what camp are you in?

[mtrycrafts]

If you disbelieve what your own ears are telling you because there arent published db abx tests proving your findings, you are doing yourself a disservice.

Actually, this is not correct. Ones senses are very easy to fool. You only have to look at a pipe being placed in a bucket of water; does that pipe really bends? Like your eyes, your ears and brains that translate the signals are not immune to false perceptions.

Perception is just that. It may not be reality whereas a DBT is bias controlled and a quantum leap closer to reality. I wonder why DBT is used in science?

 

[mtrycrafts]

So a Emerson receiver and a Denon reciever wont make a cd sound any different?

Are we really talking about an Emeson here, or would that comparison make for a better case? Is that a well designed audio component, comparable to the Denon???
No, no one is saying that ALL components sound the same. Some people only have faulty perception about reading what is being written and come up with all sorts of translations.

 

[mtrycrafts]

.....Mtry, I've got great news....you can wear all the blindfolds you wish as you consider purchases for yourself.....

Naw, that is not news to me. LOL

But thanks for your encouragement.

 

[shokhead]

Are we really talking about an Emeson here, or would that comparison make for a better case? Is that a well designed audio component, comparable to the Denon???
No, no one is saying that ALL components sound the same. Some people only have faulty perception about reading what is being written and come up with all sorts of translations.

WmAx said it wouldnt matter so why spend all this money on a nice receiver when i could spend 200 bucks on an emerson and my cd's will sound the same as my $800 Denon. Isnt that what he's saying? BTW,i think he's full of crap but thats just me.

 

[Tomorrow]

People have measurable qualities and even predictable tendencies. You can have size, shape, weight, color, voice patterns, number of teeth, talent levels, IQ, education, % of fat, # of smiles/hour, yadayada...even our biases are measureable. Just take a look at how biased we are about ...oh...our selection of friends and enemies as an example. Are all of us different in our measurements? Yes? Maybe? No?

A/V equipment...go look at the measurements. That'll tell you how it sounds. NOT! (Why waste time on reviews?) As with people, one cannot account for ALL variables in design A and say it will sound equivalent to a different design B because a limited number of tests say so. More saliently, go tell a deaf person how something sounds. Or tell a blind person about a sunset. There is no translation. None. Audio is experienced by one of our senses...hearing. You can say all you want about correctly designed equipment and blind tests and TDH and.... A person simply must hear an audio signal to process oneself onto what is heard. It is an interaction. We are full of biases and I wouldn't have it any other way. Our senses are all unique. We apply our biases in this matter and always will. (For myself...I LIKE a lot of distortion on some sounds! )

And oh, by the way, marketing science has taken all this into account when they try to pry your hard-earned money from you.


Good cheer.

 

[WmAx]

WmAx said it wouldnt matter so why spend all this money on a nice receiver when i could spend 200 bucks on an emerson and my cd's will sound the same as my $800 Denon. Isnt that what he's saying?

No. Did you read only what you wanted to read in my reply?

BTW,i think he's full of crap but thats just me.

Please explain to me exactly what it is that makes you think that I am "full of crap".

-Chris

 

[rollinrocker]

When we use double blind testing, are we not still at the mercy of the unintended bias and subjective listening traits of those involved in the test?
Even so, at least we ARE listening and not depending strictly on measurements, so i really would not have an issue with that. Like i stated at the start of this thread, listening is where i place the bulk of my trust.

 

[mtrycrafts]

When we use double blind testing, are we not still at the mercy of the unintended bias and subjective listening traits of those involved in the test?

The bias is still there but when you compare two components DBT, you will be basing your evaluation or judgements on strictly the sound without other clues such as a visual clue of which unit is in play. And, such evaluations involve multiple such evaluations to make sure to do a statistically significant comparison. On one trial, you would still be getting a pure guess 50% event But, if on the next evaluation when it so happens it is the same component and your evaluation is not as good or down right terrible, what would that say? Now if you can give it a difference or other grade consistently to the same unit, now you have something. If not, then it would show that there is nothing there; flip a coin unless other factors are important to someone.


Even so, at least we ARE listening and not depending strictly on measurements, so i really would not have an issue with that. Like i stated at the start of this thread, listening is where i place the bulk of my trust.

But, you see, accumulated data shows that it will not make a difference comparing. Unless there are other factors not based in sound that will make the difference.

