Redefining Hi-End vs. Hi-Fi

[Yamahaluver]

And why do Ascend Acoustics and Axiom Audio speakers measure flatter than speakers that retail for over 10 times as much. But the speaker with the inferior measurements are said to "…be considered state-of-the-art equipment…", and “can outperform and outfight almost any current or projected competitor…”. I can only guess that accurate speakers are not its competitors. BTW - I know that Ascend and Axiom have a direct-to-consumer business model, but I can’t imagine the “middle men” adding over 10 times to the cost.


B[/QUOTE]

Just like reality and truth, it scares most of us humans as it then takes us away from our imaginative and sometimes delusional world of false expectations that we weave around us, one of the reasons flat speakers and systems are not really liked by the so-called esoterica loving crowd.

 

[gene]

Also it’s the first component that I know of that up-samples everything, and it supposedly does a very good job

We don't put too much stock in upsampling. In fact, it begs for the opportunity to screw things up even worse. I am not saying Anthem falls in this camp, but upsampling is not always as magical and wonderful as some (especially reviewers) would have you believe.

Here is a first of many articles to come about this that you may find of interest:

Upsampling vs Oversampling

 

[b_panther_g]

Thanks for the article, Gene. It was informative.

I understand the benefits of oversampling; it allows for a filter with a gentle roll-off. The gentle filter allows for cleaner audio reproduction in the audible spectrum.

Gene, what are your thoughts on resampling. Why am I asking? I think the Anthem D1 is also supposed to resample everything to 24 bits. I know that its not true 24 bit, but I like to know about what you think about resampling in general.

Thanks.

Later,
B

 

[CWS]

...This industry is almost like the Viagra industry, taking full advantage of male potency pill for persons suffering from various inadequacies and maladies.

Price has nothing to do with performance...

I like the sentiments in this thread...but I have a hard time believing its universal validity.

I can see how this notion can apply to Bose: the Budweiser of Audio…but not every beer is Bud. Duvel costs ~6 bucks for 20oz…But it's a dang fine beer...In my humbly-puny-audio-novice opinion…Some systems will sound better. Just as some beers will taste better. But what defines better is a matter of taste - not everyone enjoys a trappist beer or an IPA. In this context, performance and 'better'-ness seem like synonyms. How speakers (or other audio gear for that matter) perform and how that performance appeals to people is going to vary. And because that variance undoubtedly includes price differences...

I don't agree with price having nothing to do with performance.

*/Sorry for all the beer analogies…I'm thirsty…and I think the subtleties between different beers and people's preferences for those subtleties are analogous to audio equipment.

 

[NewYorkJosh]

But then there are products like that Halcro amp. Over $12,000 for a 200W monoblock??? All blind tests show that amps, when not under stress, sound the same. Does this Halcro thing come with it’s own generator so that, in the event of a power outage, I can enjoy my music or listen to the news? Is it designed to with stand the harsh environment of space? If so, does it come with space shuttle tickets? I just don’t get it.
B

I hear you. I agree that high-end has some real weirdness voodoo going on. I personally think that the Mpingo monks, who charge $70 for little ebony disks and say that putting them on your gear improves the sound are full of !@#$. There's plenty of other examples - exotic expensive materials that cost a lot but may or may not contribute to the sound; exotic pseudo scientific theories that are not based on reality. I just have to shake my head at the credulity and ludicrousness.

That being said, if you persue great audio, you have to go listen. I'll never forget the first time I started playing with isolation under my CD transport (yes, I use a separate transport, a Theta Data Basic II, and DAT - a Muse Model 2). I started with an inflated inner tube, then some sorbothane pucks (cheap ones from the local scientific supply), then finally points of various materials. Each different isolation technique produced what I experienced as jaw droppingly significant audible changes.

