The “Sound” of receivers…

[Rob Babcock]

The real burning question: are the Beach Boys better than the Beatles. To which I say "yes!"

I'm all argued out!

 

[annunaki]

Great post Rip! Especially the analogoy with the cars, gear heads, and horsepower.

Oh yeah, the M series BMWs are more like 3 steps removed from their F1 powerplants. I have yet to see a production V-6, V-8 or V-10 rev much above 9,500 rpm. The BMW V-10, in the current FW-26 F1 car, revs to about 18,500-19,000 rpm producing around 920 bhp.

 

[Resident Loser]

"...I subcribe to the philosophy of Monty Pythonism..."

...this new learning amazes me...explain again how sheep's bladders may be used to predict earthquakes...

jimHJJ(...although, don't forget, there ARE platinum sparkplugs...)

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

Oh yeah, the M series BMWs are more like 3 steps removed from their F1 powerplants. I have yet to see a production V-6, V-8 or V-10 rev much above 9,500 rpm. The BMW V-10, in the current FW-26 F1 car, revs to about 18,500-19,000 rpm producing around 920 bhp.

Picky, picky, picky!

God, how an engine can rev that high and not fly apart or melt is just amazing to me. I remember when the Detroit Grand Prix hosted F1 for a few years back in the 80s they sounded like a swarm of angry bees. LOUD angry bees! What were they revving at back then? "Only" 15k or so?

 

[annunaki]

I would have to do some checking but they may have been allowed to run V-12's at that time. I would say that 15K was probably about as high as they got even if the were running the current 3.0liter V-10 format. The current cars sound more like Mosquitos now. Loud...angry...Mosquitos

On a good F1 3.0 liter V-10 from say Ferrari, McLaren, or BMW at redline, around 19,000 rpm, individual piston firings happen in the neighborhood of 760 PER SECOND!!! The * forces on the ends of the pistons when reaching the peak stroke and then starting the downward turn reach around 800 Gs. Talk about craftsmanship. What is even more amazing is the engines can ramp up throttle at 25,000 rpm per second. Not that they can go that high safely. The Brakes on the cars are just as amazing, able to stop the car from 100 mph to 0 in 55 feet. The cars themselves with driver and fluids weigh in at a stout 1,320 lbs. The down force the car (most likely from Ferrari, McLaren, Willams BMW,Renault, or BAR Honda) will generat around 3600lbs of downforce. Nearly THREE TIMES their own weight.

Sorry for rambling. If there is anything that intrigues me as much as audio it is the technology of Formula 1. I can't wait, I am going to the U.S. Grand Prix next year in Indianapolis. A birthday present from my wife.

 

[av_phile]

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!).

I have to say that this is probably the only intelligent response I got from the points I've raised. Points well taken. But...

Let me once again state my stand. This is a HOBBY. It is not just about AUDIO.

There is no denying that AUDIO is science. And that the scientific community can employ whatever means it has to verify hypothesis, observations and theories pertaining to the products manufactured in the audio industry. As a non-practicing engineer, I myself have no quarrel with that. But I say such verifications have no relevance in this HOBBY. It is not so much that I have difficulty accepting scientific results. It may be relevant in AUDIO, but not in this hobby.

Engaging in this HOBBY is not a science. It goes beyond AUDIO. This hobby is a LUXURY. It is a personal whimsical hobby that luxuriously quests for and pursues the illusory. Illusory because the pursuit of HI-fi is exactly that - an illusion of attaining real live sounds and putting it in your shelf and room. It's illusory because you can only approach it, never claim it. And you approach it only at so much expense, often addictive. The pursuit of this illusion demands a lot - often putting aside neighborly concerns, logic and even decency. Who says one has to tone down the volume if the neighbor doesn't complain? Who says one has to engage in it when many people cannot even afford a decent meal on his table? Who says one has to be logical in this hobby to enjoy listening to his music? Do you have to be logical when you buy a Bruno Magli or a Rolls Royce? Tell me what logic and what science dictates that you must get a Rolex when a Timex will do?

None. LUXURY oversteps into the bound of the illogical, the whimsical, the capricious, even the absurd and the obscene. Limited only by the imagination and the wallet. THis audiophilic hobby happens to be one of those in the luxury department. You can tell me it doesn't have to be luxurious. Sorry, but once you have a toe in it, you're hooked to a luxury.

Often, in our eagerness to apply scentific means we tend to overlook certain situations where the application of ordered scientific method offers no real VALUE to it. Luxury is one of them. Especialy in a hobby that is enjoyable precisely for its disordered and whimsical nature. What scientific statistical method will ever discern that Mozart has the same musicality as a Tchaikovsky?