 

[mtrycrafts]

A/V equipment...go look at the measurements. That'll tell you how it sounds. NOT!

Of course it will. This has been demonstrated time after time. Modern components are transparent, period.


(Why waste time on reviews?) As with people, one cannot account for ALL variables in design A and say it will sound equivalent to a different design B because a limited number of tests say so.

That just shows you that you may not understand the limits of human hearing, the thresholds of detection the fallibility of perceptions and the state of the designs. It doesn't matter if they measure well, PERIOD.

Audio is experienced by one of our senses...hearing.

OK.

You can say all you want about correctly designed equipment and blind tests and TDH and.... A person simply must hear an audio signal to process oneself onto what is heard. It is an interaction. We are full of biases and I wouldn't have it any other way. Our senses are all unique. We apply our biases in this matter and always will. (For myself...I LIKE a lot of distortion on some sounds! )
Good cheer.

Oh, if you want something because you like it, there is nothing to discuss, is there? But when people claim this or that and we can measure it and test for it, then we have a discussion what is real or imagination.

 

[Tomorrow]

Of course it will. This has been demonstrated time after time. Modern components are transparent, period..

Negative. This is a false statement and based upon a poor assumption.

[b
That just shows you that you may not understand the limits of human hearing, the thresholds of detection the fallibility of perceptions and the state of the designs. It doesn't matter if they measure well, PERIOD.
.

You really don't know what is being said here, do you? Hearing thresholds have nothing to do with what I said. I said and repeat...One canNOT perform a series of tests that account for ALL the variables affecting the audio performance of a piece of electronics and its interaction with a human.

[b Oh, if you want something because you like it, there is nothing to discuss, is there? But when people claim this or that and we can measure it and test for it, then we have a discussion what is real or imagination.

Are you REALLY saying that if it can't be measured or tested we can't talk about it? Eh?! I'll tell you what mtry, I'm so very glad I can tell my friends about my love for them, even if it cannot be measured. Is it real or imagined? And you know what else? I can make any claim about the warm or compressed sound of some speaker and you can disagree (because of our 'personal auditory' biases)...EVEN WHEN THE MEASUREMENTS SAY THEY SHOULD SOUND ALIKE. Jeez, what do you do THEN, mtry?

Good cheer.

 

[PENG]

WmAx said it wouldnt matter so why spend all this money on a nice receiver when i could spend 200 bucks on an emerson and my cd's will sound the same as my $800 Denon. Isnt that what he's saying? BTW,i think he's full of crap but thats just me.

shokhead, unless I am missing something, Chris was not talking about a 200 bucks emerson. I thought he was referring to an upgrade from a Yamaha receiver to a Marantz pre/pro and a B&K amp that Rollingrocker mentioned.

I like separates myself but I could even agree with Chris if the Yamaha Rollingrocker referred to is a model not lower than say, a RX-V1500, and under the conditions that he talked about. Coming from you I am surprised to see those harsh words used on someone whose opinions I value, whether I agree with him or not. May be its just me.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Negative. This is a false statement and based upon a poor assumption.

You need top read some technical papers then, not marketing papers or some off base rags.

David Rich and Peter Aczel, 'Topological Analysis of Consumer Audio Electronics: Another Approach to Show that Modern Audio Electronics are Acoustically Transparent,' 99 AES Convention, 1995, Print #4053.

You really don't know what is being said here, do you? Hearing thresholds have nothing to do with what I said. I said and repeat...One canNOT perform a series of tests that account for ALL the variables affecting the audio performance of a piece of electronics and its interaction with a human.

Irrelevant. One can test whether or not you can differentiate between comparable components, PERIOD.


Are you REALLY saying that if it can't be measured or tested we can't talk about it? Eh?!

No, you are implying apparently, that what we hear cannot be measured. Poor assumptions on your part. Read some technical papers, lots of them as lots have been written.

I'll tell you what mtry, I'm so very glad I can tell my friends about my love for them, even if it cannot be measured.

Abstract concept and irrelevant to the discussion what you can and cannot differentiate between audio components.


Is it real or imagined? And you know what else? I can make any claim about the warm or compressed sound of some speaker and you can disagree (because of our 'personal auditory' biases)...EVEN WHEN THE MEASUREMENTS SAY THEY SHOULD SOUND ALIKE. Jeez, what do you do THEN, mtry?


