The “Sound” of receivers…

[Rob Babcock]

Probably because I don't feel persecuted.

Nor should you, friend AV Phile.

But maybe you'll be in the mood for zingers later?

 

[mtrycrafts]

(there's a meeting of the AH Secret Police around midnight tonight- D'oh! Guess now it's not a secret!).

Of course it is still secret. You forgot to check the codebook for the real time of this codeword. Just hope you use the right page. I need to send a note to the boss about refresher training. Lives are at stake

 

[mtrycrafts]

I am not entirely convince I need to know. DBTs are purely statistical and its relevance in a subjective and personal hobby has little value on the beliefs and preferences of hobbyists. I think my ideas on this are well expounded on another thread. Ask your colleague Rob.

I think I said you will never know. It is obvious you don't need to know.

It has no bearing on preferences. Beliefs? Well, that depends on the person, if they are closed minded or not. How much they are interested in reality or just the other world is sufficient. Either is an individual thing though. I prefer reality. Yes, you express your ideas well enough, thanks.

 

[av_phile]

I think I said you will never know. It is obvious you don't need to know.

It has no bearing on preferences. Beliefs? Well, that depends on the person, if they are closed minded or not. How much they are interested in reality or just the other world is sufficient. Either is an individual thing though. I prefer reality. Yes, you express your ideas well enough, thanks.

True enough. I probably am close minded. But no more closed minded than those who believe what I don't believe in. And like you said in another thread, reality bites. I may not like much of what it asks of me in this hobby. The magical world has so much more to offer, a wider vista and more opportunities where often the impossible becomes possible, the inaudible becomes audible. Yes, the mind does wonders that can transcend the debilitating limits of reality. What some reality out there has to offer are so constraining and limiting that were I to embrace them, I should have ended this hobby long long ago when I first got hold of my first zip cord and $300 receiver. What would be the point going past that?

And that's exactly my point. This is a hobby. A quest. The entire personal subjectivism with its arsenal of preferrences, biases, tastes, learning, dispositions, experiences, whims, dreams, wants - all bear down on the choices a hobbyst makes in this hobby. Rightly or wrongly, doesn't matter, it's the hobbyists personal voyage to his nirvana. It is a mix of reality and the fantastic. It not only borders but often rides on the insanely addictive, the absurd, the illogical, the whimsical. The hobby itself is illlogical. Why seek hi-fidelity when you can never capture the realsim of live sound and put it in your pocket? It is a quest for the illusory. Hence, it can be dellusional. You can only approach that illusion. But in approaching it, you have to try everything and go beyond a zip cord and a $300 receiver that all earthly logic tells you is foolish! Ofcourse, the hobby itself is foolish. You can modify and hot rod your gears or go out and buy those ridiculously priced gears that can only approach but never claim your prize. It is absurd, It is foolish, whether you hot rod your gears or buy, you would be wasting resources that can feed millions of hungry mouths on earth. But the hobbyist doesn't care. He is in search of an illusion. He is madly in love. Would the scientific and statistical community bring some sanity to this hobby and bring the hobbyst down to reality? They most certainly can. But once they do, you just ended the hobby.

But is that even necessary? The hobby is not even a necessity. It's for all intents and purposes, a luxury you can do without. So why bring in the sciences and the statistics methods into this insane hobby? It's a luxury. What's so sane and logical about buyng a Gucci handbag? A Rolls? A Rolex? They're all luxury that goes beyond logic and sanity and into some other world that is limited only by the imagination and the wallet.

You say you are for reality. And yet I find it ironic that you would espouse DBT that demands UNREALISTIC listening conditions using UNREALISTIC bias control conditions. Are those how the hobbyst listen to his gears? Do you suspend your bias, tastes and preferrences when listening to your favourite music? Does the word favourite mean anything? Can you have a favourite without a bias? IS that how hobbyist buy their gears? Does the salesfloor have bias controlled ABX testing among brands right there?

Nope, the reality is that ABX testing yields the most unrealistic results. They're statistical, unfeeling, inhuman, and totally reject the traits that precisely characterize a person and denies his uniqueness, reducing persons into statistical numbers. Bias-controlled DBT will yield results as if they come from unfeeling oscilliscopes and spectrum analyzers. They offer nothing new that such measuring devices don't already tell. I am completely in the opinion that it has no place in a hobby that holds up the individual uniqueness, passionate value judgements and personality of the hobbyist.

