]

Each or all together? I've spent way more than $4K total on cables. I'd have spent way more if I had the money for Kimber.

There's one thing always forgotten when you go with separates. You need another interconnect cable for each channel. And of course you're not going to buy separates then buy cheap interconnect cables!

I was referring to the $4000 a pair stuff like Nordost or whatever, but 4k even altogether is too much of an investment for me. You are most probably at a rareified level compared to me. Perhaps you are a true golden-ear, audiophile with high-end equipment precisely calibrated in a perfect acoustic environment and if you can hear the difference, fantastic! Good point about he separates, but can the cables be better than the component's internal connections? They better be if they cost as much as your freakin' amp!

Anyway, for the rest of us commoners who don't have Conrad Johnson amps or whatever, this kind of investment spells S-U-C-K-E-R!

I would never spend big bucks on cables. For me the consideration is to have properly shielded cables that have the right guage for the run. That's it, nothing fancy. Done. I've talked to electrical engineers who certainly have that opinion.

Now, having said that IF I could hear an A/B test on cables, in your listening room, I might just change my mind, but I guess even the switchbox might muddy the crystal transparency of these high-end cables.

Hearing is believing I guess.

 

[mtrycrafts]

You WILL hear the difference.

How can you guarantee this? That is what you are telling him. But then, the psychology is such that perceptions can be anything your mind can present, apart from reality.

I have done this with the amps you mention and I can tell you that the Denon is far superior to the Yamaha unless you like a really bright, in-your face sound.

Absolute nonsense. But then, who know how your perception was affected by your biases and expectations, right?

but when you switch to the Denon it's as if a veil has been lifted from the music increasing the clarity and balance throughout the range.

Yep, the brain will do whatever you want, fill in expected changes, fulfill your desired wants, most anything but it doesn't have to be reality


To say amplifiers are "flat in their response that it would be difficult at best to discern differences in sound quality" is absolute nonsense.

You think this? Based in what reality? What biase controlled protocol? Test setup?
I am sure you are mistaken about this, grossly mistaken.



Do you really think people are stupid enough to spend thousands of dollars on separate amplifiers, tube gear etc. for nothing?


Actually, YES!!! One only has to look at the marketplace to figure this out. A bit of knowledge is helpful though.


This person has probably never heard these (or any other) amps side-by-side and is not giving accurate information.

Your your information is wrong???

 

[mtrycrafts]

WilRember7 - If you do enough reading and research, you'll find that there are two schools of thought regarding this. One is that amplifiers, as long as they are equally set and not driven to clipping, sound the same. After all, amplifiers, if they're doing their job, should not color the signal; only amplify it. This school of thought is supported mainly by the audio engineer crowd. For example, Daniel Kumin, a respected Contributing Technical Editor for Sound & Vision magazine, says, "In general, talk of modern electronics being "warm" or "bright" in terms of tonal balance---frequency response---is great nonsense: virtually all of today's better components are flat in response well beyond our ability to discriminate." This school of thought is also supported by several published double-blind studies. The proponents of this school of thought argue that any audible differences between amplifiers which are heard by the buddhabreaths of the world are attributable to the amps not being set equally or to differences in room acoustics or to their imaginations.

The other school of thought is that there are audible differences between amplifiers. This is supported by the "audiophile" crowd, particularly those who sell high end equipment. I am unaware of any double-blind tests which support this school. Of course, in your research you will find that the proponents of this school of thought poo poo double blind tests and say that they're all flawed.

I will concede that, with respect to receivers, there are other internal components aside from the amplifier itself, that may color the sound but only slightly; probably not enough for anyone except the most experienced critical listeners to hear. That does not include me.

I don't write this to re-start the debate. I do not believe I will convince buddhabreath to come around to my way of thinking and I don't believe he will convince me. I only write this to say that there are opposing viewpoints on this and that you need to develop your own opinion.