I have lived with over a dozen different amps over the last 20 years and I've found every one of them to be noticibly different from one another. I reject the arguement that all unstressed amps sound the same. First of all, the double blind methodology switches sources rapidly. People listen to music on a deeper and emotional level. The quick switch of the double blind doesn't give the listener a chance to connect with the music, so what's being tested is inherently superficial. I've actually done some single blind testing with a friend and done poorly on quick switch test, but much better when switching was done between songs and whole songs listened to. I'd be curious to see results of testing done that way - but this whole logic runs counter to the current dogma. And that's the problem.

The fact is, audiophiles have noticed differences between amps (and other gear) for years that the Audio Engineer culture swear are inaudible. Clearly their test methodologies and scientific models are inadequate (and dogmatic, and, perhaps, even delusional). I find it like the Catholic church's reaction to Galileo. You have to listen for yourself! The result of this scientific denial, is that religion pops up in its place. The current religion of high end lacks scientific rigor - thus mpingo disks, and cable stands.

The answer isn't to reject the high-end. The fact is that there's some incredible sound going on in some high-end systems and it's foolish and self defeating to deny it. The answer is to broaden the science to encompass what exists. It isn't easy to find objective proof of a subjective experience (look at the field of psychology) - but scientists must have open minds and be willing to try. Thomas Kuhn, in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" says that science rarely encourages innovative thinking - but rather
enforces existing dogma and most experiments aim to prove and refine results for existing theory until enough inconsistencies appear to force a revision in thinking. That's where we are with audio. The establishment's denial is causing a schism and ultimately a theory will come from left field that explodes the status quo. I imagine that these views will not be popular in this forum, so I encourage everyone who reads this to go audition the maligned Halcro with some of your favorite music discs. I did and I found that I heard detail that I never had before (granted the system I listened to, with Nearfield Acoustics Pipe Dream speakers cost more that two cars and I would never in a million years spend that kind of money). The fact is that the experience was memorable and certainly on a different order of experience that even my very nice rig.

Someone who spends $100,000 on a Ferrari isn't crazy, even if a blindfolded passenger driven at highway speeds without acceleration can't tell the difference between any car.

 

[JoeE SP9]

Having been at this hobby longer than some have been alive ( I bought my first piece of equipment in 1967) I long ago came to the conclusion that I didn't care about specs or any of that stuff. No, I am not Technically unaware. I have a BS EE. My signature says it all The Ears Do Decide

 

[b_panther_g]

Posted by NewYorkJosh…
“…The answer isn't to reject the high-end. The fact is that there's some incredible sound going on in some high-end systems and it's foolish and self defeating to deny it…”


Hello NewYorkJosh,

Welcome to the forum.

Regarding your comments above…

I don’t reject all Hi-End audio products. I agree that some Hi-End audio products represent incredible sound. But other’s are a waste of time and money, IMHO.

Regarding your listening session of the Halcro amp…

“I imagine that these views will not be popular in this forum, so I encourage everyone who reads this to go audition the maligned Halcro with some of your favorite music discs. I did and I found that I heard detail that I never had before (granted the system I listened to, with Nearfield Acoustics Pipe Dream speakers cost more that two cars and I would never in a million years spend that kind of money). The fact is that the experience was memorable and certainly on a different order of experience that even my very nice rig.”

I’m glad you found the experience memorable and I’m sure you DID hear additional detail. But why did you hear the additional detail???

Judging from what you said there were too many variables to attribute the difference(s) to one thing (i.e. the amps). You were listening in a different room; that can make a HUGE difference. It sounds like you were listening to different speakers, another thing that can make a HUGE difference. Were you listening at the same volume that you listen at home? A difference of 1db or 2db may not jump out as being louder, but the difference usually makes the louder volume appear better, more detailed, more lifelike, etc.

