The “Sound” of receivers…

[mtrycrafts]

Please don't tell me that objectivists argue that CD players all sound the same! I swear, upgrading my CD transport was huge - even bigger than upgrading my DAC!

Here we go again, ALL sound the same?

Why would a $80RCA 5 disc player not be identified form ones costing $1000s, in a DBT? Published in T$$ a while back.

CD players can be designed euphonic to please some segment of the audiophile community, not hard to do.
The rest are transparent

DAC? Waste of good money. Dime a dozzen for the chips. Commodity product, not rocket science today, or for a while now.

Anything else you'd be curious about?

 

[gregz]

Wow, this thread has become quite a row! Here's my 2 cents:

Case 1
I KNOW car audio is often not at the same level as home audio, but a couple of years ago I switched out a Cobalt amplifier for a Kenwood amplifier and heard an improvement in the trebble. When I hooked both amplifiers (both were regular Class AB amps) to my Oscilloscope, I could see zero crossover distortion at the highest sine wave frequencies passing through the Cobalt amp, while the Kenwood was smooth. I deduced that the Cobalt's cheaply implemented op-amp input stage was the culprit, but never persued it any further.

Case 2
When shopping for receivers, I compared a 40Wx2 Onkyo receiver to several lower end 100Wx2 mainstream receivers. At low volumes, they sounded the same, but when the volume was raised, the Onkyo kept its dynamic range and impact while the cheapies began to compress and distort the peaks.

Case 2 is just a simple example of how different amps respond outside of their power rating.

However, Case 1 was an example of a modern amplifier that was not designed well. While the Kenwood amp had a discrete BJT input stage, the Cobalt took the low road with a few op-amps that probably saved a few pennies. The result was measurable distortion at high frequencies at even low power.

I can think of all sorts of places in a circuit that I could scrimp and save a few dimes if I were given the mandate in designing a low end receiver. Do I use a $4.50 Burr Brown op amp here, or a .97 cent generic LF741? Do I buy precision resistors to ensure a proper threshold, or do I design the circuit to withstand 10% resistors at the cost of slight overshoot? Hey, how about if I lower my output impedance to boost my output power. Who needs linearity for reactive speakers... The possibilities are endless, even in a world where the technology to build a grade A circuit cheaply is prevalent.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

Please don't tell me that objectivists argue that CD players all sound the same! I swear, upgrading my CD transport was huge - even bigger than upgrading my DAC!

'Fraid so! OK, not all. But, bits is bits, as long as the component measures flat and has distortion and noise below the threshold of audibility. This goes for all purely electronic signal paths whether analog or digital; preamps, CDPs, amps, and DACs will be transparent and audibly indistinguishable if they measure the same, or at least if the errors/differences are miniscule and below audibility. I don't know if it's been done but I bet you could ABX a $60 "Discman"-type player and a kilobuck high-end unit (both plugged into a reference system) and get a null (no difference) result. Again, some units like Jolidas with tube output stages and other "high-end" stuff with deliberately "euphonic" frequency response and distortion errors will both measure and sound different.

(A sidebar about my Discman scenario: I once read, on a certain high-end speaker forum, a post from a chap whose high-end CDP was on the fritz so he indeed plugged a portable into his system temporarily. He reported that it "sounded surprisingly good".)

And most of the stuff you read in the audiophile press about jitter affecting the sound is ignorant BS.

There! That's enough to start a whole 'nother thread of controversy and strife!

P.S. I can report that there is indeed an audible difference between my 80's vintage Pioneer CD changer and my "high-end-ish" Arcam Alpha 8 CDP in a certain very specific situation. One particular CD - a legitimately purchased original, not a copy - exhibits gross distortion due to some sort of error on the Arcam, but the Pioneer plays it without complaint. As does the OEM in-dash CD changer in my Subaru!

