Double Blind Testing of HT Components - Necessary for you? (1 Viewer)

[Saurav]

That's why I said "sonic preference". There can certainly be other factors that play into the overall preference.

 

[Larry B]

Saurav:

the first step is always to establish that an audible difference exists, regardless of whether you want to stop there or go on to establishing which one you prefer.

There can be no argument that a diffference must exist for there to be a preference. However, I am suggesting that it is not necessary to use the A/B/X test to determine whether a difference exists, as this will be revealed in the ability to identify a preference.
Again, where the A/B/X is useful is in proving that one can detect a difference. I don't see why this is necessary when choosing a piece of audio equipment, any more than it is when choosing a favorite food or car.
Larry
Edit: Remember, the original post asked what we used in selecting a piece of equipment, not what would be required to convince someone that a difference could be detected. Two different things.

 

[Saurav]

OK, now I see where you're going. And I totally agree

 

[Larry B]

Saurav:
Sometimes it takes me a few tries to get it out clearly Thanks for sticking with me...
Larry

 

[Keith Ro]

I know that I am in a very small minority but for the life of me, I do not know what a 1% increase in aduio quality is. To use the common analogy of cars, a Corvette is about $45K, and a Ferrari 360 Modena is about $175K. Is the Ferrari 4 times as good a car as the 'Vette? I can't answer that, as I have no idea what it means. Put another way, I don't know how to quantify automobile overall perfomance (even though things such as 0-60mph and lateral G force as easily quantifiable).

[edit]

If this is the method you are applying to audio equipment, then it simply boils down to your unwillingness to pay the going price for that level of performance, while others may be willing to do so (for any of a variety of reasons).

I think you're getting tied up with his attempt to quantify gear quality by percentage. Yes it's impossible to say that this component is 1 % or 25 % or 200 % better than another. The point is to find where the value proposition in any component is.

For instance:

Can I hear the difference between $100, $2000 and $25,000 speakers (or whatever)? We all know the difference between the $100 speakers and the $2000 ones will be night and day, but how much better will the $25,000 ones be? Where is the sweet spot beyond which things are only getting better in a very subtle way?

That hefty price tag has a way of clouding your mind into thinking you're hearing 'dramatic' differences in sound, and ABX testing is being suggested as a way to check and see if the difference is actually there.

 

[Saurav]

Where is the sweet spot beyond which things are only getting better in a very subtle way?

Totally depends on the individual making the decision. For instance, I doubt my idea of a sweet spot price for a bottle of wine will match that of a serious conneiseur. Likewise, I don't expect his idea of a meaningful price for an audio system to match mine. I have a friend at work who thinks it's hilarious that anyone can spend more than 5 minutes a day thinking about audio or music.

 

[Larry B]

Keith:

We all know the difference between the $100 speakers and the $2000 ones will be night and day, but how much better will the $25,000 ones be?

How much better is, for example, the Sonus faber Amati Homage ($22,000) than the B&W 805 ($2,000)? "Night and day" barely does it justice.

Larry

 

[John Morris]

How much better is, for example, the Sonus faber Amati Homage

Larry: Have you actually heard these? If so, I'm jealous... How do they compare to some other pricey speakers like Wilson Watts and Aerial 20Ts?

 

[Larry B]

Merc:

How do they compare to some other pricey speakers like Wilson Watts and Aerial 20Ts?

I'v never heard the Aerials, but have listened to the Watt Puppy 6's countless times. The Amatis and the Watt Puppys are as different as two speakers could be. The Watt Puppies are the most detailed speaker imaginable, and provide indescribable imaging (pinpoint seems an apt descriptor). However, to my ear they are not musical. Whether are not they are realistic is a subject of considerable debate.
The Amatis, on the other hand, are the ultimate in warm and soothing; a friend of mine has likened their midrange to "dripping honey." Musical? You bet! Realistic? No idea. However, they are a bit weak in the lower octaves.
The Watt Puppies intrigue the heck out of me, but I don't think I could live with them. I'd take the Amatis at the drop of a hat. (Though I have heard far better. Sorry. :frowning: )
Larry
P.S. Did you see my comment about your wife's changing of your tubes? (Somehow, that didn't sound right. )

 

[John Morris]

Larry: I get the feeling by your description of the WilsonWatts and the Amatis that we are both searching for the same sound but trying to reach it from opposite directions. For me, I am drawn to the WWs and the Aerials BECAUSE of their detail and accuracy. Still, I am wanting for more musicality. That's why I am now looking at tubes. I'm wondering if carefully matching tubes with speakers like the Aerials may give us the best of both worlds?

