ODS123
-
Posts
899 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by ODS123
-
-
6 minutes ago, jason str said:
A bad amp/preamp combo can be just as brutal on the ears.
Again, make and model please!! I'm dying to know. ..If not too expensive, I'll buy it and will play it for my family and friends and see if any complain of SES (Shreded Ear Syndrome)
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Tizman said:
Really? Again? Is this a mantra? A ridiculously difficult test is just that. It’s not proof of anything. If he was so confident about his assertions, he would have created a more reasonable test, and/or the prize would have been bigger. It’s like betting on football games. Pick the winner for 24 games instead of 2 games. It’s a flawed test, just as the test referred to in post 1 was flawed.
Dean just said he knows of an amp so bad it will shred your hearing!! ..I can't see how it would be hard to pick such an amp from a good amp 100 straight times, let alone 2 sets of 12.
Anyway, from the RC $10k Amp Challenge wiki Q&A::
Is two sets of 12 correct responses a stringent requirement?
Yes. Richard Clark intentionally made the requirements strict because with thousands of people taking the test, even random guessing would eventually cause someone to pass the test if the bar was set low. Since he is offering his own $10,000 to anyone who will pass the test, he wants to protect against the possibility of losing it to random guessing.
However, if the listener is willing to put up their own money for the test as a bet, he will lower the requirements from 12 correct down to as low as 6 correct.
Richard Clark has said “22 out of 24 would be statistically significant. In fact it would prove that the results were audible. Any AVERAGE score more than 65% would do so. But no one has even done that”.”
-
57 minutes ago, Deang said:
Compared to most other loudspeakers, Klipsch speakers do sound "bright", and with cheap gear and/or lack of attention to setup and room -- will absolutely shred your hearing.
Shred your hearing? Really? ..Please tell me the make and model of an amp or CD player that is so horrendous that it will "absolutely shred my hearing." I'm dying to see it's specifications.
I have a little bit of disposable money these days, I might actually buy this amp and see how it sounds with my Cornwalls. Even if my room and setup will soften some of it's "shreddiness" (as you did say setup is a factor) I'm sure it will still sound much much poorer than my Mac, my Onkyo AVR or my $130 AudioSource Amp100, right?? I mean you did say "shred" so it should be plainly obvious.
If only for my edification, I would be happy to spend a few hundred bucks on a modern amplifier which is SO nasty that even a hardened skeptic such as my self can hear the difference. I'd treat it w/ kid gloves and would sell it on agon when I'm through being disappointed w/ its sound.
Make, and model please.
-
On 1/2/2019 at 6:24 AM, ODS123 said:
Who at Onkyo, NAD, Cambridge Audio, etc.. etc... serves as the Master Sound Sommelier? Who is charged with tuning tweaking, adjusting the tone, texture, nuance of the sound ALL WITHOUT HAVING an actual measurable effect on the signal? ..So how do they do this?? And how does one MSS pass the "house sound" recipe to the next MSS when this nuanced house sound isn't quantifiable, measurable, or even describable?
Still hoping someone can answer this for me. For example, who would this be at McIntosh? Of relevance to this, someone from another forum who used to work at McIntosh told me that no one at McIntosh Labs is able to reliably distinguish their current S/S gear from their current Tube gear. So how/ where does their house sound come from? -
8 minutes ago, Edgar said:
I'm an engineer; I design some of my own audio equipment, in particular digital signal processing equipment. I am astounded at the differences that I cannot hear ... and equally astounded at what I can. Sometimes I'll switch between digital and analog outputs from a CD player (adding an extra set of digital-to-analog and analog-to-digital conversions to the signal path), and for the life of me I won't be able to hear any difference. Other times I'll tune my algorithms by ear, and then go back and "work the math" to figure out what the values should be, only to find that I've nailed the values almost exactly, just by listening. In both cases my observed results were not what I expected, and it was unnerving.
I'm not sure what they take away is with this.
10 minutes ago, Edgar said:Not quite. The only thing proven is that the person taking the test could not discern any difference under the test conditions. It does not prove that there aren't any differences.
Yes, this is true. But don't you think the 1000+ people who failed in Richard Clarks $10k challenge were just as confident in their hearing as you?
-
16 hours ago, Deang said:
I agree with much of that, but do believe each manufacturer has a “house sound”. Denon does not sound like Onkyo - I would be surprised if many on the HT side of things didn’t agree with me. It’s not a jaw dropping difference, but it is different.
I believe this to be a myth. As I said before, my Cornwall IIIs sound exactly the same to me and everyone in my family regardless of whether they're being driven by my Mac amp (replete w/ anachronistic autoformers) my Onkyo AVR or my $130 AudioSource AMP100.
