Advice for Beginners - consider this test from an audio club

[glens]

Well, I've finally waded all through this steaming pile.  I'd liked to have made pointed comments at several places along the way but have pretty much forgotten now what they were.  Except perhaps that if anyone thinks plywood does not dimensionally and/or structurally change with moisture content, then they most certainly are not yet experienced enough.  And that Forte III which was only dropped once; what, from shoulder height down a flight of stairs?

 

I don't understand the level of animosity directed throughout toward the O.P.  Nothing he'd said stands out in my memory as being very much out of line.  IMO kudos are in order for the way he's handled himself in the face of so much antagonism.

 

I hadn't been involved in hi-fi very long before realizing that what sounds good always changes somewhat from day to day.  Atmospheric conditions, head congestion (at minute, almost imperceptible levels), &c. all come into play.  But whenever I come across stuff like "rearranging the speaker cable necessitated hours (up to days) for them to achieve a restored sonic neutrality", I'm invariably glad I'm not gulping some beverage at the very moment. 

 

Sure, it can take time to discover liked, or disliked, characteristics of some kit that weren't apparent at the outset.  But on any given day an audio A/B/X test is 100% valid in and of itself, and anyone who declares they're "fraught with problems" or some such doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.  Either you can blindly identify which of the two is which or you can't.  It's as simple as that.

 

Pertaining to the initial subject matter of this thread, as I recall things at any rate, I'd be more inclined to agree than disagree with what'd been said.  Wasn't it something along the lines of "at the beginning of your journey you'd do well to look at things this way"?  I'd not gotten the impression that following the offered advice would ensure anyone'd be immediately transported to their final destination.  Yet somehow that's the notion I perceived was vehemently being argued against as the thread progresses.  It's in that light particularly that I say I don't understand the antagonism.  There must surely be something else going on that's not self-evident.

[ODS123]

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.  

[Zen Traveler]

1 hour ago, wvu80 said:

I'm on the multi-channel side and I agree completely with your assessment.  In addition even within a single brand the AVR's have many codecs which change the characteristic sound just as drastically as changing speakers.

Umm. Codex? I honestly felt the difference in AVRs could be how much the finagled their power ratings. I started out with a couple of Yamahas (RXV-795/800) and purchased a Denon AVR-3803 which I liked better. They both were in the same category (midlevel) but after reviewing benchtests found that the Denon's power supply were actually more robust and could handle speakers rated at 4 Ohms. They also were considerably more expensive than the Yammis. I didn't notice much difference at lower levels but found I could play crap louder and my RF-3s at the time would sound bright when it got too loud....That also was when the post processing on the Yamahas were better (more .features).

 

Insofar as different characteristics of amps within a brand, I gotta think that IS a power issue unless you had the post processing on and were comparing...That's my take.

[Deang]

@glens I’m irritated because he just keeps repeating himself and hasn’t contributed anything meaningful to the discussion since page 1 of the first thread he started with the same general topic. He’s baiting and trolling.  

[TubeHiFiNut]

25 minutes ago, glens said:

But on any given day an audio A/B/X test is 100% valid in and of itself, and anyone who declares they're "fraught with problems" or some such doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.  Either you can blindly identify which of the two is which or you can't.  It's as simple as that.

Flag!

 

Stating opinion as fact.

 

15 yards. Replay the down.

 

Oops....watching the college bowl games and got carried away.

[Deang]

28 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

 

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.  

They were not two generations of the same speaker - we were not comparing the Cornwall II to the Cornwall III. Even if we had been, I don’t think myself or most others would had much trouble telling them apart. No, this was comparing a two-way with two 10’s doing midrange duty vs. a loudspeaker using a compression driver and a midrange horn! 

[Deang]

27 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

I remember that. I could tell a difference and slightly preferred the Cornwall III, but later found the speakers weren't level matched and it was 3 dB louder than the RF-7.

 

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!

[Zen Traveler]

33 minutes ago, glens said:

Yet somehow that's the notion I perceived was vehemently being argued against as the thread progresses.  It's in that light particularly that I say I don't understand the antagonism.  There must surely be something else going on that's not self-evident.

Fwiw, I'm with you on the antagonism  and feel the answer lies with those who actually like to tinker, talk, and change things out as part of the hobby. Those of us who like to listen to material after they've made their decision are more likely to concentrate on the material instead of trying to differentiate differences. For the record, I was one who auditioned components/speakers trying to find what sounded the best to me for probably 4 years. It got to the point after I purchased the speakers below and got it to sound great at the volume I wanted I stopped auditioning. With the onset of HDMI I also came to the conclusion there wasn't much difference in Blu-ray players after purchasing a lower end sony that I became happy with after my Denon DVD 3910 stopped playing SACDs...

 

I really think most of us that have participated over the years have too much time on our hands and it's easy to get riled up when an old-timer and new guy get into it--It's not like we haven't had these EXACT disagreements in the past. 😎 

[richieb]

 

=== I  remember that too. And does that show indeed engineers/designers can accomplish a “house sound” using totally different means to an end — ?

[ODS123]

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.