P.P.S. Good stuff, Gregz. As we see from your examples, audible differences were due to objectively measurable differences; in at least one case due to shortcomings in design. Note too that Gregz did not go on about ephemera like "air" and "detail" but zeroed in on a phenomenon that is both measureable and audible: compression on peaks. Note: "bjt" means "bipolar junction transistor" which is used in "discrete" circuit designs -- as opposed to other semiconductors like MOSFETs or integrated components like opamps. Nothing wrong with a good opamp or MOSFET used properly, of course. (As a neophyte electronics DIYer I just found this out recently so I have to show off my new learnin'!)

 

[Unregistered]

this is more of a question, how many speakers are at a rock concert, eg one held in a stadium that would be used for the NHL hockey like the acc, or staples center? how many watts of power do the speakers put out and how loud is it db.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

this is more of a question, how many speakers are at a rock concert, eg one held in a stadium that would be used for the NHL hockey like the acc, or staples center? how many watts of power do the speakers put out and how loud is it db.

You might want to post this as a new thread. However, my quick answer to the questions is, "a lot!"

 

[miklorsmith]

Hmmm. . .I gather the answer to my proposed test of my cheapie stuff vs. the expensive stuff goes something like this:

"Your observations are meaningless without supporting data" and

"We have set the bar for establishing data beyond your capabilities", ergo

"Please do not participate in this discussion further".

Not to be dissuaded, I have a new test that may satisfy my own curiosity. I will test differences between CD's, by myself, blind. I'll shuffle and insert, revealing to myself the CD's identity upon removal. Of course, I'm biased, so I might lie. This might implicate mastering/production techniques more than downstream electronics. However, If I can tell the difference between an original CD and a copy, I ain't buyin' y'all's story about the rest of it. Bits is bits, right?

Oh yeah, I'll use the same piece of music, just to be fair.

 

[mtrycrafts]

[ b]Hmmm. . .I gather the answer to my proposed test of my cheapie stuff vs. the expensive stuff goes something like this:

"Your observations are meaningless without supporting data" and

"We have set the bar for establishing data beyond your capabilities", ergo

"Please do not participate in this discussion further".[/b]

Not at all. But, you do a test and report the results. Then we question it further and on it goes endlessly.
You suggestion was performed with a geek vs a hi end setup and published. Nothing wrong with duplicationg it, just that you need to do it in some fasion of rigor and report it its results statistically, etc. If it resembles anything you did sighted in the past, you are duplicating flaws.

Not to be dissuaded, I have a new test that may satisfy my own curiosity. I will test differences between CD's, by myself, blind. I'll shuffle and insert, revealing to myself the CD's identity upon removal. Of course, I'm biased, so I might lie. This might implicate mastering/production techniques more than downstream electronics. However, If I can tell the difference between an original CD and a copy, I ain't buyin' y'all's story about the rest of it. Bits is bits, right?

Bits are bits if they are the same bits. Not all copies are duplicated in an identical fassion.

It is difficult to do a blind test all by yourself, no matter when you look at the disc title.

Oh yeah, I'll use the same piece of music, just to be fair.


Nah, you don't need to go to that trouble

 

[warnerwh]

In about 89 Stereophile did some tests with I believe VTL monoblock tube amps compared to an Adcom 555. This was done using B&K 801's if I remember right but I'm not going to look for the issue even though I saved it. Results showed that nobody could tell any differences although they tried to skew it that way somewhat. They did another test as they weren't pleased with the results of the first test which was at a show. I don't have that other issue for the second test but it did show that a couple of people could tell the difference between the tube amps and the Adcom. Harry Pearson said he could tell when the brushes hit the cymbals and scored about 90%. Nobody else I think did as well and it was a very well controlled test. The cost of the Adcom 555 was about 800 bucks then, the VTL Monoblocks: 6 grand a pair. I think I'd opt for 5,000 dollar better speakers myself.

 

[mtrycrafts]

In about 89 Stereophile did some tests with I believe VTL monoblock tube amps compared to an Adcom 555. This was done using B&K 801's if I remember right but I'm not going to look for the issue even though I saved it. Results showed that nobody could tell any differences although they tried to skew it that way somewhat. They did another test as they weren't pleased with the results of the first test which was at a show. I don't have that other issue for the second test but it did show that a couple of people could tell the difference between the tube amps and the Adcom. Harry Pearson said he could tell when the brushes hit the cymbals and scored about 90%. Nobody else I think did as well and it was a very well controlled test. The cost of the Adcom 555 was about 800 bucks then, the VTL Monoblocks: 6 grand a pair. I think I'd opt for 5,000 dollar better speakers myself.