This "house sound" notion makes me wonder: Who at Onkyo, NAD, Cambridge Audio, etc.. etc... serves as the Master Sound Sommelier? Who is charged with tuning tweaking, adjusting the tone, texture, nuance of the sound ALL WITHOUT HAVING an actual measurable effect on the signal? ..So how do they do this?? And how does one MSS pass the "house sound" recipe to the next MSS when this nuanced house sound isn't quantifiable, measurable, or even describable?
Years ago I had an NAD 7250PE receiver and was given my fathers 7240PE receiver which was 4 years newer.. I opened both up and noticed how each had parts from different sources. ..Parts that said Sanyo on one were Toshiba on the other (I may be misremembering the exact brands but they were different). ..Like every part that had a name, it was different on the other! I wonder how "House Sound" is preserved despite the fact that different parts are being used form one generation product to another.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, TubeHiFiNut said:
It's called Test Anxiety. From Wikipedia:
"Test anxiety is a combination of physiological over-arousal, tension and somatic symptoms, along with worry, dread, fear of failure, and catastrophizing, that occur before or during test situations. It is a physiological condition in which people experience extreme stress, anxiety, and discomfort during and/or before taking a test."
Sorry but I don't believe this at all. I very much doubt that all those participating in Richard Clark's Amplifier challenge were suffering from "dread, fear of failure and catastrophizing" Remember, the weren't betting their money against his, it was win $10k or lose nothing.
It's like saying "I'm an expert chess player, I display exemplary strategy both offensively and defensively." ..Then, after losing, saying "Well, the my skills deteriorate whenever I actually play chess."
To beginners still following the discussion I'd point out: Just how significant and important could differences b/w amps really be if an audiophiles ability to discern them is so fragile that it completely collapses from the pressure of being asked to actually identify them. ..just seems incredibly far-fetched to me.
-
2
-
-
21 minutes ago, Deang said:
This only bolsters my position. So, not only were the speakers completely different, but they were level matched - and some still couldn’t tell the difference!
Okay... And how many of these people share your opinion that they can reliably hear differences b/w volume-matched amplifiers? Probably every one of them.. And yet they couldn't even reliably distinguish between two different speakers playing with a 3db volume differential. ..I think this supports the view that audiophiles have a way overinflated view of their hearing acuity.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Deang said:
By comparison, it's quite easy to tell speakers apart.
You sure?The year Klipsch released the Cornwall III, we had a Gathering at Klipsch Headquarters. One of the demos they had set up was an A/B test between the Cornwall III and RF-7. Everything was behind a large black curtain. Everyone got a clipboard with questions and a place for comments. This listening test also had a challenge - we were asked to guess which speaker was playing when the switch was flipped. I had no less than three people confess to me after the test that they really couldn’t tell a difference.That's a very good point. ..I've never had the occasion to directly compare two generations of the same speaker. ..I don't doubt this was difficult and maybe impossible for some to reliably identify. Whenever I've compared speakers it's been of two different brands and I never had difficulty distinguishing them - yes, I did insist on volume matching. ..But I wasn't "blinded" though I wish I could have accomplished that somehow.
-
12 hours ago, Tizman said:
This article is very interesting. I have put my faith in science for a long time. However, the history of science is rife with the negative influences of orthodoxy, money and many other things that have slowed the path of its progress. It's easy to move along with the crowd and believe in the things that everyone else believes in. The world isn't round, ulcers are caused by stress, its impossible to fly, etc. I believe that "If it measures good and sounds bad, it's bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, you've measured the wrong thing." is absolutely true. We aren't measuring the right thing. The THD wars of the end of the last century are a clear example of this. So many bad components sold by measuring only one thing and talking about it as though it was the only thing that mattered. Does anyone know exactly what to measure that will correlate to audio quality? It appears that the answer is no, although a lot of things are measured and presented to the public as being the things that correlate to audio quality. It also appears that orthodoxy and market pressures conspire not only to keep the answer from us, they also conspire to keep us from even asking the question. I have seen a lot of crappy audio products in the past 30 years presented as being of good quality, and I have seen the people that said they were crappy at the time being told that they didn't know what they were talking about. It's not about blind testing. It's entirely subjective because there is currently no objective way to measure whatever it is that correlates to my subjective experience. I will not ignore my subjective experiences in order to satisfy the Objectivists that haven't figured out what to measure yet, but feel like they have all the information required to tell me I'm wrong. Maybe next year they will figure it out.
Yes, biases have stood in the way of good science. ..No doubt. That's why peer reviews and the FDA, etc. etc. exist. But to cast science and it's attendant validity and honesty controls aside b/c people have engaged in bad science is silly, IMHO. It reminds me a bit of people who resist taking prescription medications because "pharma companies can't be trusted!" but happily gobble down supplements they buy from GNC or Whole Foods. ..Having no assurances whatsoever as to the contents of the bottle or it's efficacy and safety.