We can test your hearing if you can really differentiate them, or just imagined. Rather simple, isn't it? Without testing your descriptions are meaningless outside of your personal reality.

 

[Tomorrow]

[bWe can test your hearing if you can really differentiate them, or just imagined. Rather simple, isn't it? Without testing your descriptions are meaningless outside of your personal reality.

Perhaps this will quell this dispute. Your last statement really is at the heart of where you and others diverge.

You see, unlike your statement, our take is that testing is useful only as it applies to our personal experience. Our experiences are certainly not nullified or made "meaningless" by the lack of testing. I'll try to say this again in another way. You and I have our own biases...do you agree? You and I hear things differently and appreciate different music, sounds, etc. Do you agree? Our hearing can test magnificently identical and we would still hear things differently...."Highs..can't stand them. ACK!" "Rock distortion...love it." Etc. That is the built-in bias or preference I'm referring to. And all the testing in the world will not tell whether a piece of electronic equipment will satisfy my bias, or your bias, or anyone's bias.

I clearly understand the need for a 'normalization' of parameters when building/testing equipment. It's a good thing. Sounds can be measured. One's 'experience' in hearing a thing cannot. But it can be described and is not "meaningless", as you have said.

But as a last poke at the technology...I'll say that two comparable pieces of audio gear will more likely sound alike than measure identically alike. Further, I'll wager that no two identical units off the same assembly line (same manufacturer, same model) measure alike. Each unit will be minutely unique in some (or many) facet(s). They will perform uniformly under some measurement parameters (+/-), but they will not be identical in output. Don't overly credit the application of the engineering with your speech about transparency. The engineering theory is perfect. The execution is not.

 

[MDS]

Yes, we each hear differently and yes it is important to listen when making purchasing decisions. However, the point that I believe is missed by those who steadfastly believe that they can hear differences and can gain valuable info by reading reviews of what others say they heard is that there are way too many variables for one to equate what he hears in his room with his equipment to a general conclusion that 'amps/receivers sound different'. Even more impossible is to draw a conclusion based on what you heard in a demo room as that environment will be WAY different than your own. When you get it home, it may not sound quite the way it did in the store.

There is a huge body of literature that shows rather conclusively that when those variables are removed to the greatest extent possible, it is not possible to reliably distinguish between comparably designed receivers. Out of the box they naturally differ wildly because the power, thd, gain, etc are different. That is precisely why the accepted method is to compare blind after carefully leveling all equipment under test to the same level - so that you are comparing apples to apples.

You can lead a horse to water...but you can't make him drink. Some people will never be convinced and that is ok. That's why companies get away with selling $3K receivers that sound no better than $500 receivers and people that know next to nothing about how the data on a CD are stored will believe that a green marker can possibly affect a 680nm laser and make it sound 'better'.

 

[Tomorrow]

Yes, we each hear differently and yes it is important to listen when making purchasing decisions. However, the point that I believe is missed by those who steadfastly believe that they can hear differences and can gain valuable info by reading reviews of what others say they heard is that there are way too many variables for one to equate what he hears in his room with his equipment to a general conclusion that 'amps/receivers sound different'. Even more impossible is to draw a conclusion based on what you heard in a demo room as that environment will be WAY different than your own. When you get it home, it may not sound quite the way it did in the store.

There is a huge body of literature that shows rather conclusively that when those variables are removed to the greatest extent possible, it is not possible to reliably distinguish between comparably designed receivers. Out of the box they naturally differ wildly because the power, thd, gain, etc are different. That is precisely why the accepted method is to compare blind after carefully leveling all equipment under test to the same level - so that you are comparing apples to apples.

You can lead a horse to water...but you can't make him drink. Some people will never be convinced and that is ok. That's why companies get away with selling $3K receivers that sound no better than $500 receivers and people that know next to nothing about how the data on a CD are stored will believe that a green marker can possibly affect a 680nm laser and make it sound 'better'.

I'm in absolute agreement with you on all this (except one minor point), MDS! Well said.

My argument with mtry is his insistence that the equipment interface with human hearing is an irrelevant factor, and that all reasonable 'quality' a/v components are "transparent".

The minor exception I think is that people can gain valuable information by reading reviews. The key is knowing not only the physical variables, but the biases of the reviewer as well. (I can bash a Klipsch speaker in a review because I detest horn-loaded tweets. But I tell you that upfront. If you know that, and like the high end, you can edify my remarks about the speakers.) Sometimes you must read between the lines with reviewers to get at their preferences. Then they can be somewhat useful in guidance only.

