Separates vs. receiver confirmation (1 Viewer)

[AjayM]

Lol...you do an ABX test of high end audio gear through your computer? That site is just about the funniest thing I've ever seen in my life. Oh yea, I'm sure my $60 Sound Blaster and $150 computer speakers is going to be just the same as listening to a Bryston amp on a nice set of speakers. This is just to damn funny.

There are differences in sounds of amps, but most of the times they are so subtle they are barely detectable, this comes from people who people who have conducted many listening test. Once again, most well built amps generally sound the same, although separates amps will give you more power and can play louder and louder sounds are often considered better sounding by most listeners, that is why level matching is need when trying to determine sound quality of amps.

In one of the often mentioned articles in Stereophile about such crap as DBT's and statistics, etc. They talked about a gentleman who was able to distinguish between 2 solid state amps (I believe the price tag was in the $6k range for each of them) 10 out of 12 times. But maybe he's just special. Of course my move from a reciever to a reciever with amps to a pre/pro and amp setup all differences are just imagined, cause all amps sound the same...lol

Andrew

 

[RicP]

I will respond to any question as long as its not personal

Or as long as it doesn't ask you to list the gear you own right? Please Jaleel, tell us why you are so adamantly against listing your equipment here? Could it maybe be because you are in the "Do as I say, Not as I do" camp?

Also, I don't believe Mark Austin's questions were personal, yet you did not answer them either?

 

[Geo]

Sound - 10
Upgradability - 10
Power - 10
Features - 7
Ease of use - 4
Connectivity - 2
Interesting rankings.........
My ranking would probably be much different based on my own experiences. I've A/B'd and blind tested with fellow enthusiast (3 or 4 local friends)and have come to the conculsion that either my friends and I are not golden ear wonders because of less than ideal hearing probably caused by to much Jimi Hendrix. Or the sonic differences between components is largely in the mind, not the ears, of the listener.
The only components that I can clearly hear differences in and make judgements on are "Loudspeakers".
I can not tell you, in normal listening conditions, if a 100 watt amp or a 200 watt amp is being used. Even if the 200 watt amp is 5 times+ the price of the 100 watt amp. When asked by the friend to "make a guess" my guesses are no better than 50/50. Same with preamps, cd/dvd players, etc......... Let's not even go into interconnects and speaker cable.
I can sometimes hear very slight differences but can't make judgements based on those differences.
So because of my experiences, my "appeal criteria" would be different.
First, Connectivity, if I can't connect my components or future components to it, I don't want it........
Ease of use, if it's a pain in the a** to use, I don't want it........
If it doesn't have the features I want, I don't want it.......
Upgradability, as long as the unit I want has what I want, upgradability is more of a "perk"....
Power, already talked about that.... but receiver amps are not junk just because they share the same chassis as the preamp and tuner.......... Some receiver amps such as the Pioneer Elite 49TX actually measure up to their claims....
And NONE of my fellow ethusiasts could do better than 50/50 during A/B switching, blind tests comparing receiver amps to receivers using separate amps (and we really really wanted to).
This doesn't mean that I wouldn't use the best components that I can afford, it just means I probably couldn't hear a difference if I'd spent less.
But as long as the sound brings a smile to my face, and my eyes like what they see, I'll be a happy camper.
geo

 

[Mark Austin]

This is an oldie, but a goodie. From the head of AES several years ago.
From Stereophile:
Stanley Lipshitz responds
Editor: With reference to Robert Harley's editorial (pp.5-15) and comments (pp.43-51) concerning what I said at the Audio Engineering Society's recent 8th International Conference: "The Sound of Audio," as reported in Stereophile in July, some clarification is necessary. I never said, nor do I believe, that "no differences exist between components" (p.47). Such a conclusion is ludicrous and false and a crude misrepresentation of what I have maintained all along (see, for example, S. P. Lipshitz and J. Vanderkooy, "The Great Debate: Subjective Evaluation," J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol.29 Nos.7&8, pp.482-491).
Far from his claim that the AES excludes "the listening experience from the study of audio" (p.7), this whole paper is about how to conduct meaningful subjective listening tests for the study of audio. In my experiences over a dozen years, audible differences frequently occur—differences which survive even when subjected to a rigorous blind test.

