what camp are you in?

[rollinrocker]

Reading several threads on this forum started me thinking (it doesnt happen often) about something. When i'm ready to buy i always try to read reviews on the items that i'm considering. While i read with great interest (and have immense respect for) those quoting measurements and graphs, I find myself putting more weight into those that tell me how the thing SOUNDED. I realize that the two go hand in hand, but thats not always the case. I'm showing my age here, but the late,geat Julian Hirsch (who i hold in high esteem) once said that if two amps were well designed and working properly they should sound the same. (This not an exact quote, but something to that effect). I know this is purely subjective. I realize all reviewers dont hear the same things i do, and i'm not limiting this to amps. Tell me about the brushes on the drum skin. Tell me about the tactile feel of the bass or the pluck of the guitar string. I'll read with interest about measurements and charts, and take them into consideration. But i want to know how it SOUNDS!

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

I'll read with interest about measurements and charts, and take them into consideration. But i want to know how it SOUNDS!

But they can't tell you how "it" sounds. Because "it" should be inaudible. If you want to hear about bass-string plucks and drum skins, you really want to hear about the CDs and Vinyl they're playing. $10,000 amps don't create these things out of thin air, they've always been there on the recording.

 

[rollinrocker]

My friend and i frequently listen to each others system. A few years ago he upgraded from a yamaha rec. to a marantz pre-pro and a b&k amp. The speakers were the same as was the cd player. Playing some of the same cd's we'd listened to for years, we couldn't believe some of the details we had been missing. As ninja said, the info was always there on the cd, but without the upgrade we were not hearing what was there to be heard.

 

[xboxweasel]

I was using a Yamaha RX-v1400 for my home theater system. In a bout of depression I bought myself some amps and started using the receiver more or less as a pre-amp/processor. It took me a few days, but eventually I notice the difference. The sound (source being mostly from DVD movies) had more presence and founded fuller. The dynamic range was a lot better.

Then I replaced the receiver with a RX-V2500 (because I only wanted the third component input) it sounded different again. I find this hard to digest since the amps are going all the work. Or am I wrong here?

But verbal desciptions are subjective since our ears do not follow a standard (such as lab test procedures) and everbody likes a different sound.

As per what Rollingrocker was asking about: description vs graphs.

I picked up a copy of Home Theater a month or 2 ago. They do a lot of reviews of speaker systems. They follow the same 5 point of axial, etc, etc test procedure for all speakers. They summarize their findings in a graph (which I can follow for the most part) and a bunch of stats. (For example: +1.55/-3.13 dB from 200-10KHz. -3dB @ 79Hz, -6dB @ 66Hz. Min impedance @ 4.51ohms @ 203Hz). I have no idea what that means. Or what is sounds like.

However, their descriptive comments are similar to mine. They use words like body, presence, definition, tight, quick, slow. I can relate to that.

 

[xboxweasel]

As ninja said, the info was always there on the cd, but without the upgrade we were not hearing what was there to be heard.

Same goes for me. I listen to CDs a lot. When I upgrade my components I continued listening to the same albums and noticed a change in the sound. I could here things that I did not know existed. That told me that the money was worth it.

I can't wait to get my next system. I'm aiming at $50K. First I need a bigger house.

 

[WmAx]

My friend and i frequently listen to each others system. A few years ago he upgraded from a yamaha rec. to a marantz pre-pro and a b&k amp. The speakers were the same as was the cd player. Playing some of the same cd's we'd listened to for years, we couldn't believe some of the details we had been missing. As ninja said, the info was always there on the cd, but without the upgrade we were not hearing what was there to be heard.

Frankly, there is no evidence to support that such percieved changes are true audible differences, at least not among properly designed hardware working within it's design limitations[using with intended load capacities, not driven into clipping, etc.]. True, some equipment may have a non-linear transfer function[a non defeatable built in tone control] or audible noise issues, but this hardly comes under the qualification of properly designed.