 

[Larry B]

Merc:

I'm wondering if carefully matching tubes with speakers like the Aerials may give us the best of both worlds?

Tubes would help, but trying to tame the Watt Puppies is not an easy task. (Putting a cork on Niagra falls pops into mind).

BTW, if you are familiar with these speakers, why the jealousy?

Larry

P.S. Have you ever listened to Thiels?

 

[John Morris]

BTW, if you are familiar with these speakers, why the jealousy?

Larry: I was referring to the Amati Homages. I have never heard them and only have seen pictures of them at a local dealer. I've heard just about all of the WWs since v3/2 I think? I've found that the Aerial 10Ts and 20Ts provide 90% of the detail and imaging with less of the fatigue factor of the WWs. If only I had the bucks!

And no, no Thiel listening... at least lately. How do they compare?

 

[Larry B]

Merc:
I think Thiels are some of the best speakers at their price range, which explains why I own them.
BTW, what price range are you looking at? The Thiel CS 2.3's are $3,600-ish and, in my opinion, are better than the B&W 804's. I own the Thiel CS 6's which are comparably priced to the B&W 802 but again, are much better (IMO, of course). Jim Thiel has come up with some amazing innovations vis-a-vis coherence, and manufactures all his own drivers. (Check out his site: http://www.thielaudio.com/ )
Since I assume you will be using a decent (read: musical) subwoofer, would you consider a bookshelf speaker? If so, the Sonus faber Electa Amators are extraordinary, as are the less expensive Signums.
And last but not least, how about Vandersteens?
Larry
P.S. Possibly the best speaker I've heard in the $40K range is the Lumenwhite: http://www.acousticdreams.net/lumenw...ermainpage.htm

 

[John Morris]

Larry: I'm just not interested in bookshelfs, these would be for a full range stereo only system.

I spent a few hours with a pair of Vandersteen Model 5s a few weeks ago... driven by a pair of Bel monoblocks and sourced by a $12K CD player. Simply incredible!

Seems like there are quite a few really good speakers in the sub $10K range(new and used).

 

[EricHaas]

Why are "musicality" on the one hand "detail/accuracy" on the other often considered mutually exclusive?

 

[Saurav]

Why are "musicality" on the one hand "detail/accuracy" on the other often considered mutually exclusive?

Good question. Ideally, I believe they don't need to be mutually exclusive. However, in my experience (which is with much humbler speakers than people here are discussing), I've found that a detailed presentation tends to distract me from the "overall picture", so to speak. I notice all the little bits and pieces, but the whole thing doesn't come together cohesively. With speakers that are generally considered musical, their presentation is different - they don't smear the finer details, but they don't shine as bright a spotlight on them. Instead, they do a better job conveying the overall pace and flow of the music. To me, this is ultimately much more satisfying than the other. Of course, that's just my taste.

 

[Mifr44]

Eric,
"Why are "musicality" on the one hand "detail/accuracy" on the other often considered mutually exclusive?"
I think it is because for many people, the desire for more detail and accuracy tends to come at the expense of musicality. There is something seductive about obtaining the most detail you can. It is only after some time has passed that it becomes apparent that the music has suffered in the search for more detail and accuracy.
That's not to say that you can't have both. I just find from my own experience and from reading the audio posts online that the search for more detail often leads you down the wrong upgrade paths.
And if you are lucky, you get both!
Michael

 

[Larry B]

I do not believe that detail and musicality are necessarily mutually exclusive. However, the most detailed speaker I have heard, the Watt Puppy, is not (in my opinion) musical.
Larry