 

[Legairre]

That is not the proper way to conduct a blind level match test. I conducted my own test of two amps, a Bryston and a Parasound using the ABX comparator downloaded from the PCABX website and I couldn't tell which amp was which.

Let me get this straight. Because you download some software from the internet, use your computer, and can't tell a difference. Everyones supposed to say "Hey this guys over at hometheater forum downloaded some software and he couldn't tell a difference, so there must not be one". Well I guess when people can tell a difference they must all be wrong because you say there's no difference.



Now I have to take back my amp even though myself and others hear a difference, because you said there's no difference. I guess I'll go let my kids play with matches too. I'm really going to miss my amp, because that guy at home theater forum told me I'm hearing things that aren't there.:frowning:



Goodbye Rotel, hello Aiwa. After all, there's no difference.

 

[AjayM]

Let me get this straight. Because you download some software from the internet, use your computer, and can't tell a difference.

No...no, not software....wav files that are all of about 2-3 seconds long. Such a fine comparison for making such blanket statements.

Jaleel, if you want to do a real test why don't you hop on down to your local high end audio dealer, bring a blind fold, have the dealer SPL match all of his rooms for you, put your blindfold on and go to each room and listen, then think again about your blind tests and no difference with electronics. This method may be just a little more accurate than using your computer to listen to a 2 second wav file.

Andrew

 

[Mark Austin]

My favorite site ABX.

http://www.oakland.edu/~djcarlst/abx_p9.htm

 

[Mark Austin]

My Elcectrocompaniet amps sound just like my 5700 and 777 receivers....NOT!

 

[JaleelK]

An example of what killing the high-end

Remember the Progressive Scan Player Shoot Out(from Home Theater and High Fidelity)? If you read about it, you will see why I say the the high-end is dying, they are dying because they are drowning themselves in of their own "snake oil"

Please read this review from of one the Theta DVD players[taken Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity]:

Theta Voyager

The Theta is an unusual player. Like most high-end boutique players, it’s made by taking an off-the-shelf player, in this case a Pioneer Laserdisc/DVD player (possibly a 909 or 525), and adding better audio and video stages. However, generally the boutique companies take just the guts out of the player and put them into a new case. Theta has taken the entire player, minus just the top and side panels, and built a second case around it. If you open the Theta, you can see the whole original Pioneer inside, including the back panel with RCA jacks.

We had some trouble getting the player to produce a signal that the 10HT could use. The output is configured using a combination of the original Pioneer’s output menus and some switches on the back, and it was not at all obvious what to do. We eventually ended up using RGBHV, but we tried, and failed, to get Component and RGBS to work. Again, since in general you would spend some time setting it up, then leave it alone, it’s only an issue when you first get the player, or if you switch monitors at some point.

We believe the Theta we tested had a DVDO version 1 (DV101) chip in it, and if so, the performance was not as good as the later DVDO (now Silicon Image) versions. It did better than the Genesis solutions, but not as good as the stand alone iScan de-interlacer or the Camelot. It also had a surprising breakdown on the Film 1 test, which is usually a “freebie” for any progressive player. The de-interlacing chip lost the cadence twice during that test and dropped to video mode for a moment. It probably wouldn’t be terribly noticeable on real movie material, but we still had to fail it. The Film 2 sequence worked fine.

Video performance was fine. The player does have the chroma problem, and pretty bad, which it inherited from the Pioneer. So far, all Pioneer players we’ve looked at have the problem, but we haven’t looked at every Pioneer player. There is also a YC delay on the progressive outputs. Actually there is a delay between the two color difference channels, 'Pb' and 'Pr'.