But that's entirely me. Sorry as I got carried away again with another long response. Feel free to opine otherwise. Maybe another thread on the relevance of DBT in this hobby can be made.

 

[Rob Babcock]

It is absurd, It is foolish, whether you hot rod your gears or buy, you would be wasting resources that can feed millions of hungry mouths on earth. But the hobbyist doesn't care. He is in search of an illusion.

I'll confess, AVP, that this statement sums up neatly one of my major objection with the state of our "hobby" today. Kilobuck amps with megabuck cables- it all seems so very decadent when there are people starving for lack of a $.30 cup of soup. It does seem almost vulgar and obscene to own a $50,000 stereo when your neighbors can't feed their children.

Expensive gear seems pretty frivolous when our brothers and sisters are living without the basics of life.

 

[Mudcat]

I am not entirely convince I need to know. DBTs are purely statistical and its relevance in a subjective and personal hobby has little value on the beliefs and preferences of hobbyists. I think my ideas on this are well expounded on another thread. Ask your colleague Rob.

Yeah we know about your ideas. But (I really feel the need to flog myself now) I agree with you. As I stated earlier in this thread, my wife and I set up a blind test of all the receivers in the house

Yamaha Rx-V1400 (one year old)
Yamaha 396 (one year old)
Onkyo 600 (12 years old)
Technics something or other (15 years old)
lafayette (20 plus years old)

Same speakers, same music, same cables, same volume at speakers. All one had to do was plug the dvd player and speakers into the unit in question while the others back was turned. I could not tell which was which, even though I spent a lot of time setting everything up for the blind test.

But that does not mean I'll go looking for 20 year old Lafayetts to replace my 1400 and Alesis amps.

 

[cornelius]

A few years ago I did a test with a guitar player that I play with. He's not as into equipment as I am, but he DOES hate NS-10s, so he understands.

We did a test between an entry level Yamaha receiver two Arcam integrated amps and a McIntosh integrated. He guessed right every single time (except when a/b-ing the Arcams to each other). The differences were so obvious he couldn't believe it.

 

[Yamahaluver]

Years back, a similar test was done between a Nelson Pass amp and a Yamaha power amp, the Yamaha was preferred over the Pass. Used to be the same case while I was working at Rabsons NYC, most who would come for other brands would end up preferring the Yamaha sound in a blind test.

 

[WmAx]

Years back, a similar test was done between a Nelson Pass amp and a Yamaha power amp, the Yamaha was preferred over the Pass. Used to be the same case while I was working at Rabsons NYC, most who would come for other brands would end up preferring the Yamaha sound in a blind test.

Is this the infamous test you are referring too?

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=*:thl248767154d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=501fl6$ac3@oxy.rust.net&rnum=1

Neither amp was preferred/identifiable in this test.

-Chris

 

[markw]

Not quite so, my friend.

Neither amp was preferred/identifiable in this test.

In this case, I would most certainly "prefer" the one that cost less.

 

[Karp]

Larger (better?) transformers supply more power, while larger capacitors store more power. This will allow the amplifier to play louder and have more reserve current for those large transients. But as we all know, to get a 3dB increase in volume, you have to double the power. The real question is can you actually hear the difference at what would be considered normal listening levels, not at 120dB? For me that is about 75-90 dB. Anything above that is loud by any standard.

And let's not forget the concept of a blinded test. Knowing what type of equipment one is listening to will influence one's perception.

Very true, except that it takes much more power to send a 50Hz tone than a 10 kHz tone. What happens when you are watching a movie that averages 90db and there is a sudden loud moment with a peak of over 100db? Although many current audio recordings are equalized to death, there will be large transients on audio discs as well.
My old Sony, which was rated at 100Wpc (but only put out 30wpc full-bandwidth) sounded compressed during audible peaks. My current Dennon (which is also rated at 100wpc, but puts out about 90Wpc full-bandwidth) does not sound compressed during peaks. Can I notice any differences at very low volume or quiet moments? Nothing that cannot possibly be contributed to my brain rather than my ears. I DO notice when the Sony clips during loud moments of an otherwise sane listening level.

Do all solid state Amps/Receivers amplify flatly without coloration? Or do some of them perhaps tweak certain frequencies so that they can claim greater output at 1khz or boost the lower frequencies by a db or two to make it sound more powerful? Aren't you under the assumption that all manufacturers WANT to amplify linearly?

