High end processors VS low end processors/receivers, hardware differences?

I'll provide scientific proof, once I have found an objective explanation of the meaning of life.  Shouldn't take more than a hour or two.

The high-end equipment has cooler knobs and spiffier labels, so that makes it sound better.  :)

Honestly, this subject could be (and has been) debated to death, with no resolution in sight.  Very good quality stuff is better than very low quality stuff, and there is a big price difference.  Once you get beyond very good and head out into the ultra good, the quality goes up a little (maybe) while the price (certainly) goes up very quickly.

I'm happy with the price vs. quality of what I've got, so that makes me lucky.

Lots of websites and magazines have published objective measurement data taken of various processors, players, receivers, speakers, etc. In most cases the components with the higher quality, more expensive components also yield better test results. However, poor design will yield poor test results, no matter how expensive the components inside. And a good design can make less expensive components sound better than the sum of the parts.

But in the end it still comes down to personal preference. Everyone hears differently and what sounds good to you may still sound awful to me, no matter how good the test data says it is. Test data is a good starting point, but I'm going to buy what sounds good to me, not what looks best on paper.

Individuals will say whatever they want, regardless of if it has any basis in reality or not.  So, you have to take all that with a grain of salt.  Otherwise, I've been reading audio magazines for over 30 years and have never noticed this routine (implied incorrect) bashing of "non high end" products you accuse.  What I do see is that some bargain products are great performers for the price, but that some more expensive ones may perform better.  What I have seen bashed is expensive stuff that does NOT perform.

Beyond that, I'll just reiterate that your quest for objective proof of what makes a product "better" than another, seeming to imply that all people will like it better, is a pure impossibility.  You really might as well be seeking a universal meaning of life.  The reality is, for example, that the world is full of people who think Bose is the pinnacle of audio reproduction.  There are also plenty of others who think Bose sounds like a very cheap AM radio. They both still have the opinions they have.  There is plenty of OBJECTIVE proof that Bose is crap, but the fact remains that probably millions of people think they are great. I personally have Thiel CS 3.6, which has gained a reputation as one of the truly legendary speakers, but a lot of people think they are harsh sounding, even though they are OBJECTIVELY proven to be remarkably accurate.

Oh, that's just not true.  Objective proof can be had for certain things, setting up blind tests and adjusting for things like level matching.  I'm sure the vast majority of people would definitely prefer Blu-ray vs. DVD, for example, given a large enough screen vs. viewing distance.  Or Dolby digital vs. Dolby Pro-logic.  But for other things, like comparing a $500 receiver vs. a $5000 receiver/pre-pro, straight Dolby digital, no equalization circuits on, normal volume levels, I've never, ever, ever seen any properly conducted test published that could show even a difference, let alone a preference.  It's always null result, people not being able identify a product at higher rate than is likely just by chance.

The high-end can't really supply objective proof (if they could, they would reveal the proof, then surely find ways to drive down costs and sell to the masses to make loads of money, just like true advances like HDTV have come down from $5k+ to under $1K).  So they instead cater to people who don't really care about objective proof, and can be swayed into thinking high price == automatically higher quality, and can afford such equipment.

Of course, I was referring to the actual question, which is high end vs. low end.  Not things like BR vs. DVD.  Also, maybe it is simply a matter of semantics, but I consider blind testing to be subjective, not objective.  The OP is asking for objective proof.  Even if it is a large sampling, the individual feedback is still entirely subjective.

It seems to me that this all comes back to expecting a few numbers to discern quality in a sense that means most people will "like it" more.  The problem is, numbers usually can't do that.  You are asking for Objective proof of something which is inherently Subjective.  I'll go back to my Thiels.  Their response is +/- 0.5 dB across 30Hz-20,000Hz.  That is, objectively, significantly better than virtually any other speaker made.  The standard variation is 3dB, not 0.5dB.  Still, a lot of people find them harsh sounding.  So, it would seem that many people actually do not want accuracy, as the popularity of Bose clearly demonstrates.  Objectively, this makes no sense, but it seems to be reality from a subjective standpoint.  Take it a step further, for me the most important factor of a speaker is imaging.  To my knowledge there is absolutely no known method of showing the imaging capability of speakers.  Even if there were, it would be mostly useless because that depends so much on the environment they are in.