All in all, for an approximately $10,000 player, this didn’t seem to deliver the goods.

Now go read the latest issue of Widescreen Review and the read the interview that Gary Reber conducts with represenative from Theta Digital, the article is titled " Theta Digital's Philosophy". In the interview the folks from Theta talk about how they they design their audio/video components that makes them superior to other manufacturers, they go on and on in that interview about their philosophy of engineering, how much better their DVD players are than mass market players. Are they really better? Should we believe Theta just because the name is associated with the high-end and status? When the guys from Home Theater and High Fidelity actually tested many progressive scan players, the $10,000 Theta player didn't do much better,if at all, than your typical mass market player. As you can see, from the review of the Theta player, all they did was take as Pioneer player and put the Theta touch on it, but that touch really didn't result in a vastly superior player, that one should expect to get after pay $10,000. In fact the Camelot RoundTable player was considered the best performing of all players in that test, it cost about $3,500, which the Theta player is still more than twice the price of the Camelot.

This type of "snake oil" thats being spouted from the mouth from companies like Theta is what killing the high-end.

 

[JaleelK]

Note that no matter what score is achieved, A = B cannot be proven. That is the ABX Double Blind Comparison can never be used to prove two audio components sound the same. The notion that ABX can prove components sound the same is a common misconception about ABX.

A second common misconception about ABX is the claim that an ABX test result is not a preference: it doesn't tell which audio component sounds better.

_____________________

No one is trying to use the ABX to prove that amps sound the same. The bottom line is this, for example, if you proclaim all that is being proclaimed in the high-end and from golden eared audiophiles, that they can tell the difference between amps and Krell Amps blows this away and blow that amp away and it sound so much more transparent, airy and with more clarity than mass market mid-fi amps/receivers, if using an ABX type comparator, the one that's making that claim should EASILY be able to distinguish the Krell amp from the mass market amp. Why do audiophiles fail in these test, many of them attack DBT whenever they fail to distinguish between their high priced status symbol overkill amps over so-called mid-fi amps.

ABX is about eliminating your bias and making you use your listening skills only. If one doesn't know that amp "A" is the Krell and amp "B" is Yamaha, "X" maybe amp A or B, it makes you listening to detect which is which.

 

[Tony Lai]

I noticed the Rotel DVD-A player looked remarkably similar in conception to the JVC DVD-A player - same lights and LED panel. I do think that Rotel have hopped up the schema.

What about this? How many of you receiver owners have upgraded to pre/power?

How many poweramp owners have 'upgraded' to receivers?

I dunno about you guys but I'll never give up my Parasound - it's taken a while but it's really gotten under my skin...

T.

 

[AjayM]

No one is trying to use the ABX to prove that amps sound the same. The bottom line is this, for example, if you proclaim all that is being proclaimed in the high-end and from golden eared audiophiles, that they can tell the difference between amps and Krell Amps blows this away and blow that amp away and it sound so much more transparent, airy and with more clarity than mass market mid-fi amps/receivers, if using an ABX type comparator, the one that's making that claim should EASILY be able to distinguish the Krell amp from the mass market amp. Why do audiophiles fail in these test, many of them attack DBT whenever they fail to distinguish between their high priced status symbol overkill amps over so-called mid-fi amps.

No Jaleel, the so called goldenears can and do take these tests from time to time, and the results are usually not going in your favor. It's just when one person can't hear a difference it's published, why is it published? Because it's a nice story how these mega-high end companies are screwing the mass's with their so-called better sound. It's not a good story when a piece of gear that costs 10-100 times what another piece costs and there is a difference in sound (and generally that one is chosen over the cheaper mass-market stuff).

Have you ever done one of these Double blind, level matched tests? What is your experience level in this? If so please describe the test, what components were used, how did you achieve a true Double Blind condition,etc. Or are you just talking about what you read on the internet and have no personal experience in this matter? Running a 2-second wav file from the internet is pretty far from anything close to science.

Andrew

 

[Larry B]

Jaleel:

I'm still waiting for a response to my questions.