This is like the debate or lack there of, in evolution and ID

The former based in science, the latter based in faith

 

[mtrycrafts]

. All I can tell you is that I've auditioned VERY expensive equipment with similar specs on paper that sounded dramatically different in side-by-side tests even in "pure direct" modes (just the attenuation without the DSP/tone controls). Now this is certainly a subjective thing and again, each much judge for themselves.
Cheers

Yes, must have been very subjective, biased and unreliable
So, what good is it?

I bet you didn't level match the two components, right? I bet there was no bias controls implemented, right? Then, anything can happen, sky is the limit but reliable it is not.

 

[mtrycrafts]

And of course you're not going to buy separates then buy cheap interconnect cables!

Why not? Who said you need to spend 4 figures on cables, unless you are wiring a large apartment complex

 

[mtrycrafts]

Now, having said that IF I could hear an A/B test on cables, in your listening room, I might just change my mind, but I guess even the switchbox might muddy the crystal transparency of these high-end cables.

Or, that switchbox is transparent.

Hearing is believing I guess.

And, believeing is hearing

 

[buddhabreath]

> my response in italics. It's easy to take things out of context. I stand on my opinions and I believe I stated repeatedly that they are subjective. Furthermore we agree on several points such as the expensive cable issue.

You WILL hear the difference.

How can you guarantee this? That is what you are telling him. But then, the psychology is such that perceptions can be anything your mind can present, apart from reality.

> You're correct, I cant. I don't think I have golden ears and it is my opinion that in an A/B test most people will be able to discern a significant difference. that is not to say perception doesn't enter into it, of course it does. Some might prefer the Yamaha amp and claim that it has better high-frequency response, and perhaps it does - I can't tell since I'm getting kind of old and can't hear as high as the response of good equipment anyway.

I have done this with the amps you mention and I can tell you that the Denon is far superior to the Yamaha unless you like a really bright, in-your face sound.

Absolute nonsense. But then, who know how your perception was affected by your biases and expectations, right?

> Right. Again all I can tell you is that it is my opinion based on listening tests. All one can do is to set the amps to their flat/direct settings and have someone else do an A/B switch so that you don't know the sound is comming from the pretty box with the brand name you prefer.

but when you switch to the Denon it's as if a veil has been lifted from the music increasing the clarity and balance throughout the range.

Yep, the brain will do whatever you want, fill in expected changes, fulfill your desired wants, most anything but it doesn't have to be reality

> Again, I agree.

To say amplifiers are "flat in their response that it would be difficult at best to discern differences in sound quality" is absolute nonsense.

You think this? Based in what reality? What biase controlled protocol? Test setup?
I am sure you are mistaken about this, grossly mistaken.

> I guess that's your perception then, Right? I provided a link that backs up my claim that amplifiers do not have a flat response as opposed to your assertions. I also stated that it is debatable if this effect the audible range, etc. To summarize, my statement was based on science and empirical data, it is your statement that is based on nothing

Do you really think people are stupid enough to spend thousands of dollars on separate amplifiers, tube gear etc. for nothing?

Actually, YES!!! One only has to look at the marketplace to figure this out. A bit of knowledge is helpful though.

> Actually NO!! Now YOU are demonstrating YOUR bias big time. This is called "projection": accusing others of having characteristics that you yourself possess yet do not recognize. I sugguest you actually DO look at the marketplace: there is a tremendous market for high-end audio amplifiers for chrissakes. There are companies that have been in business for decades selling increadibly expensive stuff, as well as botique firms that have loyal followings. Sure some of these people might just be mindless snobs, but you'll also find that many of the people involved in this stuff know their physics and are accomplished audio engineers that are published in peer-reviewed journals and have built and invented technogies that are often adopted in the mass-market long after they've ceased to be esoteric audiophile gear. I wish I were that stupid

This person has probably never heard these (or any other) amps side-by-side and is not giving accurate information.

Your your information is wrong???

> OK, let get remedial. The inaccurate information I referred to was a blanket statement that all amplifiers are "flat". They are not. Work on your reading retention skills and think through your position before responding so aggressively and prolifically. Bottom line is that If it's your money, you've done a reasonable amount of footwork and homework, you like what you're hearing, you've purchased the equipment from someone who stands behind their product and you can afford it, then buy and congratulations, you've made the right decision!