I’ve listened to several Hi-End amps and I agree that they do sound good when compared to other amps of similar power. Several months ago I’ve heard a Pass Labs amp (250 watts, ~$6000), Anthem MCA 20 (225 watts, ~$1000), and a QSC PLX2402 (425 watts, ~$850). They were all attached to the same system. The amps were placed in a closet. 4 of us listened to classical guitar music. My friend’s son did the switching. At about 60db (according to the Rat Shack SPL meter), we couldn’t tell the difference. We turned it up to about 80db and we couldn’t here the difference. At about 90db 3 of us could tell one of the amps apart (it turned out to be the Anthem.) I called it quits but the other 3 guys went for 100db and they couldn’t tell the difference between 2 of the amps (they turned out to be the Pass Labs and the QSC).

I concluded that the Pass either had more power reserves than the Anthem or it clips better. But the QSC, a pro amp, has more power than both of them. So if I have the time to set it up correctly, I’d go for that one. I don’t know what it sounds like when it clips, but with that much power I can never see myself clipping it. It’s also the cheapest.

That’s why I question some Hi-End toys (esp. amps and cables). They don’t seem to add anything except pride. If that’s what someone is after, cool. It’s their money, their home, their time, and their system. But that’s not what I’m told when I read audio mags. Those guys hear the difference between $10,000 and $12,000 amps. How??? They don’t use them to power rock/rap/pop concerts, do they? If the amp measures flat (i.e. no EQ or problems), how can anyone listening at anything that even resembles sane listening levels tell the difference? It’s beyond me.

Later,
B

**corrected a spelling error***

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

Josh's comments about double-blind testing contain some common misunderstandings. Depending on the experimenters' design, the length of time A, B, or X may each be listened to can be seconds, minutes, hours or even longer. There is nothing in the methodology that decrees you can't listen to a whole song (or symphony, for that matter) if you want to make that part of the experimental design.

As for the inadequacy of double-blind testing, DBT is the recognized gold standard for experimental evidence in every scientific discipline. DBT simply controls variables and removes bias as much as possible. Nothing more, nothing less. Why should it somehow be inadequate for evaluating audio equipment when it seems to work quite well for life-and-death things like medicine?

 

[Swerd]

First of all, the double blind methodology switches sources rapidly. People listen to music on a deeper and emotional level. The quick switch of the double blind doesn't give the listener a chance to connect with the music, so what's being tested is inherently superficial. I've actually done some single blind testing with a friend and done poorly on quick switch test, but much better when switching was done between songs and whole songs listened to. I'd be curious to see results of testing done that way - but this whole logic runs counter to the current dogma. And that's the problem.

You have misunderstood or mischaracterized what blind or double blind testing is really for. Hearing has (at least) 2 components that I prefer to call external and internal. External hearing is the part most of us think of when we speak of hearing. It is how our ears react to the acoustic behavior of sound waves. Some of this is explained by science reasonably well. I use the term internal hearing to describe the part that our brains play in the perception of sound. Compared to the science of acoustics, very little is understood of the psychoacoustics of sound perception. A simple example that we are all familiar with is the stereo effect. It is a product of our brains processing similar but not identical sounds coming simultaneously from two different locations. It requires not only two ears, but a brain to learn how to interpret these unusual signals. Whenever someone speaks about imaging, soundstage, space, etc., these are examples of internal hearing. They are probably learned responses.

Because our ears are hardwired to our brains these aspects of hearing are not separable. Blind or double blind listening tests try to separate the detection of sound (external hearing) from the perception of sound (internal hearing). When audiophiles say that true appreciation of hi end requires long term listening and cannot be observed in the short time span usually used for blind testing, I wonder how much of that appreciation is external or internal.

Thomas Kuhn, in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" says that science rarely encourages innovative thinking - but rather enforces existing dogma and most experiments aim to prove and refine results for existing theory until enough inconsistencies appear to force a revision in thinking. That's where we are with audio.