[Zen Traveler]

 

11 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

And yet they couldn't even reliably distinguish between two different speakers with a 3db volume differential.

This is a good point  but think most could tell there was a difference in the speakers. Was it because one was 3 dB louder? Dunno. Not sure if  I could if they were level-matched. In Deans defense If I'm  remembering correctly,  he preferred the RF-7s before knowing which was which, even though it wasn't at the same volume. 

[Deang]

Since they couldn’t distinguish between the speakers they probably wouldn’t be able to distinguish between amplifiers either. This doesn’t help you - because it clearly doesn’t mean that all people can’t distinguish between either. I don’t know what positions these people held regarding anything audio related.

 

I believe lack of experience is the greatest contributing factor. That’s just an opinion. 

 

You seemed to think that it would be much easier with loudspeakers to tell the difference in a blind test. I say blind testing just makes people blind. The curtain goes up, and they lose half of their computing power. 

[Deang]

I correctly guessed every time. Easy peasy. The Cornwall III had a fatter low end and somewhat subdued midrange. The RF-7 had a tighter low end and much hotter top. As soon as the switch flipped, it was night and day to me. That anyone couldn’t hear this blew me away. 

[Deang]

I’m curious about the volume matching g thing, because that would be pretty sloppy of Klipsch. Did Trey tell you that? 

 

I believe the sensitivity ratings of the two speakers are identical, but I could be remembering wrong.  

[robert_kc]

7 hours ago, ODS123 said:

 

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.   

 

If I designed solid-state amplifiers for a living, I might care about comparing two modern solid-state amplifiers.    (Though I certainly wouldn’t use this as my main criterion for designing an amp).  However, I don’t design amps, and I’m not particularly concerned with comparing similar solid-state amps.

 

I’m a classical music lover.  What I care about is the sound that arrives at my listening chair from my hi-fi system.  (As has already been discussed, critical factors include the synergy between the amp and speakers, the synergy between the speakers and room, quality of the recording, along with other factors.)   For me, the $64k question is:  Does the reproduced sound create a pleasant illusion that I’m in the symphony hall or opera house?  I simply don’t care if the amplifier meets someone else’s technical criteria (e.g., “straight wire with gain”).  And I’m not concerned with the results of an ABX test that compares similar modern solid-state amps, because my experience (based on 5 hi-fi systems that include more than two dozen amps) is that I generally prefer tube amps for classical music and Klipsch speakers.

 

I believe a key issue is this:  What is a consumer’s benchmark for excellent sound quality from their hi-fi system?   I believe that each person must define the goals for their hi-fi system.   You appear to be presenting as a benchmark a modern solid-state amp that is “linear”.   However, many experienced hobbyists have reported that a modern solid-state amp doesn’t necessarily result in the most “musical” in-home listening experience.  IMO you are suggesting the wrong criterion for someone who is a music lover (particularly if they listen to natural music for which there is a relatively clear benchmark).  And IMO you are suggesting the wrong criterion for someone who is interested in participating in hi-fi as a hobby (e.g., the newbie who wants to invest more time than one trip to a big-box store when making their selection for an amp).

 

As I said earlier, pairing Klipsch speakers with an amp that is “linear” makes little sense to me.  What makes sense to me is pairing Klipsch with an amp that results in good sound quality.  I’m not concerned with an amp being “faithful to the incoming signal”.  I’m more concerned about whether the sound that arrives at my listening chair reminds me of a live performance in the symphony hall.

 

$64k question for the newbie:  Do you wish to participate in hi-fi as a hobby or not?  For the person who answers yes, they’re unlikely to be content with allowing others to hear and think for them.  Analogies are dangerous, nonetheless I’ll offer one:   Has ABX double-blind testing proven that one wine is better than another?  If not, should everyone drink the cheapest bottle of wine for a specified varietal?   Some people are content with the cheapest option that meets their basic needs, whereas others enjoy judging for themselves what they like (i.e., John Q. Public vs. hobbyist/enthusiast).

 

I enjoy my approach to the hobby of hi-fi, and my approach to the enjoyment of recorded music.  Some newbies will enjoy forming their own opinions, based on their unique approach to the hobby.  Others (non-hobbyists) are content with some expert making a recommendation for a mass-market modern solid-state amp (i.e., an amp they can buy at a big-box store).   People are different.

 

I think that if you were writing for Consumer Reports, and your audience were John Q. Public (i.e., someone who is not a hobbyist and will purchase an amp from a big-box store) then your comments would have relevance for a relatively higher percentage of readers.  However, you are writing on a forum for hi-fi hobbyists, and the premise of your entire approach to decision making (i.e., no one has (arguably) proven that similar solid-state amps sound different, therefore buy the cheapest modern solid-state amp that meets your basic needs) will likely resonate with a relatively lower percentage of readers.  Many experienced hobbyists have said that they prefer amps other than “big-box store solid-state amps”, and that’s something that a newbie hobbyist might want to consider.