As to your question, which spec matters most? I'd suggest to beginners that the spec that matters most is the percentage of times people can reliably tell one amp from another WHEN they don't know which is playing. The Audio Club referenced in this thread and the thousands who tried, but failed, to take the prize in Richard Clarks $10,000 Amplifier Challenge suggests that percentage is equal to chance. By comparison, it's quite easy to tell speakers apart.
-
3 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:
If you read his biography you would rind he even flashed it at his preacher! 😎
I have no issue with that..
As I said earlier in the thread, much of hifi today would present a sizable moral dilemma for Mr. PWK himself. As an engineer steeped in the Scientific Method he spent a career calling out BS like unsubstantiated claims . Yet to survive today, his company needs a network of retailers who, by necessity, must traffic in these sorts of claims as they can't survive on speakers alone. It's hard to imagine him visiting one of his retailers and not feeling compelled to point to his BS button when he sees expensive DACs, power conditioners, cables, power cords, and yes over-engineered pricey amps that are sold w/ unsubstantiated claims they sound better. I'm pretty sure he'd point to his button.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Dave A said:
Can't help myself. He would say the BS button was started with people like you in mind. So you channel PWK in your seances now?
people who want to empirical evidence? ..nope.
We already heard from those who knew him he had an inexpensive cd player, non-exotic amplification, and didn't believe in pricey cables. And that he'd point to his button as we walked through stores where this stuff is sold.
-
Everyone here is giving their own personal anecdotal accounts of how "I can hear a difference b/w this and than amp, cable, interconnect, etc...." without doing ANYTHING to rule out the influence of expectation bias. Which will naturally arise ANY time you make a change and are aware of it.
Expectation bias is a very powerful thing. It explains why people participating in clinical drug trials will often report improvement in symptoms EVEN when given a placebo. And these are people who know fully well they may have been given an inert control medication. The number would be much higher if they were told that everyone was getting the active drug.
-
5 minutes ago, jason str said:
I have 3 different model Sony ES CD players and all sound different, so even different models from the same manufacturer sound different.
Same goes for every other piece of audio equipment i have owned, all had a signature sound of their own.
You say that but I very much doubt you'd be able to pick one from the other in a blinded trial.
Referring back to the Clubs amp comparison:
Let's remember that system A had a $50 dvd player; System B a several thousand dollar transport/DAC combo. System A had 15' generic thin interconnects; System B had very short and expensive interconnects. System A a generic power cord; System B a pricey one. And so on. ..You would think that even if the $4000 pre/ amp combo didn't sound better than the $199 Behringer, then certainly ALL the other stuff would raise System B well above A. . Well, that is if all that other stuff, as believed by many audiophiles, really does significantly contribute to how a system sounds.
-
1 hour ago, TubeHiFiNut said:
And the misinformation just keeps rolling.
Once again, DBT tests may work for some things but not for Audio.
Simply not true. I'll grant that it's not easy, but certainly possible.
And no need to let the challenges of a DBT stand in the way of using some sort of bias controls. For example, simple volume matching during comparisons would be useful. And a go a step further and have a friend/ family member change speaker cables around while you leave the room, then power up and return the playing amp to the same volume level. This simple exercise would be very eye-opening for gold-eared audiophiles. Yet... people resist. They'd rather claim to be able to hear huge, meaningful differences b/w amps.
As for speaker/ interconnect cables: I've suggested countless times that people simply connect a pricey one to one channel, a cheap to the other than switch back and forth using the balance control (assuming you have one) while listening to a mono recording. Are those differences b/w the pricey and generic cabling still audible??
-
25 minutes ago, Deang said:
Telling them that most stuff sounds basically the same isn’t really all that helpful. Saying it a 1000 times doesn’t make it anymore helpful (or necessarily true).
Not everything... Just modern day amplifiers, cd-players and cables. Audible differences b/w speakers are definitely audible.
And how about PWK? Where do you think he'd stand on this??
28 minutes ago, Deang said:You could buy a really nice set of speakers, and then find your budget AVR shutting down because it has a weak power supply incapable of handling low impedance - or sustained live level listening.
I've never advocated picking an AVR that is underpowered for it's intended application. Indeed, I suggested picking an amp or AVR that is cable of playing their chosen speakers at desired SPLs. AND to chose an amp/AVR that has the functionality you desire. For me, that includes tone controls, balance control, a mono function, and (nice, but less important) the ability to volume level all inputs
-
9 hours ago, Dave A said:
This thread just needs to end although it has been amusing at times. Happy New years everyone.