-Chris

 

[mtrycrafts]

Reading several threads on this forum started me thinking (it doesnt happen often) about something. When i'm ready to buy i always try to read reviews on the items that i'm considering. While i read with great interest (and have immense respect for) those quoting measurements and graphs, I find myself putting more weight into those that tell me how the thing SOUNDED.

Yes, a very subjective opinion in most cases. And, if the specs do not correlate to those opinions, what then? Where do you put the emphasis, subjective, biased opinions or lean towards the measured numbers? The need to correlate and do, in fact, when proper protocols are used for the evaluation.


I'm showing my age here, but the late,geat Julian Hirsch (who i hold in high esteem) once said that if two amps were well designed and working properly they should sound the same. (This not an exact quote, but something to that effect).


That is demonstrated time and time again under objective protocols, bias controlled ones.

But i want to know how it SOUNDS!


That, you have to do yourself. No one can tell you that how it will sound to you.

 

[rollinrocker]

I understand these opinions are subjective, but why do they have to be considered biased?

 

[DaveOCP]

I was using a Yamaha RX-v1400 for my home theater system. In a bout of depression I bought myself some amps and started using the receiver more or less as a pre-amp/processor. It took me a few days, but eventually I notice the difference. The sound (source being mostly from DVD movies) had more presence and founded fuller. The dynamic range was a lot better.

Then I replaced the receiver with a RX-V2500 (because I only wanted the third component input) it sounded different again. I find this hard to digest since the amps are going all the work. Or am I wrong here?

But verbal desciptions are subjective since our ears do not follow a standard (such as lab test procedures) and everbody likes a different sound.

As per what Rollingrocker was asking about: description vs graphs.

I picked up a copy of Home Theater a month or 2 ago. They do a lot of reviews of speaker systems. They follow the same 5 point of axial, etc, etc test procedure for all speakers. They summarize their findings in a graph (which I can follow for the most part) and a bunch of stats. (For example: +1.55/-3.13 dB from 200-10KHz. -3dB @ 79Hz, -6dB @ 66Hz. Min impedance @ 4.51ohms @ 203Hz). I have no idea what that means. Or what is sounds like.

However, their descriptive comments are similar to mine. They use words like body, presence, definition, tight, quick, slow. I can relate to that.

If the RX-V2500 has better signal processors and DACs than the 1400, it can improve the sound, even if its not actually amplifying anything. From what I've been able to determine from listening to lots of different systems and configurations, the quality of the pre-amp makes at least as much if not more of a difference than the quality of the amps themselves.

Changing my pre-amp from an Onkyo TX-DS777 to a Pioneer Elite 56TXi made an amazing difference. Both are THX select certified, and I listened to both in their "direct" modes which bypass all dsp circuitry. The Pioneer's signature sound of a warm and smooth midrange, massive soundstage, and laid back highs came through, even though the Pioneer's amps were not driving anything. That leads me to believe that much of the Pioneer's sound comes from its processors. Things like the width and depth of the soundstage and the characteristics of the midrange are not lab statistics. You actually have to listen WITH YOUR EAR, not a spectrum analyzer, to pick up things like that. 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.

 

[agarwalro]

Put this one in Philosophers and Wisemen

There are some websites that dont give good reviews to products that are not "audiophile" grade (meaning cost less than your monthly earnings) and I have never seen a technical review accompanying the claims of crystal clear sound and superlatively open sound stage for the "audiophile" grade product.

In general I have noticed that if a review has both, a technical (benchmark tests done under controlled conditions) and a reviewer impression section, good technical results go with good reviewer impressions, and bad technical results go with bad reviewer impression.

I believe in some situations technical tests alone are enough to tell the quality of a product (like Amplifiers, flatter FR is better assuming everything else being the same) and in other (like speakers) personal preference takes over. I have always wondered, what is the point of having 10-20,000Hz +-1dB speakers if you are going to place them in a room with hardwood floors, mirror walls etc, without room treatment and then claiming your XYZ brand speakers that cost $xxxxx.xx/ pair are the best sound money can buy .

 

[mtrycrafts]

I understand these opinions are subjective, but why do they have to be considered biased?

