MEH Synergy Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 I admire your background in music, I have one myself. I respectfully couldn't disagree stronger with a basic AVR and a McIntosh piece of gear. The pieces are worlds apart if you have a decent pair of speakers and hearing. I would put those in the extreme opposite ends of the audio realm. If they sound the same (again no offense, not looking to insult or argue, why in the world wouldn't you sell the Mac? You could buy a ridiculous amount of onkyo AVRs for the price the Mac sells used for. Thinking out loud in a sense here. There are dramatic differences between one amp and another. I have owned many many over the years and some sound similar, but many are voiced quite differently. Had to chime in on this one for "beginners". A used integrated or amp and Preamp over an AVR any day for music only. Again, my opinion based on my ears, taste and experience. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 16 minutes ago, ODS123 said: But MAYBE I'll convince the beginners who come to this forum to regard those who hear differences w/ a bit of skepticism and will therefore ask that any two amps the compare be precisely volume matched Fwiw, you've convinced me. That last part is important and something I learned from Dean. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODS123 Posted November 7, 2018 Author Share Posted November 7, 2018 7 minutes ago, Westcoastdrums said: I admire your background in music, I have one myself. I respectfully couldn't disagree stronger with a basic AVR and a McIntosh piece of gear. The pieces are worlds apart if you have a decent pair of speakers and hearing. I would put those in the extreme opposite ends of the audio realm. If they sound the same (again no offense, not looking to insult or argue, why in the world wouldn't you sell the Mac? You could buy a ridiculous amount of onkyo AVRs for the price the Mac sells used for. Thinking out loud in a sense here. There are dramatic differences between one amp and another. I have owned many many over the years and some sound similar, but many are voiced quite differently. Had to chime in on this one for "beginners". No offense taken, it's a fair question. As I said earlier in the thread, I bought the Mac b/c I love the look, the feel, and the feature set, including: wattage meters, mono, bass, treble, and level matching for all inputs. Also, I've always liked the history and heritage of the brand (kinda like Klipsch) and the fact that their gear is (mostly) hand-built in small town in upstate NY. I've lusted for a Mac amp for 20 years. Now, It's my one extravagance. ..I don't own an expensive watch, motorcycle, shore house, BMW, boat, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEH Synergy Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 I understand and agree. Better to spend on music related gear. Congrats on your purchase and glad you like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willland Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 34 minutes ago, Westcoastdrums said: A used integrated or amp and Preamp over an AVR any day for music only. Totally agree but do really like the sound of my 2004 flagship NAD T773 AVR with my Heresys even though it does have a somewhat high noise floor. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 23 hours ago, JohnA said: The only inherent bias in double-blind testing is the refusal to accept the results. Stereo Review administered the test. I forget what year it was. No one could hear the difference between the $200 Pioneer receiver and the Levinson monoblocks, which I believe were tube amps. So, either everyone was deaf, the units sounded the same, or the test was flawed. Edit: It was 1987. http://archive.is/xk0l Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEH Synergy Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 No one could hear the difference between the $200 Pioneer receiver and the Levinson monoblocks, which I believe were tube amps. That is MIND BLOWING. If no one can hear the difference between anything, why does This forum exist? All amps sound the same as its been scientifically proven. There is no difference in any cable as long as it is copper. No one can agree which source sounds best. Keeps getting better. I have a dealer I would love to drop his name. His name is Elliot Midwood. His shop is acoustic image in North Hollywood, CA. I would love for all of the skeptics to give him a visit and try 4o pick your jaw up off the floor when you hear his setups. To this day, I have never heard anytjing that approached the wall to wall, floor to ceiling Soundstage with tremendous realism and pinpoint imaging. This guy was an over the top audio nut that was one of the first individuals that demonstrated to me that quality gear matters....the ENTIRE chain of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODS123 Posted November 7, 2018 Author Share Posted November 7, 2018 35 minutes ago, Deang said: Stereo Review administered the test. I forget what year it was. No one could hear the difference between the $200 Pioneer receiver and the Levinson monoblocks, which I believe were tube amps. So, either everyone was deaf, the units sounded the same, or the test was flawed. Edit: It was 1987. http://archive.is/xk0l This statement: "I contend that such tests are an indictment of blind listening tests in general because of the patently absurd conclusions to which they lead. A notable example is the blind listening test conducted by Stereo Review that concluded that a pair of Mark Levinson monoblocks, an output-transformerless tubed amplifier, and a $220 Pioneer receiver were all sonically identical. (“Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?” published in the January, 1987 issue.)" Is hilarious. ..So DBT can't be valid b/c it fails to yield the results he expects? And of course as an audio reviewer he has a vested interest in differences being audible and meaningful. Otherwise, what is there for an audio reviewer to opine on? Look, all of this proves the point I made in my original post: just how relevant could such differences be if there is ANY debate at all about their existence? If they were audible and they mattered they surely would be plain to the ear of every non-hearing impaired music lover!! Thank god Harley isn't a researcher who collects and interprets data. ..Like Clinical Trials for Pharma, etc.