News flash: You can simply opt out of the discussion. Anyone who finds nothing of value from this thread should stop participating.
-
44 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:
I don't know anything about tube amps but agree with the sentiment above. I only listen to multichannel material and feel that choosing a processor by it's capabilities and user needs is something to consider after speakers are decided on and power requirements are met...Insofar as Home Theater is concerned, there are some very good AVRs out there that can accomplish what most people are expecting from the hobby...If money is no object go all out but my best advice to the beginner is start with a realistic budget and work backwards from there. My 2 cents.
Exactly. ..And though I'm not particularly interested in tube amps any longer, beginners can certainly include tube amps in the mix as they as they go out and make BLINDED, and VOLUME MATCHED comparisons b/w amps and AVRs.
-
32 minutes ago, Marvel said:
They are high end, perhaps revealing, but it doesn't appear they were used in a setup that meets the intended use. Near field is near field and it makes a difference in how they will sound and here differences, whether in a mix or listening your favorite cd. There are enough people on this forum who have worked in studios and know the difference. There are a lot of speakers they could have used for a larger setup/listening environment. If you don't get that, you are only here to try to be the winner of a nonexistant argument.
Looking at the owners manual the only recommendation regarding placement distance offered is that they NOT be set on the console but rather somewhere out in front. ..This suggests a distance probably not much different from what is seen in the club's test.
-
7 hours ago, jason str said:
I was looking from my supplier not from one general one from the internet.
5 Lb difference 1/2" 4 x 8' stock
just over 10 Lb in 1" thickness.
MDF being heavier.
Simply not true. ..Check multiple sources, not just your supplier. ..Perhaps he thought you meant particle board, or a LDF.
-
11 hours ago, Tizman said:
Yes, and although they are described as near field, it doesn't appear that they were used that way in the test. It's a bit hard to tell from the photos, but it would appear that the listening position is further than what would normally be referred to as near field. Also, the speakers are not toed in in the fashion that I normally associate with near field listening. The distance might be a larger issue though, especially considering the very low sensitivity of these speakers.
Every audiophile who believes differences b/w amps are audible will contend that their speakers are revealing enough to allow such differences to be heard - that includes the group from this club. Unfortunately, its predictable that if the results of the comparison are not a compelling endorsement of audible differences, the quality of the speakers will then be called into question.
I’ll remind beginners reading this thread that the aforementioned Richard Clark $10,000 Amplifier Challenge award offered to anyone who can reliably identify one amp from another (provided both are designed to be linear and are not over-driven) was not limited to ANY particular speaker. Indeed, participants could use their own speakers or headphones. Again, thousands tried and none claimed the $10k by reliably distinguishing one amp from another.
As for these ATC’s, while I’ve not taken the time to do so I can almost promise that a google search on these speakers will yield reviews (user and/ or magazine) where the reviews states “these speakers easily allowed me to hear differences b/w amplifiers” as the statement seems to be part of every speaker review. And that none of the setup provisos called out here for tainting the test were mentioned.
-
2 hours ago, TubeHiFiNut said:
I have spent plenty of time listening to Tube amps (thought not SE admittedly) comparing them, volume matched, with S/S. I have no interest in them apart from their cool appearance - for example, the Mac MC275. I would love to have an old one, if only to display. I'll use an equalizer if I want to alter the signal. ..Just as I already do with the tone controls on my current amp.
-
1 hour ago, Deang said:
The argument is that 7-ply Baltic Birch is a better building material, not that things built with MDF are “junk”.
From Tizman on Page 10: "MDF is disposable garbage."
-
1 hour ago, DizRotus said:
Lastly, the use of the word “Beginners” in the title of this thread suggests, unintentionally I hope, a subtle arrogance. IMO, it’s not so much your time of interest in the hobby as it is your willingness to be objective and learn.
Peace!
Thanks for the interesting posting. As for your final comment, I'm sorry but I don't see the arrogance. yes, there's been a lot of arrogance on display in this thread but I don't think it's inherent in the title I chose. My intent with this thread was to tell beginners that before spending heavily on front end electronics to read what those who did found out when they compared their gear with those who didn't. ..Basically, arguing for an affordable, common-sense approach to this hobby. Compare and contrast that with the several who have basically sought to tell anyone who owns speakers made of MDF that they own junk. Or the guy who is telling me my amplifier is garbage because it has autoformers (?). Honestly, that's the arrogance I see being displayed here.
Advice for Beginners - consider this test from an audio club
in General Klipsch Info
Posted
No, it's not unreasonable. ..Just two posts above yours Deang claimed to know of an amp SO BAD that is Shreds ears when paired with Klipsch speakers.. That sounds like a pretty easy amp to pick from a group, no?