No, because you keep forgetting the most critical fact, that different people hear things differently. As I said in my first reply, no two people hear things the same way. The frequency response and sensitivity of my hearing is unique, no one else hears exactly the same way I do. The same is true for everyone. Of course, there are people whose purchases are status driven, but for the purposes of this discussion they are irrelevant.

Individuals have unique personal preferences, no one likes exactly the same things I do, or to the same degree. Everyone is different, no matter how similar we may seem on the surface. Those differences and how they affect our listening preferences is absolutely and completely subjective. We are (or at least, I am  ) human beings, not lab equipment. As I said before, test data is a good place to start but I will buy what SOUNDS best to me, not what has the best test results. And what sounds best to me is very likely to be different from what sounds bet to you.

If you participated in a double blind test between a $30,000 Theta Casablanca and a $1000 Denon, and you could not statistically pick out the more expensive item, would you then be convinced that the Theta Casablanca is not what "sounds best to you?"  DBT's do not depend on "lab equipment," what they do is eliminate the placebo effect and instead, rely only on your hearing.  Isn't that what every "golden ears" person claims they want to do; find "what sounds best to them?"  DBT's are the perfect method to do just that.  Kind of makes you wonder why "golden ear" types shun DBT's like vampires shun sunlight.

http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_ppec.htm

Enjoy

I have good hearing, but never claimed to have a "golden ear". I have participated in several DBT's and learned was that audio "memory", or at least my audio memory, is exceptionally short. When doing ABX tests I was never sure that my memory of A was correct by the time we got to X. Essensitally, I wound up comparing B to X in all the tests, because I couldn't be sure my memory of A was still valid. And frankly, there were times when I wasn't sure my memory of B was valid.

But if the test results had shown that I consistently picked the same item then I would buy that item, if I had a need for it and if it was within my budget. However, in the tests I participated in the test subjects were power cords and interconnects. The DBT results showed that not a single person who participated was able to distinguish between the stock and high end items on a consistent basis. IIRC, the best "ear" of the group in the power cord test had a consistency rate of just over 60% and that was for the stock cord.

No, I'm saying that personal hearing and preferences are 100% subjective. Just as important, budget matters. Even if the $30K Casablanca does sound noticeably better I'm still far more likely to buy the Denon, simply because I'm not willing to take out a second mortgage to buy a piece of audio equipment, no matter how good it sounds.

However, if two pieces of equipment sound very similar to me and the cost difference is a reasonable amount, I will do some research and may decide to buy the more expensive piece. In some cases I'm willing to spend more for a product with a better record of reliability, is from a company with better customer service, maybe more upgradeable, etc. Sound quality is always my first priority, with budget as the controlling factor, but I'm not blind to other issues, either. There are never just one or two factors in my decision making process.

Were there any "true believers" in the group?  You know, the types who swear their $12,000 6 gauge aluminum mesh wrapped uber-cables make the soundstage "leap and soar, "the highs higher" and "the lows higher, errr, lower"?  The folks who buy power cables with a dongle on them the size of a Brita water filter (and sometimes it probably is a Brita water filter)?  If so, I really, really hope the guy who picked the stock cable 60% of the time was one of them.  Post reaction shots if you have them please!!! 

I only knew a couple of the 12-15 people who participated, so I don't know how many, if any, were "true believers".