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODS123 Posted November 7, 2018 Author Share Posted November 7, 2018 24 minutes ago, Deang said: When DBT is used in say, pharmaceutical trials, most of the output data is provided by specific, calibrated and reliable instruments like X-Ray machines, MRI, blood gas analysis, chemical assay and so on. This provides the concept of repeatability - any other researcher should be able to confirm or duplicate the results, because the instruments and measures are standards. This is absolutely NOT true!! Both my wife and I are in pharma. I'm in sales and my wife is in charge of clinical trial data collection for numerous oncology studies. While some drugs treat measurable things like A1C (diabetes) and HDL/LDL (hyperlipidemia), a great many others rely on symptom scores provided by patients. COPD, Asthma, Pain Management, Psych disorders just to name a few. And with each of these, patients in the placebo trial arm CONSISTENTLY report an improvement in symptoms; sometimes to a degree that absolutely astonishing. ..Not unlike the audiophile who ALWAYS reports an improvement in sound following an upgrade to amp, cables, etc... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 No, it’s not valid because it doesn’t always reveal obvious differences under normal listening conditions. Regarding your most recent post, you say “not true”, but then immediately admit some drugs treat “measurable things”. Still, I get what you’re saying - interesting information for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEH Synergy Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Glad you said something. I wasn't going to call BS on that one. Medicine is far form an exact science. There is plenty of uncertainty and experimentation ( I know it sounds bad). I agree with the drugs and symptom scores for certain classes of medications. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schu Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 It was a bad analogy... repeatability in manufacturing has nothing to do with patient trials or the ability to hear a difference in A/B mode 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Ya. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODS123 Posted November 7, 2018 Author Share Posted November 7, 2018 7 minutes ago, Deang said: No, it’s not valid because it doesn’t always reveal obvious differences under normal listening conditions. Regarding your most recent post, you say “not true”, but then immediately admit some drugs treat “measurable things”. Still, I get what you’re saying - interesting information for sure. Deang, ..Even some of the trials that collect quantifiable metrics - rather than patient-reported symptom scores - reveal a placebo effect. For example: A percentage of patients who are given inhalers w/ inert contents will demonstrate an improvement in Forced Expiratory Volume (called FEV1), which is basically a measurement using a Spirometry device, of how quickly a patient can exhale. Expectation Bias has A HUGE impact on what we experience with medication AND, I contend, in Audio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEH Synergy Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 A percentage of patients who are given inhalers w/ inert contents will demonstrate an improvement in Forced Expiratory Volume (called FEV1), which is basically a measurement using a Spirometry device, of how quickly a patient can exhale. Sorry. Not true. I perform these tests and they must be performed exactly the same, reproduced by best of three with criteria 10% or better of one another. You will NOT demonstrate better FEV1% by a placebo effect. It isn't possible. We can see on graphical tracings as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODS123 Posted November 7, 2018 Author Share Posted November 7, 2018 8 minutes ago, Westcoastdrums said: A percentage of patients who are given inhalers w/ inert contents will demonstrate an improvement in Forced Expiratory Volume (called FEV1), which is basically a measurement using a Spirometry device, of how quickly a patient can exhale. Sorry. Not true. I perform these tests and they must be performed exactly the same, reproduced by best of three with criteria 10% or better of one another. You will NOT demonstrate better FEV1% by a placebo effect. It isn't possible. We can see on graphical tracings as well. Sorry Westcoast, but I stand by my statement. I would refer you to the clinical trials listed in the prescription inserts for inhalers you (or your HCP) prescribes and you will see there is a slight improvement in FEV, post inhalation of a placebo inhaler (and yes, I understand patients complete this test 3 times). ..The improvement isn't therapeutically meaningful, but there's an improvement suggestive of a patients expectation that they just used this device (unaware it is inert) and they should now be able to breath better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 59 minutes ago, Deang said: From my old site, written by Mark Deneen of Juicymusic Audio. Used with permission. The Flawed Idea Behind Any Form of AB Testing Who is Mark Deneen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEH Synergy Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 I do this for a living. I know what I am talking about. A slight improvement is not a clinically significant improvement. A 25% improvement is the beginning of what we call clinically significant. That is only one test for the reversivility of airflow obstruction. That is only for one type of "inhaler". Doesn't matter per se, the information just isn't correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Why do we have television ads for prescription drugs and the resultant costs when nowhere else I am familiar with tries to drive demand from the consumer? It is one of the things the rest of the world finds strange about the USA. Ask your doctor about damnitol, because you are a hypochondriac in a nation full of advertising led zombies... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.