This is recapped in The Proceeding of the AES 8th International Conference, 1990, page 117. The second test in 1989 occurred afte rthe problems with the first was disclosed. The secnd had even more.
The second test was in Nov 1989, Adcom and VTL amps. Frequency response matching could not be verified, however, but level was matched. Looks like at one frequency perhaps?

 

[miklorsmith]

Not at all. But, you do a test and report the results. Then we question it further and on it goes endlessly.

That's funny. True self-recognition is a rare virtue.

I realize I'm trimming around the edges here, but an observation:

Walker's SST is a contact enhancer with many glowing reviews. Being the gullible dork I am, I bought some. I have applied it now to my own system and 3 others. In every case, I hear the same types of benefits. Two of my friends are electronics engineers and were very skeptical. The third "customer" was also doubtful.

They all, independently, had the same observations as me. Vocals become more intelligible and incisive. Bass is not increased but becomes further defined. Cymbals sound more metallic.

I do not see any reasonable way to A/B this and I'm not going to try. I'm not going to discount it either, though others may. It is illogical to assume anything untestable (or untested) is valueless.

On these things, I must trust my ears. It is completely possible that some goo rubbed on the outsides of your cables influences the sound, while not the design and construction of the hundreds of parts inside. My experience indicates the first statement is true, which makes the second very difficult to swallow.

Wander down to your local hi-fi shop. Have 'em plug in some spendy stuff. If everything is equally transparent, why does the shop stuff sound so good? In most arenas, when testing always fails the test is scrutinized, not the subjects.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

Wander down to your local hi-fi shop. Have 'em plug in some spendy stuff. If everything is equally transparent, why does the shop stuff sound so good?

FWIW: A couple of years ago when I decided to "re-enter" this hobby and was still sorting out all this objective/subjective stuff I did just that. Listened to some AR tube amps, Theta CDPs, Kimber and other cables, Vandersteen speakers (very nice) and Maggies (main reason I went there; they were also nice, but had some quirks IMO), some massive turntable with a rosewood cartridge, and other high-end gear. Spent a good couple of hours with the friendly and patient owner, using both my program material and his. But I didn't hear anything that seemed particularly revealatory vs. my current motley collection of DIY speakers, generic cables, and old/secondhand electronics.

Chacun à son goût.

 

[Mudcat]

Walker's SST is a contact enhancer with many glowing reviews.

Mostly from AA, and we know what they're like.

And if you bought into this BS, then

Being the gullible dork I am,

may be high praise.

I bought some.

Have you thought of just keeping your stuff clean?

Vocals become more intelligible and incisive. Bass is not increased but becomes further defined. Cymbals sound more metallic.

I will not ask you to even try and quantify these statements. But were you listening on a twenty year Audiovox Boombox?

I'm not going to discount it either, ..

You should. Just removing and reinserting plugs does wonders too.

 

[toquemon]

Well, i found something that may be interesting for you folks. Do you want your solid state amp to sound like a tube amp?.
read this:
http://www.margules.com.mx/index_margules.htm
Go to the "reviews" tab and look for the ADE24. This little thing was mentioned in Stereophile as a "killer" product, this is a DAC converter and i imagine that this device adds what Rip Van Woofer and Mtrycrafts called "audiophile distortion". This is to proove that the "audiophile" tastes are added distortion, non lineal frequency response, non accurate or flat sound reproduction, well "colored" sound reproduction in resume.

 

[miklorsmith]

Alright. Previous, nonconstructive statements aside, we have reached impasse. For those that think nothing you do makes any difference, great. Me? I'm gonna keep trying to get better.

Maybe it's more of a question of worldview than hi-fi. I'm out.

