What determines the character of sound? (1 Viewer)

[Mary M S]

When I started my road, recently I surfed an overwhelming amount of opinions. I would read 3 in a row touting don’t skimp on the pre/pro receiver/pre-amp etc. And think okay, I’ll budget there. Then the next day countless opinions on the differences an amplifier change made in an otherwise static system. What do you do when you have guys arguing non-stop in your surfing over the differences in the whole chain of possible purchases and you know nothing? I decided to walk a middle/low road and learn.

I waded and drowned and tested what I could for myself. Interconnects/speaker wire? I grabbed a bunch of wire of various sorts and switched them out. I heard a difference so I went middle of the road. Ect. on and on. I purchased a low-end capable set of satellite speakers, matched set for 7.1.

In my system what I verified for my own subjective ears.
Speaker wire/interconnects (video and audio) do make a difference. To some degree. But you could waste a lifetime trying out the possible combinations. I went mid of the road, respected, well built. Some pleasurable differences.

Amplifier: You need ‘enough’ power to push a speaker. Once you have that the rest are negligible differences.

Source: Yes, major differences without spending big bucks on the video side. I needed progressive for a larger screen, it made a huge difference. But you can pick this up for a great price these days. You can spend big bucks on the audio side of your CD or DVD transport, I went again, respected, tried and true (Panasonic RP-91) can it just pass the info along fairly transparently. Are the DAC’s by a reputable manuf.?

I instinctually felt, that if I purchased a capable, current (surround modes/features) pre-pro or receiver, I could really save mega-bucks for something which could feasibly ‘date’ quickly and have a very steep diminishing return price-point slope. I needed a certain level/capability here and beyond would be over-kill for a part of my system I consider more prone to obsolescence than almost any other piece. I listened to all I could the Outlaw bested or equaled all. (Amps, Not unless the tech changes dramatically. Speaker wire, I don’t intend to rip this out till it fries, DVD player? Not till it breaks or they come out with the next upgrade (VHS-DVD-?) recording medium.) I looked at so many issues in this area and the Outlaw 950 did it all for a better price.

From day one of this journey, I saw (over and over) the old-timers, long term AV’ers, constant mantra.
SPEAKERS/SPEAKERS/SPEAKERS. It made sense but I was resistant, I had so many choices to spread the dollars between.

I ended up with a transparent clean, capable, above average system, and something was lacking. Okay darn it maybe those guys KNOW what they are talking about. I went back to the drawing board. I have a great system, it sounds great, performs great. Why am I not satisfied? I came home with 3 Vienna’s, Beethoven on the fronts, Maestro on the center.

I finally got ‘there’. The speakers broke it wide open. I had capable stuff in the chain, but my final output was scrunched. I have now ‘seen the light’. Speakers are worth saving for, scrimping for, and countless demo’s, for the rest of my life. Everything else just needs to do its job and be of good quality. So I’m ignoring Roberts original, “besides the speakers of course”. Because I found it IS the speakers.
In the electronics I’ll look just for current tech, quality build, and enough power is critical, because the Speakers have to have it for optimization. (Easier to achieve with separates).

From now on my ‘leanings’ will be. Find a middle of the road (price) capable whatever. (Power/Source, Pre-pro/receiver etc) to stay fairly current on the possibilities and technology. All these things do ‘effect’ the sound to greater/lessor degrees. But I will always in future budget from the speakers, BACK through the rest of the chain.
Save/ Sacrifice/Budget/Stretch, Do Whatever It Takes, -FOR THE SPEAKERS and their placement, then It's an issue of the recordings themself. How well was that DVD/CD laid down, who mixed it and what kind of job did they do.

Just me.

 

[Walt N]

In my experience and in no particular order, it's the room, configuration, and the speakers.

Assuming everything else is solid state and sources are digital, they're of similar spec and are only being asked to perform within their designed performance limitations, other differences perceived are chiefly a matter of psycho-acoustics.

I believe it was in Stereophile magazine that someone first touted the idea that sources, being the first link in the audio chain, were most important and made the most difference. That was all well and good when a turntable was the primary source in most systems, but the logic simply doesn't transfer to digital and SS systems but rather just adds to the confusion.

 

[Rich Malloy]

I agree that room + speakers, and how they interrelate (set up) are the factors that will most determine the quality and character of sound you hear.

But I think folks are discounting source equipment a bit too much. True, there's much greater differential in the character (and quality) of sound when one compares phonographic equipment, but people seem to have drawn an unsupportable corollary from this observation. Boiled down, it's the notion that "digital is digital", that is, all CD/SACD/DVD/DVD-A players sound pretty much the same, especially when used as transports only. I find this to be quite demonstrably false.

 

[Walt N]

All known or published attempts using any modicum of scientific methodology (controlled blind testing) have not supported the idea that audible differences exist among digital sources of reasonable specification, let alone transports. How have you demonstrated this to be false?