 

[mtrycrafts]

My argument with mtry is his insistence that the equipment interface with human hearing is an irrelevant factor, and that all reasonable 'quality' a/v components are "transparent".

This is exactly what I am trying to get across to you, not about what you prefer to listen, which music types, whether you like highs or low or distorted music. Those are personal preferences and untestable to a point.

On the other hand, whether two components are transparent or sound different from one another IS testable, incontestable, and the only meaningful manner is by DBT comparison, period, end of another chapter in testing for audibility of components. And yes, modern, well designed components are transparent no matter how you slice it or want to believe otherwise. But you may believe otherwise, that is also a personal choice.

 

[shokhead]

No. Did you read only what you wanted to read in my reply?



Please explain to me exactly what it is that makes you think that I am "full of crap".

-Chris

My bad, your not FOC.
But i'll tell ya what i think. Top of the line Denon,Yamaha,Pioneer in the same room,with the same speakers and the same player hooked up the same playing the same cd. The cd will sound better or worst on each. I did this years ago with a Pioneer,Yamaha and a JVC. We thought we had hooked them up wrong changing them but it was the receiver that made the cd's sound different. BTW, the JVC was the worst,very flat and no punch to the sound. Happy Turkey.

 

[rollinrocker]

I've been reading stereophile for years now. A manufacturer will send a reviewer (let's say wes phillips) a piece of equipment for review. He will insert said equipment in his own system (with which he is very familiar) and live with it for weeks, sometimes months, at a time. During this time he will LISTEN and then document what he heard. How did it differ from his reference setup? Was it sweeter, edgier, more dynamic or a more laid back presentation? Did it widen the soundstage or add more depth? After wes has finished his review he will send the piece to john atkinson who will proceed to measure the unit. He is very precise and i trust his findings completely. But reading his charts and graphs and measurements is not where i begin to form an opinion on this unit. I want to read what wes thought. When he plays a cut from a cd (especially one i'm familiar with) and describes what he's hearing i can relate that to my system. Can i hear the same thing on my system? Do i NEED to hear that to be happy? I guess thats fodder for another thread! Granted, you need to become comfortable with a reviewer to gain a measure of trust. This is not done overnight. But in the end, if john adkinson's measurements declared this piece to be flawless and wes phillips said it sounded hard, bright and forward, i would take it off my want list! By the same token, if wes said it had a sweet top end, punchy bass and great depth, and the measurements said it to be flawed in some way, i would still give it a LISTEN.

 

[Dan Banquer]

Amplifiers

"You need top read some technical papers then, not marketing papers or some off base rags.

David Rich and Peter Aczel, 'Topological Analysis of Consumer Audio Electronics: Another Approach to Show that Modern Audio Electronics are Acoustically Transparent,' 99 AES Convention, 1995, Print #4053."

Are the topologies similar? yes, but it is implementation in any design that will show the difference. This paper appears to ignore that and is probably the major reason why it never got past pre print.

There are far better papers and articles than that from peple like Nelson Pass, Doug Self, J.L.Lindsley Hood, and Walt Jung.

How you can ignore these knowledgeable engineers is beyond me.
d.b.

 

[mtrycrafts]

"You need top read some technical papers then, not marketing papers or some off base rags.

David Rich and Peter Aczel, 'Topological Analysis of Consumer Audio Electronics: Another Approach to Show that Modern Audio Electronics are Acoustically Transparent,' 99 AES Convention, 1995, Print #4053."

Are the topologies similar? yes, but it is implementation in any design that will show the difference. This paper appears to ignore that and is probably the major reason why it never got past pre print.

There are far better papers and articles than that from peple like Nelson Pass, Doug Self, J.L.Lindsley Hood, and Walt Jung.

How you can ignore these knowledgeable engineers is beyond me.
d.b.

But have those others compared their designs with others under DBT conditions?

Did you read the cited paper?
Dr David Rich has for many decades and the paper is the byproduct of those and his understanding of the topologies and implementations in each as he addresses them all. Modern, well designed components are transparent, below threshold of detection.

And, the decades of published DBTs of amps showing no audible differences when driven withing their design limits supports his paper.

Perhaps you have specific papers to show where amps are audibly different and particularly due to topology, under DBT, level matched protocol???