Because bias is an inherent human trait that cannot be turned off or on at will and we have no idea when it is on, or off, so, one has no real idea what such an opinion is based on. And, not all opinions are of equal quality. I'd like to see opinions based in some objective evaluations even though they will be still subjective, at least we know bias was not part of it.

 

[mulester7]

Because bias is an inherent human trait that cannot be turned off or on at will and we have no idea when it is on, or off, so, one has no real idea what such an opinion is based on. And, not all opinions are of equal quality. I'd like to see opinions based in some objective evaluations even though they will be still subjective, at least we know bias was not part of it.

.....Mtry, your reasoning, is that a person is pulling for one component or the other....they could give a crap less which one wins....they only know what they hear, and will assign a blue medal from that hearing....why do they need to be blindfolded to trip over a table or something?.....

 

[rollinrocker]

Mtry, so how do we make a purchasing decision? If three amplifiers all have excellent measurements but different measurements just the same do we just pick one and be happy? Is there nothing to be gained from LISTENING?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Mtry, so how do we make a purchasing decision? If three amplifiers all have excellent measurements but different measurements just the same do we just pick one and be happy? Is there nothing to be gained from LISTENING?

Well, there are a number of reasons for choosing one over the other: cost, features, color, name, power, better specs, ease of use, status, etc. Sound gives a psychological comfort to many so that is a personal issue.

I would have no reason to listen to well designed amps other than for a defective component but most of the purchase is in sealed boxes. The other issues would be more important.

 

[mtrycrafts]

.....Mtry, your reasoning, is that a person is pulling for one component or the other....they could give a crap less which one wins....they only know what they hear, and will assign a blue medal from that hearing....why do they need to be blindfolded to trip over a table or something?.....

Then your logic would apply to any testing where humans are the testing instruments. We should start with all the drug testing and save billions and lots of time, right? We should just ask consumers what they think about a product and be done with it?

Or, my reasoning is that ones bias is unpredictable, uncontrollable, hence if one values facts and reality, they should use a better methodology for making choices. I prefer mine mostly, when it is important and $$$ is on the line.

 

[mulester7]

Then your logic would apply to any testing where humans are the testing instruments. We should start with all the drug testing and save billions and lots of time, right? We should just ask consumers what they think about a product and be done with it?

Or, my reasoning is that ones bias is unpredictable, uncontrollable, hence if one values facts and reality, they should use a better methodology for making choices. I prefer mine mostly, when it is important and $$$ is on the line.

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

 

[WmAx]

Things like the width and depth of the soundstage and the characteristics of the midrange are not lab statistics. You actually have to listen WITH YOUR EAR, not a spectrum analyzer, to pick up things like that.

Soundstage width is a consequence of relative phase difference characteristics between channels. Measurable.

Soundstage depth is a consequence of time delayed repetition of a signal. Measurable.

A preamplifier[without signal processing] is not capable of adding a delayed signal or manipulating phase as to effect soundstage depth or width. These functions require purpose-built processing.

-Chris

 

[shokhead]

Frankly, there is no evidence to support that such percieved changes are true audible differences, at least not among properly designed hardware working within it's design limitations[using with intended load capacities, not driven into clipping, etc.]. True, some equipment may have a non-linear transfer function[a non defeatable built in tone control] or audible noise issues, but this hardly comes under the qualification of properly designed.

-Chris

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

 

[WmAx]

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

Assuming both are properly designed[this can not be known for certain without measurement/analysis -- and I would automaticly question the validity of power claims or any other specifications by a company such as Emerson] and are used within their design limitations, they will not sound different.

-Chris

 

[mtrycrafts]

Soundstage width is a consequence of relative phase difference characteristics between channels. Measurable.

Soundstage depth is a consequence of time delayed repetition of a signal. Measurable.

A preamplifier[without signal processing] is not capable of adding a delayed signal or manipulating phase as to effect soundstage depth or width. These functions require purpose-built processing.

-Chris

And, on the other hand, listening can be very biased and unreliable giving a false picture of reality.