 

[Rich Malloy]

I hook up two different source units, A-B'ing back and forth with the very same source disc playing simultaneously (ahh... CD-R!), and use my ears to compare. You should try it sometime.

 

[Shane Martin]

Rich,
But its much easier to use published tests(which you didn't participate in) as your statement of fact as opposed to actual personal experience. Don't you know this?

 

[Yogi]

But its much easier to use published tests(which you didn't participate in) as your statement of fact as opposed to actual personal experience. Don't you know this?

Absolutely! Its much better to rely on published data than on one's own personal experiences. You can't argue with 'the data'.

 

[Shane Martin]

Absolutely! Its much better to rely on published data than on one's own personal experiences. You can't argue with 'the data'

This actually makes my point more loud and clear. Keep reading.

When analyzing the threads on forums like this you can tell what camp that person fits in quite easily by how they approach the thread. Most if not all subjectivists like Lee and even Myself go into the thread to share our experience. We aren't out to argue our findings. We simply share them and say great.

Most objectivists are the more vocal ones I've seen aren't out to post their experience because they either 1) Don't have it and only base their discussion on tested data and other information that isn't personal or 2)they base their "experience" off their field of study.

Some objectivists are more respectful and let the subjectivists live in their newly found happiness but others seem to be on some crusade to rid the world of these socalled rip off artists(not my words). I think you'd be better served by letting people figure out on their own if its not a good value rather than ruin(my words) thread after thread after thread with the same old wording.

Then again threads like "This Mark Levinson amp sounded incredible in my system and blew away my previous Pioneer receiver" are like raw meat to a shark right?

It's all in the approach.

 

[Yogi]

Most objectivists are the more vocal ones I've seen aren't out to post their experience because they either 1) Don't have it and only base their discussion on tested data and other information that isn't personal or 2)they base their "experience" off their field of study.

Actually Shane I am from the same side as you. I should have put a smiley face after my line. I was just resounding the typical objectivist approach to a thread like this. I fully agree to your observation of the objectivists frame of mind.
Wait, I sense a shark coming my way.

 

[Yogi]

This, from a reformed "high-end audio" buff who went the whole route (Audio Research tube gear, Magnepans, belt-
driven turntables, etc.).

Jack, I would very much like to hear the story of your 'reform'. How did this reform come about? and above all why? The reason I ask is I have been in this hobby a mere 3 years and have already been amazed by my journey through various upgrades (speakers, amps, preamps, cables etc.) along the way. I am hemming and hawing at the addition of a 2 channel tube pre to my current setup for better 2 channel musical reproduction. Before I take the plunge into the tumultous world of tube-o-philia, I thought your experiences on going the tube route and back would be enlightening. I keep hearing about the better dimensionality and layering and space recreation with tube audio. Although I have heard various tube gear at various price points (much more $$$ than my current setup), I have yet to experience the so called tube 'magic' in my own setup. Do you think it would be worthwhile going that route or it would be a mere waste of time and $$$ in doing so.

Any expert opinion will be greatly appreciated.

 

[Walt N]

Personal experiences can make for interesting discussion but they're anything but proof, especially when comparisons are sighted with no bias controls in place. I've been fooled many times myself over the years, but once I can no longer see what component is in use the differences tend to dissappear. By the same token I have been able to easily distinguish speaker differences, and high-resolution differences (DVD-A tracks vs. alternate DD tracks on the same disc) 10 for 10. Listening alone should indeed by the basis by which valid comparisons are performed, and to truly "trust one's ears" the visual cues must be removed from the comparison for it to be truly useful to others.

It would seem the effects of sighted bias on test results are very underestimated by the audio community. Try some blind comparisons and you may demonstrate this for yourself. You really don't need QSC ABX comparators or other fancy test equipment, just an assistant behind a blind and a coin to toss for playing order. If you can't pass the SBT, a subsequent DBT is not needed.

My viewpoint along with those of like minded audio enthusiasts have been taken to task for cutting into the fun and enjoyment factor of the hobby, and I do agree to some extent. Sometimes it's best not to overthink this stuff and merely enjoy it for what it does for you, however it does it. In my own case I've recently added a very nice piece of processing gear to my system which I consider an overall improvement for many reasons, however this is one piece I'm just going to enjoy without scrutiny as I'm afraid of what a good SBT will tell me. Head in the sand, self deception?... probably. Thing is, I like this unit so I'd rather just keep thinking that it sounds as good as it looks! By the same token I'm not going to run out and tell everyone to buy one without some credible evidence toward an audible improvement. That's not to say I don't reserve the right to state my preference as an opinion, but it won't be stated as fact unless I can prove what I say.

 

[Walt N]

This, from a reformed "high-end audio" buff who went the whole route (Audio Research tube gear, Magnepans, belt-driven turntables, etc.).