I wonder about blind tests. Are all of the listeners familiar with the music that is played? If they are not, do they notice the slight differences during peaks? Does the person who is familiar with track A get it correct more than what can be accounted for by chance, but does not select correctly on tracks B and C which he is not all that familiar with? If the second listener is familiar with track B but not with track A, would his results cancel out the first listener's correct selections?

I am not putting your comments down. They are correct if you take certain things for granted that I do not. My problem is that I JUST DON'T KNOW! It seems that every time someone can prove something to my satisfaction that it just raises more questions. I am a pessimist, but hey.. pessimists are never disappointed!

 

[mtrycrafts]

You say you are for reality. And yet I find it ironic that you would espouse DBT that demands UNREALISTIC listening conditions using UNREALISTIC bias control conditions.

Actuall, if you expanded your horizons beyond your illusions, you might find this is reality when one is interested in knowing real differences between components. The real audio world dictates this. The real scientific world dictates this. Your sighted method is totally unreliable in determioning audible difference. Incontestable. Sorry about that. But, you like that, you have told us you do. Not a problem. You enjoy singular reality which is meaningless to anyone else.

Are those how the hobbyst listen to his gears?

Which ones? When? To determine audible differences, or just lisrening for enjoyment? Purchasing decisions? When?

Do you suspend your bias, tastes and preferrences when listening to your favourite music?

Well, not really relevant, is it to listening for pleasure only.

Does the salesfloor have bias controlled ABX testing among brands right there?

They should indeed. Then one would not fall for all the BS, voodoo, hype, urban legends. Then you clould really trust your ears. As is, that is not the case for most, is it? They don't trust their ears.


Nope, the reality is that ABX testing yields the most unrealistic results.

Nope, that is only your singular reality that is meaningless outside of your singular universe.

They're statistical, unfeeling, inhuman, and totally reject the traits that precisely characterize a person and denies his uniqueness, reducing persons into statistical numbers.

Or, it doesn't, just another singular reality.

Bias-controlled DBT will yield results as if they come from unfeeling oscilliscopes and spectrum analyzers.

Actually, when you are interested int eh sonic quality of a component, that is the ONLY way to know. Anything else is just, well, guessing, iagining.


I am completely in the opinion that it has no place in a hobby that holds up the individual uniqueness, passionate value judgements and personality of the hobbyist.

Yep, opinion.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I could not tell which was which, even though I spent a lot of time setting everything up for the blind test.

But that does not mean I'll go looking for 20 year old Lafayetts to replace my 1400 and Alesis amps.

No one said you need to do that Some just make preposterous straw men house of cards that is what the objectivist bent demand. Hogwash, total hogwash. Many reasons for getting any component you want.

But, what they fail to understand, if one selects based on sonic quality or differences, then you must use a DBT. If other values of preferences are more important or only they are important, then you select any which way you want. Maybe you like the name, or the reliability of a line, or its looks, or its versatility. Anything.

 

[av_phile]

You say you are for reality. And yet I find it ironic that you would espouse DBT that demands UNREALISTIC listening conditions using UNREALISTIC bias control conditions.

Actuall, if you expanded your horizons beyond your illusions, you might find this is reality when one is interested in knowing real differences between components. The real audio world dictates this. The real scientific world dictates this. Your sighted method is totally unreliable in determioning audible difference. Incontestable. Sorry about that. But, you like that, you have told us you do. Not a problem. You enjoy singular reality which is meaningless to anyone else.

I am not surprised with such a response, typical of many myopic scientists who cannot see anything beyond their real noses. It is people like these who should expand beyond their limited scientific confines hiding behind some ceremonious scientific methodology that can only speculate based on statistical preponderance. Don't get me wrong, I'm not ridiculing science. But it ends where pesonal VALUE perceptions start. Because just like religion, this hobby consists precisely of such perceptions that can assume dogmatic proportions.