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Who cares. Unless someone manufacturers an eq unit to set "bias controls" perfectly even (good luck), there will be differences in sound. Opinions are all that matters. 98% of the readers here know that power specs are meaningless per se. Otherwise, we'd all own Insignia 100 watt surround sound receivers.

 

[jimmit]

I'm honored to be in the elite 2%.

 

[Pyrrho]

I'm honored to be in the elite 2%.

Me too! Why anyone would want to brag about being in the ignorant majority, where one "knows" things that are actually false, is beyond me. It is funny that so many audiophools imagine that electrical engineers who design the equipment know less about it than they do, when all they have ever done is listen to the results! If measurements were "meaningless", they could never design any decent equipment at all.

One might as well say that measurements of speed for cars is meaningless!

 

[buddhabreath]

Me too! Why anyone would want to brag about being in the ignorant majority, where one "knows" things that are actually false, is beyond me. It is funny that so many audiophools imagine that electrical engineers who design the equipment know less about it than they do, when all they have ever done is listen to the results! If measurements were "meaningless", they could never design any decent equipment at all.

One might as well say that measurements of speed for cars is meaningless!

Bingo! Well stated Pyrrho.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

One might as well say that measurements of speed for cars is meaningless!

Obviously you haven't clocked a motorcycle.

Manufacturers stretch the truth when rating receivers and amps because those wattage specs are based on milliseconds. Do you know how long that specific unit can maintain that power? At what point will that unit collapse when pushed to those limits? Why on earth would a $129 100 watt Insignia be rated the same as a $700 100 watt Onkyo? It's because of a lack of process control on how home audio equipment is rated. Don't believe everything you read, or you'll end up getting burned.

 

[Hanse18]

OK, but what about some receiver like the yammy htr-5890? @ 140 wpc it has more power than most other receivers in its price range. This is no insignia receiver, this is from a reputable receiver maker. Therefore, does THIS particular receiver get ups for its power abilities, or is someone getting had here as well? (And yes, I have had my eye on one for awhile )

 

[Buckle-meister]

It is all relative, isn't it? If you jump on every new gadgets that come out every 6 mo or so, then yes, things get obsolete in a hurry. But, if you are the other type, then, how can it be obsolete to you?

Absolutely. It's like the saying:

Age is mostly a matter of mind. If you don't mind; it doesn't matter.

Regards

 

[mtrycrafts]

Who cares. Unless someone manufacturers an eq unit to set "bias controls" perfectly even (good luck), there will be differences in sound. Opinions are all that matters. 98% of the readers here know that power specs are meaningless per se. Otherwise, we'd all own Insignia 100 watt surround sound receivers.

No, you don't need to EQ perfectly for sound not to be detected. Plenty of DBt shows this. And, that there is no audible differences. But then, one has to participate in a few DBTs firt to figure this out. Yep, opinions is all that seem to be floating around, very little facts.

And, about that power, you are again taking things out of context. Oh, well.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Manufacturers stretch the truth when rating receivers and amps because those wattage specs are based on milliseconds.

HUH??? where do you get this from??? Or, you are confusing head room measurements and not talk about RMS power ratings. You should specify.

 

[mtrycrafts]

OK, but what about some receiver like the yammy htr-5890? @ 140 wpc it has more power than most other receivers in its price range. This is no insignia receiver, this is from a reputable receiver maker. Therefore, does THIS particular receiver get ups for its power abilities, or is someone getting had here as well? (And yes, I have had my eye on one for awhile )

You need to be careful where you scull your info from

The above unit is great and would be an RMS rating. Who know what power ratings bukeyfan was reading. The FTC does set power standards.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

You need to be careful where you scull your info from

The above unit is great and would be an RMS rating. Who know what power ratings bukeyfan was reading. The FTC does set power standards.