 

[mtrycrafts]

This little thing was mentioned in Stereophile as a "killer" product, this is a DAC converter and i imagine that this device adds what Rip Van Woofer and Mtrycrafts called "audiophile distortion". This is to proove that the "audiophile" tastes are added distortion, non lineal frequency response, non accurate or flat sound reproduction, well "colored" sound reproduction in resume.

I wonder who is part of all the speaker listening panels used by Harman and NRC of Canada, that come to a rather interesting conclusion what they like in a speaker, when their biases are controlled for?
Perhaps the audiophiles are just kidding themselves what they really like or prefer?

 

[mtrycrafts]

[b
I realize I'm trimming around the edges here, but an observation:

Walker's SST is a contact enhancer with many glowing reviews. Being the gullible dork I am, I bought some. I have applied it now to my own system and 3 others. In every case, I hear the same types of benefits. Two of my friends are electronics engineers and were very skeptical. The third "customer" was also doubtful. [/b]

If you really want to know if it works, or does what is claimed, or, reliability of anyones observation, those observations need to be tested and since we are testing a human sense, it needs to be under bias controlled conditions. No, ifs, ands or buts about it.

Do you know about all the glowing comments Joh Edwards, Sylvia Brown, James VanPraagh receives? Would that make their performances legitimate psychics, able to talk to the dead?
There are glowing reviews about anything in the consumer marketplace. So everything is legitimate?

They all, independently, had the same observations as me.

Of course. So do all the customers of the above mentioned psychics. How about all the ones who don't?

Vocals become more intelligible and incisive. Bass is not increased but becomes further defined. Cymbals sound more metallic.

All these are testable under DBT comparisons. Or not, as the contact surfaces may be cleaned when unplugged and replugged, if the claim is that it cleans the contacts more. But, if there are other magical properties that is claimed, then it can be tested.

I do not see any reasonable way to A/B this and I'm not going to try. I'm not going to discount it either, though others may. It is illogical to assume anything untestable (or untested) is valueless.

Well, if it is untestable, then what is there to compare it to?

Actually, one can do a test rather easy, maybe, but it may need many pairs of the same cable, and two input output source between a pre/power amp. You can leave the original IC in one input and swap a treated or untreated cable into another input/output and switch between the two. Not simple but doable.
The only thing there to this is the issue of corrosion on the plugs, nothing more, nothing less. and, the corrosion is a small resitance. Hardly capable of the magical effect.

On these things, I must trust my ears.

No, that is the problem. You ears are fallable, so easilly at that.

It is completely possible that some goo rubbed on the outsides of your cables influences the sound, while not the design and construction of the hundreds of parts inside.

I'd like to see research data on that, not speculations.
You may remember the Bell family and their rainbow foil doing all sorts of magic?



Wander down to your local hi-fi shop. Have 'em plug in some spendy stuff. If everything is equally transparent, why does the shop stuff sound so good? .

The shop carries all these for folks like yourself. Simple. They would go out of business if all shoppers were like many here, skeptial and objective buyers.

In most arenas, when testing always fails the test is scrutinized, not the subjects

Well, we are scrutinizing your test, are we not? Was it bias controlled? Is it statistically significant?

 

[toquemon]

Mtrycrafts:
I've heard a lot of "audiophiles" who claim that an equipment sounds accurate, open, pristine, forward, bla, bla, bla; and then this equipment, when objectively (how do i spell this?) measured, turns to be the oposite of the adjectives above. And then, when an "audiophile" says that an equipment is "harsh", bla, bla, bla it results to be a low distortion, flat frequency response, low noise good piece of gear. So, i don't undestand this "audiophile" criteria. I'm tempted to think that these people are happier spending ridiculous amounts of money than listening to music.

 

[Karp]

Receivers do sound different from each other "out of the box". Anyone with a level meter can verify that with test tones. There will be differences in db levels at any given frequency between different receivers. Many of these variances are most likely designed into the receiver on purpose to give it a distinctive sound, but that is beside the point.