TO claim that statistical DBT results are THE sole reality overhypes the limited value of statistical sampling and denies the hobby of its constituent cognitive and subjective VALUE perceptions that define a unique human person enjoying a personal hobby. An election poll had statistically said GORE would win the election, is that the REAL thing? You're confusing STATISTICAL PROBABILITIES with reality, my friend. DBT results are just that- PROBABILITIES based on a SAMPLE of respondents. What reality are you talking about? Sure, majority of the sampled respondents in a DBT may say they don't hear any difference. And you hold that as reality, the TRUTH? Wow. When a hobbyist installs a Valhalla cable and immediately PERCEIVES an opening of the highs and an airness in it that he didn't get from his old zip chords, he HEARD a difference. His entire person, his value, his whims, his wants, his learning, his perceptions - all bear down on that experiential observation of a difference. And that is all the REALITY that matters in HIS hobby. It is as much a valid REALITY as any in your DBT tests conducted under the most unrealistic conditions. The REALITY in this hobby is a PERSONAL REALITY. Not a Reality that would have everyone use zip cords and $300 receivers.

Are those how the hobbyst listen to his gears?

Which ones? When? To determine audible differences, or just lisrening for enjoyment? Purchasing decisions? When?

Do you suspend your bias, tastes and preferrences when listening to your favourite music?

Well, not really relevant, is it to listening for pleasure only.

Does the salesfloor have bias controlled ABX testing among brands right there?

They should indeed. Then one would not fall for all the BS, voodoo, hype, urban legends. Then you clould really trust your ears. As is, that is not the case for most, is it? They don't trust their ears.


Nope, the reality is that ABX testing yields the most unrealistic results.

Nope, that is only your singular reality that is meaningless outside of your singular universe.

They're statistical, unfeeling, inhuman, and totally reject the traits that precisely characterize a person and denies his uniqueness, reducing persons into statistical numbers.

Or, it doesn't, just another singular reality.

Bias-controlled DBT will yield results as if they come from unfeeling oscilliscopes and spectrum analyzers.

Actually, when you are interested int eh sonic quality of a component, that is the ONLY way to know. Anything else is just, well, guessing, iagining.

I am completely in the opinion that it has no place in a hobby that holds up the individual uniqueness, passionate value judgements and personality of the hobbyist.

Yep, opinion.

If you prefer what those oscilliscopes and spectral analytical devices say, you're also exercising your own opinion that has no more claim to the TRUTH than what subjectivists claim. Yours is just another opinion I can respect. But if you go about questioning personal experiential assertions as if you are on higher ground, you better have more than a mere STATISTICAL data in your arsenal. Don't ask me what that is, but for sure it isn't DBT statistics. Your DBT can be meaningful within the scientific community. But for many people who have come across their results, it is entirely meaningless in a personal value-centric hobby.

 

[Rob Babcock]

What if being told that a set of Nordost cables was installed suddenly made the Earth move and the angels sing, when in fact the same zip wire was merely unplugged & then reconnected? That guy might be accused of listening with his wallet instead of his ears.

If a cable falls in the forest and no ones around to hear it, does it still make a sound? Does the light stay on in the fridge when you close the door? Does a speaker wire have a sound before you know how much it costs?

 

[av_phile]

You must be alluding to a famous or infamous cable test anecdote that had the respondents going oohs and aahs over various named exotic and expensive cable brands. When all the while only zip cords were used.

I am not entirely sure how accurate the anecdote is, but it bemuses me that such an entrapment worked in favor of DBT on the surface. A superficial observation. If accurate, it proved beyond doubt that this hobby IS about VALUE perceptions.

I have my own personal experience similar to this. I was listening to some gears being tested at an AV showroom when a customer pops in to remark that expensive cables really make a difference. What he saw were some expensive IXOS and Audio Note cables lying on the floor behind the gears I was listening to. He never once examined the back of the gears to see that only regular 12ga zips were used and the others cables were idle.

Does it matter? To some yes. Like I said it is very comforting to learn that your zip cord MAY not have sonic superiority whatsover with an Audio Note silver cable or a Nordost. IS that the REALITY. For some it is. To others, they have their own personal experiences to HEAR a difference in the confines of their rooms while listening unfettered under realistic conditions, bias and all. To them, that's the reality that matters in their hobby. Should I question their experiential perception to say they are WRONG armed only with a statistical probabality?

 

[Rob Babcock]

I am not entirely sure how accurate the anecdote is, but it bemuses me that such an entrapment worked in favor of DBT on the surface. A superficial observation. If accurate, it proved beyond doubt that this hobby IS about VALUE perceptions.

In what way would attributing sonic qualities based upon your brand perceptions relate even remotely to a blind listening test? That's a complete non sequitor, and frankly I find the suggestion bizarre. It is amusing that you'd consider getting "pants" by one's own preconceptions "entrapment!"

BTW, does the fridge light stay one when you can't see it?