We've had this discussion before about the FTC and ratings. Did you miss MacManNM's post? It clearly shows how the FTC regulates receivers and amplifiers. You need to find that thread if you've forgotten already. I'll forgive you this time.

Here's a good RMS figure. Pretty impressive, eh?
http://www.insignia-products.com/pc-39-5-insignia-1000w-61-ch-home-theater-system-with-progressive-scan-dvdcdmp3-player.aspx

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

OK, but what about some receiver like the yammy htr-5890? @ 140 wpc it has more power than most other receivers in its price range. This is no insignia receiver, this is from a reputable receiver maker. Therefore, does THIS particular receiver get ups for its power abilities, or is someone getting had here as well? (And yes, I have had my eye on one for awhile )

Here's the Insignia specs as listed at BB:
Insignia™ 200W 2.0-Ch. Stereo Home Theater Receiver
200 watts total power: 100 watts x 2

Not until you go down 14 lines on the advertisement do you find out this power is based on a 1.00% THD rating, and at 1kHz. Lets ask them what the power is at full bandwidth: 20-20,000Hz, and at .05% THD. Unless you have some serious testing equipment, you'd never know. Do you think the average Joe knows this? It's a scam. Fortunately, most people don't fall for this tactic. They can go down 21 more lines and find this little beauty weighs a massive 17lbs (compared to the Yamaha 5890 at 33.1 lbs).

Unfortunately, Yamaha tries a similar stunt with the power ratings. They use the 1kHz and .70% THD to come to the 140 watt spec. The rating at full bandwidth, 20-20,000, and .04 THD, is 120 watts. See page 95 of the manual for these specs. It's still a great unit, but why does Yamaha have to pad the specs at increased THD and at the 1kHz bandwidth?

Lets keep a level playing field here. Lets base all power ratings at full bandwidth, at .05 THD. It's not that tough. The FTC does not require a level playing field. That's why you see HTIB systems reporting massive power specs - and this is important - in their advertisements.

This is why my unscientific method of finding a good receiver is based on my 33lb. rule. You can't fudge weight like you can power specs. RMS is fine, if someone would use it correctly-on a level playing field.

 

[MDS]

Unfortunately, Yamaha tries a similar stunt with the power ratings. They use the 1kHz and .70% THD to come to the 140 watt spec. The rating at full bandwidth, 20-20,000, and .04 THD, is 120 watts. See page 95 of the manual for these specs. It's still a great unit, but why does Yamaha have to pad the specs at increased THD and at the 1kHz bandwidth?

Why is that a stunt? First of all there are quite a few measurement standards: FTC, DIN, EIAJ. They each specify different test procedures.

The Yamaha website specifically states that, other than minor cosmetic differences, the HTR and RX-V lines only differ in the way their power is quoted and you guessed it, the HTR line's power is quoted using the DIN standard - which tests at 1 kHz. So I don't think it's fair to call it a 'stunt' to pull the wool over the poor dumb consumer's eyes.

As you are no doubt aware, as the power increases so does the distortion. That same receiver that they quote as 140 watts at .7% distortion could very well have been rated at 160 watts at 1% distortion or maybe only 120 watts at .4% distortion. They pick a point on the curve and go with it because there is no specific requirement for any particular thd level to use for the power rating. This very site had an article on it not too long ago.

The FTC rating requires a full bandwidth rating but again no specific THD level. If the competition rates their receiver at 100 wpc at .08% thd and yours measures only 95 wpc at .08% but 110 wpc at .10% you would advertise the 110 wpc wouldn't you. That minute thd difference is inaudible.

Forget about the 'average' consumer. A true audio enthusiast of the type that posts here regularly should know all the little nuances that go into power ratings. Yet still people have a preconceived notion of what they think it 'should' be (eg. All Channels Driven, full bandwidth at .05% THD), conveniently ignore what is actually STATED, and then claim the manufacturer is lying [not specifying anyone in particular - lots of people do it]. Audioholics has done a great job trying to explain this stuff in various articles and yet it continues to fall on deaf ears.