I believe you are also mischaractierizing what Kuhn said in this book. Yes, most experimental science makes observations that refine existing theories and thus reinforces them. But experimental science does not aim to prove existing theory, it tests these theories, constantly looking for inconsistencies. In that sense, it aims to disprove existing theories. It usually fails at that. When enough inconsistencies are shown and accepted by other scientists, old theories are revised or abandoned to fit with the new observations. As a student I was always taught that in science "an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence." This is very rare, and as Kuhn says in his book, it is revolutionary. It is also altogether different than the arguement between audiophiles and science. Audiophiles lack any scientific evidence at all, whether is supports or challenges the existing understanding of external or internal hearing.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Having been at this hobby longer than some have been alive ( I bought my first piece of equipment in 1967) I long ago came to the conclusion that I didn't care about specs or any of that stuff. No, I am not Technically unaware. I have a BS EE. My signature says it all The Ears Do Decide

Yes, the ears do decide. The problem is most let their eyes decide, not their ears. They don't trust their ears and must use their eyes to decide. Their loss.

 

[NewYorkJosh]

Hello NewYorkJosh,
Welcome to the forum.

Thanks, Panther! I'm really glad to be here. I appreciate your comments about my Halcro listening session. I actually demo'ed 3 different amps on the same rig that day, the Halco, a pair of Nagra-Ds, and a pair of SET monoblocks from Cary. The tube amps sounded quite different from the Halcro - although I'd wager we got both tube amps into clipping territory from time to time (they are both VERY low powered). I'm well aware of the issues of impedence load on speaker sound, and room interaction. I didn't perform a blind test either - and I'm not in the business of defending Halcro. I'm just saying that I heard a difference, and found the Halcro to be the synergistic match in that setup. I should bring a cheap SS amp in the next time I go back - like an entry level Adcom they sell in the front rooms.

Blind or double blind listening tests try to separate the detection of sound (external hearing) from the perception of sound (internal hearing). When audiophiles say that true appreciation of hi end requires long term listening and cannot be observed in the short time span usually used for blind testing, I wonder how much of that appreciation is external or internal.

This is EXACTLY my problem with how DBT is currently implemented. I experience both kinds of hearing holistically (doesn't everyone). I don't want the external stripped off. That stuff ultimately matters to me!

I believe you are also mischaractierizing what Kuhn said in this book. Yes, most experimental science makes observations that refine existing theories and thus reinforces them. But experimental science does not aim to prove existing theory, it tests these theories, constantly looking for inconsistencies. In that sense, it aims to disprove existing theories. It usually fails at that. When enough inconsistencies are shown and accepted by other scientists, old theories are revised or abandoned to fit with the new observations. As a student I was always taught that in science "an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence." This is very rare, and as Kuhn says in his book, it is revolutionary. It is also altogether different than the arguement between audiophiles and science. Audiophiles lack any scientific evidence at all, whether is supports or challenges the existing understanding of external or internal hearing.

We're both saying the same thing about Kuhn. You look at the glass half full ("experimental science test existing theory".."When enough inconsistencies are shown and accepted by other scientists, old theories are revised or abandoned to fit with the new observations."), and I looked at it half empty (experiments "aim to prove and refine results for existing theory until enough inconsistencies appear to force a revision in thinking - following up on my use of the inflamitory word "dogma"). These are really equivalent positions.

I aknowledge the spirit of your objection. I do believe that some science is better than none - and the absence of science in the high end is fertile breeding ground for all sorts of nonsense - but the fault lies partly with science here. The high-end ignores science in part because the AES (and many of you) reject as fantasy the audible differences many audiophiles experience. Some of this may be real placebo effect. But I'm convinced some of it is that science, as it current is applied to audio, fails to model some real factors that affect high end audio reproduction. The problem is cultural.

One more quibble:

...DBT is the recognized gold standard for experimental evidence in every scientific discipline.