Do two high-quality receivers sound different after level matching and EQ'ing them to the 'nth degree? Probably not enough that anyone could actually tell the difference.

My question is, how many of you have the equipment and knowledge to be able to level match and EQ them to the 'nth degree? I certainly don't, so they will sound different to me.

Even if the amplifier sections are identical, would there also not be differences such as different DAC's/ADC's interpreting data slightly different from each other, and many other small variances due to different components? I'm not saying that I could actually tell the difference unless one of the receivers is very poorly designed or flawed in some way, but my point is that they are different out of the box.

When shopping for a receiver, neither I nor the salesman has the time or the patience to perfectly level match (let alone EQ) the receivers I am auditioning. Heck, I got funny looks when I whipped out my RS meter at Tweeters, but I at least leveled the receivers within a db or so of each other when checking them out. I did hear differences between receivers while using the same speakers while running the receivers in "pure" mode.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Mtrycrafts:
I've heard a lot of "audiophiles" who claim that an equipment sounds accurate, open, pristine, forward, bla, bla, bla; and then this equipment, when objectively (how do i spell this?) measured, turns to be the oposite of the adjectives above. And then, when an "audiophile" says that an equipment is "harsh", bla, bla, bla it results to be a low distortion, flat frequency response, low noise good piece of gear. So, i don't undestand this "audiophile" criteria. I'm tempted to think that these people are happier spending ridiculous amounts of money than listening to music.

Audiophiles base their adjectives on biases, not objective evaluations

I think you are right about the quantity spent too

 

[mtrycrafts]

Receivers do sound different from each other "out of the box".

Not sure what you mean, 'out of the box.' Am I tho think that the performance improve after it has been out of the box for a long time?



Anyone with a level meter can verify that with test tones.


How so? How accurate you think a level metter, an spl metter is? .2dB spl?


There will be differences in db levels at any given frequency between different receivers.

The frequency response spec will so reflect this. I have not seen this with most receivers, ruler flat I have.

What you may see, if you measure the spl from the speaker, is the speaker4's frequency resonse, no?


Many of these variances are most likely designed into the receiver on purpose to give it a distinctive sound, but that is beside the point.

Actually, if euphonics are designed into it, then it is not besides the point but is the point. To design componets with frequency response that is all over the place in its entire band, like a speaker, is not easy. It is easy to roll off one end or both, in a uniform manner, but in the middle bands and in many locations is not.

Do two high-quality receivers sound different after level matching and EQ'ing them to the 'nth degree? Probably not enough that anyone could actually tell the difference.

Very few need EQing to level match at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz, the usual frequency checked for level matching. Most are as the DBT testing reflect with level matching at 1kHz only.

My question is, how many of you have the equipment and knowledge to be able to level match and EQ them to the 'nth degree? I certainly don't, so they will sound different to me.

DBt of the past didn't require all this. It was the exception than the rule.


Even if the amplifier sections are identical, would there also not be differences such as different DAC's/ADC's interpreting data slightly different from each other, and many other small variances due to different components?

But, in a DBT, you compare the final output, not each op amp, dac, etc.

So far, your contention is not supported by facts.

I'm not saying that I could actually tell the difference unless one of the receivers is very poorly designed or flawed in some way, but my point is that they are different out of the box.

OK, They do measure different. I bet even the same model in different location on the assembly line. Modern technology is so good at measureing that we can measure so far below thresholds of hearing that it is unreal. That is why they measure different but not audibley so.



When shopping for a receiver, neither I nor the salesman has the time or the patience to perfectly level match (let alone EQ) the receivers I am auditioning.

Oh, you don't have to EQ. Level matching even rudimentary manner with a test tone and spl metter would do wonders in your comparison. Maybe too much so?



Heck, I got funny looks when I whipped out my RS meter at Tweeters, but I at least leveled the receivers within a db or so of each other when checking them out. I did hear differences between receivers while using the same speakers while running the receivers in "pure" mode.

Withinf a dB or so, who know how much or so, no wonder. Not to mention it was most likely biased?

Oh, why would the funny looks matter? Their loss not knowing.