Larry

 

[Larry B]

Ric:

.....must resist....can not jump in.... must remain calm.....stay away from Jaleel's threads...is so....difficult...

I knew you couldn't hold out for long!
Larry
P.S. By the way, you never responded to my last post in the thread on differences between transports.

 

[Ashford Little]

All of those expensive black boxes can now be thrown away. It's back to 8-track tape, 20 inch TV's, my high school Panasonic all-in-one LP, cassette and AM/FM unit with it's thundering speakers.

Oh wait, I threw that away two decades ago.

Hmm, I'm confused.

Maybe, I can download one from the internet.

 

[AjayM]

Here's another example that I'll throw out (Which always gets shot down with some silly excuse).

Let's compare mid-level RPTV's to high end RPTV's.

There must not be any difference between a $2500 Toshiba 53 RPTV and a $5000+ Pioneer Elite 53" RPTV right? It's all just electronics right? Or is it totally different because we can see it and not hear it? I know somebody will tell me all about how it's proven that our eyes are much less prone to being tricked than our ears, etc. But compare the above 2 TV's side by side, then compare a mid-fi and a high-end setup and you want to tell me everything I hear is just placebo effect, but everything I see is perfectly true.

Andrew

 

[Larry B]

AjayM:
Good point!
Larry

 

[Kevin C Brown]

This is too funny.

I actually agree with 90% of what Jaleel is saying.

Most components *do* sound alike, under very rigorous double blind ABX testing, except when pushed to extremes. Better built eqp fails a lot more gracefully than poop.

And actually, most "golden ears" refuse to take such tests because of how the results come out.

(That's why they put forth such mumbo jumbo as "listener fatigue," "I know how *my* system sounds and I don't need no stinking ABX box to tell me if a component is better sounding or not," etc.)

And in fact, if anyone reads the Sensible Sound, go get the issue before the current issue. The one dude actually brought home and played with an ABX tester, and he himself was amazed at the differences he *couldn't* spot between eqp. And personally, I don't like the Sensible Sound, because they don't typically do any measurements.

And, much much easier to tell differences in video displays than sound. (I used to work at a flat panel start up. Eyes much more sensitive to differences than ears. Don't believe me? Mess up all the levels in your 5.1 system. Then try to set them by ear alone. Then compare to an SPL meter. The SPL meter is more accurate. Period.)

I simply cannot believe that a person would actually buy equipment based on a 5 minute s comparison done at a stereo shop. That simply amazes me.

(Ever notice how the "preferred" eqp is placed higher in the rack? Or how it is better lit? Or how it is dusted while the "less preferred" isn't? All std "sales" techniques.)

Oh, and regarding the statistics of an ABX test, it is simply to prove whether A is *different* than B. (The null hypothesis.) Obviously, if you think about this for 1/2 sec, if A cannot be proven to be different than B, then it has to be the same. Has to do with confidences that they are judged to be different, and whether you trigger *whatever confidence interval you've selected*, typically 95%, whether it can be proved that they are different or not.

But hey, I have separates, and I would never in a million years say that *in general*, receivers sound better than separates.

But like all things in life, good receivers can sound better than bad seperates, and vice versa.

 

[RicP]

Don't believe me? Mess up all the levels in your 5.1 system. Then try to set them by ear alone. Then compare to an SPL meter. The SPL meter is more accurate. Period.)

Ok, mess up the color saturation and grey scale level on your monitor, now try to set it by eye. Then compare it to a spectrometer, see which is closer. Incidentally, I've set my levels by ear before and never been more than 1db off on any speaker.

 

[AjayM]

But hey, I have separates, and I would never in a million years say that *in general*, receivers sound better than separates.

But like all things in life, good receivers can sound better than bad seperates, and vice versa.

That's true with anything, a very well done setup on a $5,000 system will look and sound better than a poorly setup $20k system. Ask Mike Knapp about VanEvers system.

Andrew