FWIW, I am not now and never have been a believer in high end ICs or power cords. However, I came away from those tests pretty well convinced that Double Blind Testing is pretty useless as a method of objectively determining sound quality, except when there are gross differences between the A & B samples. The problem isn't the testing method itself, it's that it depends on human memory to be successful. As I mentioned earlier, by the time we got to the X sample I could not remember what A sounded like and I'm not sure my memory of B was valid, either. In the debriefing after one of the tests were over I commented on that and several other people also said they had the same problem. I suspect that it is a very common phenomena. Perhaps professional musicians or other trained listeners can retain the memories longer and more accurately, because they can identify the specific notes and catalog them mentally. But I suspect most people are more likely to have the same experience I did.

If you cannot remember what A sounds like after listening to B, how do you ever decide what equipment you like?  Forget the double blind testing...  I mean just picking out speakers, for example.

On the contrary, I think your exercise showed just how useful a DBT is.  Useful in showing that for those whose hearing memory is up to it, expensive cables are no better than cheap stuff, and for those whose hearing memory is lacking; even if one is better than the other, it doesn't matter one damn bit if you can't remember what you heard. 

A critical component of DBT is that the only thing that changes is the component that is being evaluated. The other is that everywhere that component is used it has to be swapped. So when testing power cords you have to swap out all of the power cords in the system. When testing interconnects you have to swap all of the interconnects. That takes time, up to 5 minute for power cords, sometimes longer for ICs.

OTOH, when listening to speakers they can generally be switched in as little as a minute. Some shops have switch boxes that can do it in seconds. I believe that time difference is critical to audio memory. Also, IMO the difference between good and great interconnects has a relatively minor affect on sound quality and then only if you have a very high quality system. If  a power cable affects the sound then IMO it is defective. I feel that makes them very poor candidates for tests that rely on human audio memory.

Also, I believe that active electronics and especially speakers have a vastly greater impact on the sound. However, I have never participated in a DBT with electronics or speakers, so I can't comment on how effective such a test would be.

 great thread.

a few thoughts.  on the DBT if one really wants to do this, i'd recommend running it like double elimination bracket tournament.  that way you never have to compare directly beyond A/B, you get to compare all products and have some verification that your results are either consistent or inconsistent unto themselves.

on the crazy expensive gear, it is like any luxury item in the sense that it is exclusive.  i can go into any restaurant with a good wine list that someone who makes 7 or 8 figures might eat at and have a $100-200 meal with a bottle of wine for $100 or significantly less.  any decent waiter will sell that other customer a bottle of wine that is twice the price if not 10 times.  when entering a real quality audio store, the products are like that wine list.  i can shop the entry level products (price-wise) and the rich customers can shop the top end.  we both might walk out happy feeling like we got a good deal on something that sounds great and i might have spent a small fraction of someone else.  a good sales person or waiter will work with the customer's budget, TASTES and the available product to find something the customer likes and can afford.  there will most likely always be that niche of consumers for whom exclusivity is a top decision making factor.  for them alone, companies will continue to provide small runs of very expensive anything.  even at my very modest income, i do want to feel like i am unique and special and buying things that i know are of limited availability helps feed this hunger.  the expression of individuality is a basic human desire and marketing will never let you forget it.  of course the need to feel like part of the crowd is a natural desire at times too so go figure...

also on the crazy expensive gear, as a technological product, the development of the high-end stuff does lead to advances which do trickle down to consumer level products (as already pointed out).  it's just that the r+d, fabrication and the materials themselves are more expensive automatically when production levels are so much lower.  so if no one bought the crazy expensive stuff, would it throw the whole moore's law thing out the window?

William, you are more than welcome to debate this issue for as long as you are able to find someone willing to discuss it with you. However, if you want to make claims about specific products, you will have to do more than supply a few pictures. Your threads about the Theta Digital Blu-ray player have been removed. If you wish to supply a detailed review based on hands-on examination, please do so. Otherwise, kindly do not attempt to repost those threads.

1. Yes, I'm serious.
2. I don't agree or disagree about the Theta or any other product. I have expressed no position on any such subject and will not do so.
3. Please follow my instructions, or this thread will be closed (at a minimum).