THis hobby begins with a recorded musical performance of ARTISTS. That is ART. And while a statistical DBT might tell me that the BEATLES sound the same as the MONKEES (if they had ever sung the same song on the same instruments captured on the same recording gears), who cares. My personal preferrence still dictates that I might enjoy the Monkees more!! (No offense to Beatles fans)

The performance is captured on tape. It is then played at home on playback equipment and speakers. Now that's entirely AUDIO and ACCOUSTIC SCIENCE. You can propagate your DBTs here to your heart's content. If it says all amps and cables produce indistinguishable sounds with HIGH STATISTICAL PROBABILITY, then it serves the scientific AUDIO community well to embrace such a result as the TRUTH in AUDIO. But NOT in this HOBBY. This hobby is as much a personal tour de force as a celebration of the free market capitalist econony of supply and demand. A THETA Dreadnaught competes in the market just as a Yamaha does. Both have their respective following, appealing to the VALUE judgements of each. A DBT will have such VALUE cognition look foolish, silly, illogical and unneccesary. But who says the HObby is necessary to begin with? The only VALUE a DBT seems to have is to give license to declare with impugnity that those who bought the Dreadnaught must be foolish not to know any better.

And at the end of the hobby, hearing comes in. Admittedly it is still a science. But the listening experience goes beyond the morphological and physiological function of hearing. All your cognition, perception, biases, preferrences, wants, learning, experiences, imagination bear down on the listening experience. This HOBBY is all about listening enjoynment. A luxury that aims to titilate the auditory senses with all thoses biases bearing down on the experience. Hence, the Beatles are prefered, Mozart is prefered on a Theta using Nordost cables on Coincident Triumph speakers. The reality of this HOBBY is presicely that it is a confluence of all those biases and preferrences, wants and whims. Applying the science of DBT to such a hobby aims to deny those perceptual biases and experiential uniqueness that define what an individual person is in a free society. It aims to reduce the hobby to its least common denominator of zip cords and $300 receivers as if to ask why go any farther? It aims to impose its statistical probabilities on a purely subjective endeavor to comfort those who couldn't afford while relishing the implication that those who do don't use logicical thinking. As if to say, you have to be logical to enjoy in this hobby.

While a scientifically correct DBT will statistically tell you that a NORDOST and a ZIP cord has a HIGH STATISTICAL PROBABILITY of sounding the same, the uncontestible, unprovable fact remains that a hobbyst HEARD a difference when he shifted from ZIP to NORDOST. IS he right in claiming so? YUP. IT IS RIGHT FOR HIM IN HIS HOBBY. Because he is now enjoying HIS hobby more than he ever did when he was using just a ZIP. It gave him more enjoyment. And that the entire point of this luxurious hobby. Crazy? Delusional? Foolish? Maybe. But who says you have to be SANE, realistic and correct in enjoying a luxury? Why should anyone who can't afford a NORDOST and try it for himself question one who bought one, hooked it up and HEARD a difference? What right has anyone to question him with only a mere STATISTICAL PROBABILITY in his arsenal? By what crusading right has he to foist a mere STATISTICAL probability as the ONLY truth in this hobby? By doing so, you are imposing an opinion on another. Claiming that your statitical probability is the truth is as much an opinion as another claiming personal experiential authority.

I've never doubted the validity of DBT. It is as valid as any methodical exercise that yields STATISTICAL PROBABILITIES. IT has its place in the scientific AUDIO community. In my earlier post, I said I am NOT entirely convinced about its relevance in this hobby. So far, no response ever came close to convincing me that it is. It probably really isn't. Would knowing that all you need is zip cord and a $300 receiver contribute to your personal enjoynment of listening in the HOBBY???? What VALUE does a DBT have in this hobby? What's the point pursuing this hobby if it can end with a zip cord and a $300 receiver? Will knowing that a Corolla and a Camargue both deliver you to the same destination have any bearing on your CHOICE if you WANT and can afford a Camargue??

 

[JoeE SP9]

av phile, I am sure you are having fun. You have very eloquently stated what I have always suggested. This is a hobby. You are supposed to be having fun. Those whose answer to everything is DBT are kind of like the little kids who walk up and down the beach and stomp on everyones sandcastle. They don't want anyone else to be happy. Personally I like Movado's more than Rolex's. Rolex's always make me think of bling bling which I take to mean more money than taste. One of my friends owns a white M3 and I like it. However, it has too many seats for me. I do feel comfortable riding with him and don't berate his choice of auto.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

I certainly do not disagree that this is a hobby, and has a good deal of luxe associated with it. It does depend on the availability of some discretionary income. And that it is all too easy to take it way too seriously!

However the main problem I have (and others of my ilk share) is when nonscientific claims are made to convince me that I need to have a piece of equipment (often at considerable expense) because of its manifest sonic superiority, and that I have "tin ears" or am a "soulless techie" if I dare to disagree on scientific grounds.