Ditto, although I leaned more toward McIntosh, SAE, and box-type speakers in my old Stereophile reading daze. Turntables, cartridges, and tubes are good examples of gear with higher price points of diminishing returns, and easily audible diffences when compared against their lesser cousins. IMO it's much more difficult to buy ill-designed crap today if one has any sort of a decent budget.

Although apparently tempting as I've seen it many times, I think it's a mistake to lump all objectivists into a group of people who have extrememely limited experience, finances, or who know nothing but what they read. The truth is many of us came from the subjectivist camp and modified our thinking via practical experience.

 

[Shane Martin]

Walt,
Why do you feel you need to prove anything? I think thats another issue that objectivists seem to say. They for some reason need proof as I do not. Just tell me your thoughts and I'll accept that as it is. If I got ripped off in the end I'm not about to come back and say it was all Walt's fault. I'll return it to the store and be done with it and move on.

/shrug

 

[Walt N]

Why do you feel you need to prove anything? I think thats another issue that objectivists seem to say. They for some reason need proof as I do not. Just tell me your thoughts and I'll accept that as it is. If I got ripped off in the end I'm not about to come back and say it was all Walt's fault. I'll return it to the store and be done with it and move on.

I wouldn't feel the need to have credible evidence to state a preference as an opinion, for example "I like the sound of amplifier X better than that of amplifier Y". Such a statement is obviously meant to be taken at face value. However if I were to state emphatically "amplifier X is in every aspect a superior sounding amplifier over brand Y", I'd assume the burden of proof whether or not you, as the reader, request or require it.

Stating opinion as fact is poor form which leads to argument. OTOH it's pointless to argue with an opinion stated as an opinion.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Jack, I would very much like to hear the story of your 'reform'. How did this reform come about? and above all why? The reason I ask is I have been in this hobby a mere 3 years and have already been amazed by my journey through various upgrades (speakers, amps, preamps, cables etc.) along the way.

Yes, I would like to know as well in some detail as I have Audio Research and Maggies and just love em to death. Music sounds real and spacious and detailed and the midrange is just perfect.
I try all manner of solid state amps and just don't enjoy the music half as much. Go tubes!

 

[Walt N]

Tubes can be wonderful, just ask a guitar player. Even-order distortion/harmonics from tubes can be very pleasing to the ear in the middle to high frequencies, but tubes do often lack a bit in terms of bass control and slam. Some listeners find great results by bi-amping with tubes on top and SS on the woofers. I haven't tried it myself but it is something I'd be keen on playing around with.

I do sometimes miss the warmth of a good tube sound, but for me it doesn't outweigh the no-brainer simplicity and reliabilty of SS. Likewise for vinyl vs. CD. Nothing worse than a lazy audio head.

 

[Chu Gai]

Personally I find the concept of waiving the 'right' for proof by consumers tantamount to walking around NYC or Paris with your money flopping out of your back pocket after you've shot your ass full of novocaine.

 

[Lewis Besze]

? I think that's another issue that objectivists seem to say. They for some reason need proof

No, they need an answer as why,based on scientific principles.
Think of an objectiviest as an "atheist" they not "buying" into what being preached for centuries[in parallel the high end press],but they simply wan't to find they own "explanation",based on their own knowledge[known physics,and understanding limitations of the human auditory system] on the subject, if there is any.
The other misconception is that DBT is their bible,and they don't even enjoy this hobby,this wrong again.
DBT is more representative of the human auditory system then differences among similar components,though it was "created" to "prove" the latter one.
I certainly enjoy listening to music and watching movies on my rig which is continuously being upgraded,as I consider it half the fun.
I don't shop by specs alone, but it is part of my decision sometimes.I bought my Outlaw 950 unheard but I had 30 days to make up my mind.I kept it.
I do "notice" differences between components,and even cables,but I would never pretend that it should be "written into stones" or it should influence other people's perception or judgment.The same goes for me I only read subjective reviews for the "entertainment" they sometimes "reduced" to.I do like "user reviews" which sometimes tell me more about operational quirks,or things that are not in the manual,or just incorrect.Those are valuable to,but the "my wife agree on this with me" or "I;m bass player,or recording engineer so I should know how it should sound" comments are laughable at best.YMMV

 

[Lewis Besze]

Jack, I would very much like to hear the story of your 'reform'. How did this reform come about?

Illumination!

 

[Mary M S]

continuously being upgraded,as I consider it half the fun.

Fun?! I believe I’m addicted, and have evolved into some misunderstood exotic species to which my friends and family cannot relate. My idea of a night out now, is to see what the electronics store might have got in, they did not have in - last week!
I’m beginning to wonder if the closet needs its own separate sound system.

WE are all berry berry sick.

“Is it not strange that sheep's guts, (SS resistors, and glowing tubes) should hale souls out of men's bodies?”