 

[av_phile]

In what way would attributing sonic qualities based upon your brand perceptions relate even remotely to a blind listening test? preconceptions "entrapment!"

I don't recall even suggeting that. That's actually one of my points: there is no relationship between perception and DBT test. They are mutually exclusive and irrelevant to each other.

BTW, does the fridge light stay one when you can't see it?

Who cares, whether on or not, the knowledge is utterly useless for my purposes. Same with the results of a DBT, it's entirely useless in the hobby. But very useful to those who can't afford.

 

[Rob Babcock]

Who cares, whether on or not, the knowledge is utterly useless for my purposes. Same with the results of a DBT, it's entirely useless in the hobby. But very useful to those who can't afford.

A steotype for all occasions! Indeed good for those with more cash than common sense, but also good for those who wish to base their purchases on something more than vanity & superstition. Very interesting- even in gradeschool we learned the main fallacies used by advertisers to sell products; I think you've appealled to every one.

I assume that by "utterly useless in the hobby", that you meant of course that it's utterly useless to you.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

Audio engineering, acoustics, phychoacoustics, our understanding of the capabilities and limitations of hearing, and our knowledge of human perception are all based on science, ranging from physics to psychology to neurology. Our understanding may be incomplete but the remaining questions are more likely to be answered by applying the scientific method than by other means. It has a pretty good track record.

Science, and the scientific method, is built on testable hypotheses.

The gold standard for experimentally testing a hypothesis (like, Is this new drug effective against cancer?; Is receiver a actually sonically different than receiver b?; can people actually hear a claimed sonic phenomenon?; Do listeners generally prefer a system with flat frequency response vs. one with irregular response?) in every scientific discipline is double-blind testing. With due diligence in controlling and eliminating variables, it removes bias.

Why anyone would think that audio (an engineering discipline based firmly on science) is somehow exempt from the scientific method mystifies me. Why anyone would not avail themselves of the knowledge gained by the scientific method to aid in one's purchasing decisions and separate the wheat from the marketing chaff is equally baffling. After all, one needn't be a scientist or engineer to understand the basic findings of the scientific examination of audio even if the methods and details are often recondite. If an artsy-fartsy liberal arts type like me can...!

Science, the scientific method and DBT are of course quite irrelevant to one's enjoyment of music, and to one's enjoyment of the intangible benefits of owning high-end gear. Not to mention more transcendant questions! After all, "are the Beatles better than the Stones?" (showing my age!), or, "does knowing that a Krell can drive any load at earbleed volumes and look good too make it worth the extra cash vs. a Rotel?" or, "what is the meaning of life?"* are matters of opinion or faith, not testable hypotheses. And one is quite justified in spending extra money to enjoy those intangible benefits, or in making the "leap of faith" for the Big Questions. I would happily buy a Bryston amp if I could afford it for the reassurance of its 20 year warranty and knowing it is engineered to a fare-thee-well. And I would drive a BMW M-series for the pride of knowing that the engine is just a step removed from their F1 powerplants (and gladly pay the price when something breaks!), even if I never actually took it out on a track. But I would not fool myself that the Bryston "sounds better" than a Pioneer receiver when both are at matched levels and not overdriven. And, not being a member of the plutocracy, I am quite satisfied that my humble Subaru WRX does most of what an M3 can do at a fraction of the cost, lacking only status (and being kinda funny looking!).

In both audio and cars, we are in something of a Golden Age where performance on a level that would only be available to the wealthy 20 or 30 years ago can be had by anyone with a halfway decent job. It still takes fairly serious money to get the ultimate refinement in speakers, of course - but you can come darn close for an affordable price with some careful shopping. And speakers, being highly variable, are still the one component where the differences are quite obvious without needing to resort to DBT in most cases. One would think there would be universal rejoicing, but...

At least with cars one does not hear that you need silver spark plug wires, or platinum pistons, or gold plated shock absorbers for ultimate performance. And unlike audiophiles, most gearheads I know are aware of the limits of unaided perception (the "butt dyno") in evaluating performance; they prefer measurable, quantifiable evidence like dyno test results, gee-force readings and lap times (the equivalent to things like frequency response, distortion measurements, etc.). Snake oil seems to be mostly limited to fuel and oil additives which are rightly sneered at by anyone with a modicum of knowledge.

--------

*I subcribe to the philosophy of Monty Pythonism, myself.