It is that aspect of the High End that ticks some of us off! It is, to put it bluntly, mere snobbery gussied up with pseudoscience and sophistry.

Further, I think that things like "musicality" and "emotional involvment" are the province of composers and musicians, not our gear or those who make it. Many who take a highly subjective stance to our hobby seem to be confused on that point.

Basically, my take on audio gear is simple: it should be as much as possible a transparent window to the original recording. In technical terms, the output signal should match the input signal as closely as possible. Only then can it be as faithful as possible to the original intent of the artists whose music we treasure. (And if it sounds like crap, it's not the gears' fault!) Nearly all modern purely electronic gear passes this test, regardless of price. Once upon a time, that was not the case. Speakers and other transducers, so far, do not. Features, build quality, ergonomics, and the intangibles that add up to "luxury" are what a rational person pays the extra money for. Where this passes into the realm of the obscenely self-indulgent is up to the individual!

Further, there is no unmeasurable or unknown "x factor" that accounts for audible differences. Once upon a time in the early days of hi-fi, measurement equipment and protocols were indeed inadequate to the task of tracking down aubible differences, but that is no longer the case.

So, if you (not "you" specifically AV_phile or anyone else here but "y'all" in general) want and can afford to spend five figures for a Levinson amp, more power (pun?) to you. Just do not try to tell me that you can hear a difference, beyond a shadow of a doubt, from my Adcom; or that I am somehow inadequate or petty if I disagree. And if you are also trying to convince me to spend my money thus, skepticism is the only prudent and rational stance...even if I finally say, "oh, what the hell, it looks cool and it's only money!"

(At my income level such a scenario is unlikely! )

 

[mtrycrafts]

This is a hobby. You are supposed to be having fun.


Are you suggesting I am not having fun? Or Rob and the rest of the folks? How do you know this?

Those whose answer to everything is DBT are kind of like the little kids who walk up and down the beach and stomp on everyones sandcastle.

Is it really? Are you that sure? Or, perhaps we step on a castle that is claimed to be immune from everything real? Or is claimed indestructable? It would be better if the analogy has something in common with the two points you are trying to compare?

They don't want anyone else to be happy.

Again, are you sure? How do you know this?

Personally I like Movado's more than Rolex's.

But is that the same kind of expression of preferences posted about audio? Or, at times, testable claims are made, such as on of those watches are more accurate or resistant to shock and destruction as was claimed for the Timax and demosntrated?


One of my friends owns a white M3 and I like it. However, it has too many seats for me. I do feel comfortable riding with him and don't berate his choice of auto.

I am sure I may like it too, especially if it was gifted to me

I am also sure that you will not see a post berate ones preferences or choices void of testable claims, you think?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Further, I think that things like "musicality" and "emotional involvment" are the province of composers and musicians, not our gear or those who make it. Many who take a highly subjective stance to our hobby seem to be confused on that point.

This is right on point I need to remember for future use and get permission after the facts for theft and use

 

[WmAx]

Basically, my take on audio gear is simple: it should be as much as possible a transparent window to the original recording. In technical terms, the output signal should match the input signal as closely as possible. Only then can it be as faithful as possible to the original intent of the artists whose music we treasure. (And if it sounds like crap, it's not the gears' fault!)

Unfortunately, most recordings seem to be anything but accurate. I can not stand to listen to most recordings through a deadly accurate speaker. While such a system sounds superb with recordings made with linear(flat response) omni microphones in farfiled positions; the sound on most commercial recordings is intollerable(too my ears) for long listening sessions. Mind you, I like a wide range of music including opera, orchestral, pop, rock ,etc. Obviously, if I only listened to opera/classical genre, it would be easier to find accurate recordings thus enjoy a linear transducer set up for playback.

-Chris

 

[Yamahaluver]

Chris, I concur with you fully having lived through the nightmare myself, I bought the Yamaha NS-1000x in the early 80s and that era was the beginning of the so-called digital era, as is, the recordings were mostly real poorly made digital transfers or hurried DDD production, they were atrocious to say the least, especially when the Yamaha D/A on my CDP as well as the super accurate NS-1000 and M-80 amp really liked to highlight all the warts accurately.

 

[cornelius]

Hey Chris, what deadly accurate speakers were you listening on? They sound ruthless!!

Most monitors used in recording/mixing are not up to the task, hence the wonky mixes.

n

 

[WmAx]

I have no clue of average monitors used in studios. I know that some will use accurate devices such as from Dunlavy Labs or B&W's monitor lines(Like N801/N802). But this seems irrelevant, since it is standard to change the mix/eq to allow the music to sound good on junk speakers such as car stereos or boomboxes. Add to that the horrid levels of dynamc compression, and you get super crap.