DBT isn't a "gold standard" - or any other kind of standard. It's a testing methodology - and one that isn't applicable for most of scientific research. You don't hear about physicists or astronomers or chemists or biologists using DBT at all. DBT is specifically used when trying to test effects on human subjects, like when testing drugs. Read drug test result literature and you'll find that the implimentation of DBT is often messy and debated. The results are often of questionable significance not only because the results can be statistically muddy but because the methodology can often be devilishly tricky to design to give meaningful results. This is EXACTLY the case with audio testing. Real world science is messy. Don't brandish the word as if it is a beacon of truth with an instant sword separating fact from fiction. Science arrives at the truth over time with many false starts and blind alleys. Everything must be questioned - even your assumptions about amplifiers.

 

[WmAx]

DBT isn't a "gold standard" - or any other kind of standard. It's a testing methodology - and one that isn't applicable for most of scientific research. You don't hear about physicists or astronomers or chemists or biologists using DBT at all.

DBT is a method required to remove as many extraneous variables as possible. Any credible scientist will isolate the experiments as well as is possible and remove unwanted variables. That's all DBT is doing -- reducing variables. Human psychology is unavoidably prone to subconscious biases/responses; these can NOT be allowed to be present without any controls in place. Otherwise, the experiment is worthless.

The best of DBT systems(ABX, IMO) increase sensitivity, not reduce it, btw. An ABX test with repeating material(so you cmopare the same signal patterns(music passages)) on demand and able to compare X with known A and B states enhances the sensitivity of subjects beyone what is possible to detect in casual listening circumstances.

-Chris

 

[NewYorkJosh]

Good point, Chris. Most experiment designs make some effort to isolate human perception when gathering original data - so the idea of DBT has wider applicability in science than I indicated in my previous post. However with audio equipment, human perception is the original data that's being tested for. Given my personal experiences I find it hard to believe that there's such a lack of evidence for the audibility of differences among amps - I'll read what you've provided in you PM. Thanks, Chris.

DBT is a method required to remove as many extraneous variables as possible. Any credible scientist will isolate the experiments as well as is possible and remove unwanted variables. That's all DBT is doing -- reducing variables. Human psychology is unavoidably prone to subconscious biases/responses; these can NOT be allowed to be present without any controls in place. Otherwise, the experiment is worthless.

The best of DBT systems(ABX, IMO) increase sensitivity, not reduce it, btw. An ABX test with repeating material(so you cmopare the same signal patterns(music passages)) on demand and able to compare X with known A and B states enhances the sensitivity of subjects beyone what is possible to detect in casual listening circumstances.

-Chris

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

The "gold standard" verbiage regarding DBT isn't mine. I'm not entirely sure, but I think I "borrowed" it from an essay by Stephen Jay Gould -- a biologist.

In any experiment where experimenter or other human bias is seen as a possiblilty, DBT is indeed the standard (insert precious metal of your choice). That certainly applies to the topic under discussion here. It may not be perfect (no human endeavor is) and the implementation might be a beotch, but Churchill's famous quote about the shortcomings of democracy* seems to be apt!

-----

*roughly, "...a very bad system, but the others are so much worse".

 

[eleiko]

It's also Called Ego

Let's face it. Audio systems are, to a degree, phallic symbols for the male ego. It's almost an exclusively male baliwick, which is strange because women don't appreciate music any less. But, of course, it's not all about the music. It's about the gear, and gear, as noted, seems to be the purview of guys. Years ago, in my old neighborhood, the competition was fierce among certain guys to come up with the most dynamite system.

 

[toquemon]

Yes, i agree with you. This is all about who has the bigger d**k. I don't know any woman who has this hobby, which forces me to ask, IS THERE ANY WOMAN IN THIS FORUM?.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

A Canadian who called herself "the Lone Female" posted a bit on an audio and gender thread; a few others have from time to time. But in general, this hobby seems to be a "guy thing". Whether its quite so Freudian is another matter but I understand the point!

Of course, it is not unknown on the Net for people to disguise their gender. I bet no one has yet guessed that I'm actually a 19 year old Victoria's Secret model!