For a 'cheap' accurate device, get a Sony MDR-7506 headphone set. These are very accurate sound. I bought these on recommendatino by John Dunlavy. I performed a test very similar to th eone he described(using flat response omnipolar instrumentatin mics, standing at same distance from the live source as mics and comparing tonality to live source vs. headphone) , and indeed it is a deadly accurate headphone(and reminds me of the hi end B&W and Dunlavy speakers sound -- however innacurate such a time delayed experience may be -- but remember I am only conveying a general feeling, not anything specific) . But this headphone(just like the afformentinoed speakers-which were listened too in wall treated rooms btw -- this is critical) sound slightly thin/bright/harsh/lifeless(take those subjective comments as you will) on most commercial recordings too my ears.

-Chris

Hey Chris, what deadly accurate speakers were you listening on? They sound ruthless!!

Most monitors used in recording/mixing are not up to the task, hence the wonky mixes.

n

 

[Rob Babcock]

Unfortunately, most recordings seem to be anything but accurate. I can not stand to listen to most recordings through a deadly accurate speaker. While such a system sounds superb with recordings made with linear(flat response) omni microphones in farfiled positions; the sound on most commercial recordings is intollerable(too my ears) for long listening sessions. Mind you, I like a wide range of music including opera, orchestral, pop, rock ,etc. Obviously, if I only listened to opera/classical genre, it would be easier to find accurate recordings thus enjoy a linear transducer set up for playback.

-Chris

That opens a whole 'nuther can of worms, Chris. Do we want music with great taste or music that tastes great? As a younger man, I wanted the unvarnished truth. As I get older...well, that's still what I want, but I can at least understand the guys that want a euphonically colored, prettified version of the sound.

 

[cornelius]

Chris, I know what you mean about squashing the music in the end. I've worked on some projects where we remaster or remix and leave in the low end. If someone can't handle it, then too bad for them!

Thanks for the tip on the headphones, I really like Dunlavy speakers, so I'll try the phones. I've been using Utlrasones, which are pretty nice, but I'm not sure how accurate they are.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

...but I can at least understand the guys that want a euphonically colored, prettified version of the sound.

Ah, the recordings. Another can of worms indeed! I have sometimes wondered if the preference for "euphonic" sound, especially the tube and vinyl revivals, was partly a reaction to bad early (and current) digital recordings. I know one thing that drives me up a wall in pop recordings is the overly bright, "metallic" sound of supposedly acoustic piano (though I know many use electronic grand pianos). Always makes me dive for the treble tone control. And even with good recordings digital (as WmAx and Yamahalover point out) can be ruthlessly revealing of any flaw in the recording/playback chain, especially in combination with accurate playback equipment.

It sometimes seems to me that the most subjectively-oriented 'philes listen mostly to pop and rock - maybe they're unknowingly compensating for bad recordings?

And as Rob's post implies, maybe age has something to do with it. I know aural fatigue sets in earlier for me than it used to with loud/harsh sound. I think Doug Self's "niceness knob" idea might have merit sometimes! But then, many subjective, euphonic tube-and-vinyl 'philes already reject things like tone controls because they "degrade the sound"...

Still, it's worth remembering that sometimes the performer/composer might want to make your ears bleed a little -- like when Mahler has doubled winds or trumpets squealing dissonantly away at the top of their registers. Not to mention any number of great rock guitarists who like to drill a hole in your forehead now and then just for fun.

Linkwitz is another one who suggests using those Sony headphones (among others) as reference devices to evaluate speakers. Gotta get one.

 

[WmAx]

Linkwitz is another one who suggests using those Sony headphones (among others) as reference devices to evaluate speakers. Gotta get one.

Where did Linkwitz suggest the MDR-7506? I've only noticed Linkwitz recommending in-ear phones. He recommended the Sony MDR-EX71 as wall as two other brand/models(though one of them was made with provision of adding a corrective filter circuit). But I personally can not stand things in my ears.

BTW, here is one of the instances of Dunlavy's comparison details of the MDR-7506:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Dunlavy+Audio+Labs+7506&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=6mts8f$507@jamesv.warren.mentorg.com&rnum=4


-Chris

 

[cornelius]

I also think the tube revival is possibly due to poor CD mastering. Although not a tube amp, when Arcam discontinued my old Alpha 8 amplifier, they announced that they "compensated" the design to accomodate bright CD recordings.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

Where did Linkwitz suggest the MDR-7506? I've only noticed Linkwitz recommending in-ear phones. He recommended the Sony MDR-EX71...

Oops. Brain fart. Didn't go back to Linkwitz site to fact check. Hey, I got the Sony part right!

Good link too, thanks.

And I see the MDR-7506 can be had for around $100...