 

Regarding “proving” that someone can hear differences in audio technologies, my suggestion is this:  Spend as many hours as you wish reading about the complexities of - and problems with – ABX testing.   You’ll find that it’s a very complicated topic.  The more you read, the less likely you’ll conclude that ABX testing for audio quality is straightforward and meaningful, and the more likely you’ll conclude that ABX testing for audio quality is fraught with problems.  You’re presenting ABX testing as an infallible approach to audio testing, whereas this is hotly debated.   

 

Moreover, your suggested test is highly restrictive (only comparing modern solid-state amps that are linear).

 

Moreover - and most important IMO - your suggested test is focused on the wrong issue, i.e., do two similar modern solid-state amps sound different, vs. which amp (whether tube or solid-state) results in the most musical sound when paired with particular speakers – as judged by the consumer.  Who cares if two modern solid-state amps sound the same, if the consumer concludes that the most musical sounding amp for a given pair of Klipsch speakers is a tube amp?

 

As has been pointed out repeatedly, why not suggest that the newbie who is interested in hi-fi as a hobby listen with their own ears, and suggest that they consider the full range of options (e.g., solid-state amps, tube amps, LPs, streaming, CDs, “hi-res” recordings, etc.)?  

 

As I’ve said before, here’s my advice for a newbie to the hobby of hi-fi:  https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/180122-advice-for-beginners/&do=findComment&comment=2324328

[Zen Traveler]

16 minutes ago, Deang said:

I’m curious about the volume matching g thing, because that would be pretty sloppy of Klipsch. Did Trey tell you that? 

Yes. I believe it was Steve Phillips who may have made the mistake and there was a thread created about it. I tried to find it but it may have been too early to keep in the archives because I couldn't find any of the old pilgrimage material from that time period. 

[TubeHiFiNut]

12 minutes ago, Deang said:

I correctly guessed every time. Easy peasy. The Cornwall III had a fatter low end and somewhat subdued midrange. The RF-7 had a tighter low end and much hotter top. As soon as the switch flipped, it was night and day to me. That anyone couldn’t hear this blew me away. 

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."

 

Whether you are taking a test in school, your driver's test at the DMV or a DBT/ABX test at your audio club, many folks are not at their best. I wonder how the physiological changes impact hearing?

 

We listen to music to relax. Could the simple matter of being "under test" introduce stress, even subconsciously, and compromise the aural acuity of some of the folks taking the test?

 

Just some food for thought.

[Zen Traveler]

7 minutes ago, robert_kc said:

However, you are writing on a forum for hi-fi hobbyists, and the premise of your entire approach to decision making (i.e., no one has (arguably) proven that similar solid-state amps sound different, therefore buy the cheapest modern solid-state amp that meets your basic needs) will likely resonate with a relatively lower percentage of readers. 

I've already expressed my opinion on the differences between 2 channel and multichannel folks and I am a "hi-fi" enthusiast with the latter in mind. That said, I also feel people can over-spend in the amp department thinking they need gobs of power because they've read it on the internet. 

[TubeHiFiNut]

13 minutes ago, robert_kc said:

 

If I designed solid-state amplifiers for a living, I might care about comparing two modern solid-state amplifiers.    (Though I certainly wouldn’t use this as my main criterion for designing an amp).  However, I don’t design amps, and I’m not particularly concerned with comparing similar solid-state amps.

 

I’m a classical music lover.  What I care about is the sound that arrives at my listening chair from my hi-fi system.  (As has already been discussed, critical factors include the synergy between the amp and speakers, the synergy between the speakers and room, quality of the recording, along with other factors.)   For me, the $64k question is:  Does the reproduced sound create a pleasant illusion that I’m in the symphony hall or opera house?  I simply don’t care if the amplifier meets someone else’s technical criteria (e.g., “straight wire with gain”).  And I’m not concerned with the results of an ABX test that compares similar modern solid-state amps, because my experience (based on 5 hi-fi systems that include more than two dozen amps) is that I generally prefer tube amps for classical music and Klipsch speakers.

 

I believe a key issue is this:  What is a consumer’s benchmark for excellent sound quality from their hi-fi system?   I believe that each person must define the goals for their hi-fi system.   You appear to be presenting as a benchmark a modern solid-state amp that is “linear”.   However, many experienced hobbyists have reported that a modern solid-state amp doesn’t necessarily result in the most “musical” in-home listening experience.  IMO you are suggesting the wrong criterion for someone who is a music lover (particularly if they listen to natural music for which there is a relatively clear benchmark).  And IMO you are suggesting the wrong criterion for someone who is interested in participating in hi-fi as a hobby (e.g., the newbie who wants to invest more time than one trip to a big-box store when making their selection for an amp).

 

As I said earlier, pairing Klipsch speakers with an amp that is “linear” makes little sense to me.  What makes sense to me is pairing Klipsch with an amp that results in good sound quality.  I’m not concerned with an amp being “faithful to the incoming signal”.  I’m more concerned about whether the sound that arrives at my listening chair reminds me of a live performance in the symphony hall.

 

$64k question for the newbie:  Do you wish to participate in hi-fi as a hobby or not?  For the person who answers yes, they’re unlikely to be content with allowing others to hear and think for them.  Analogies are dangerous, nonetheless I’ll offer one:   Has ABX double-blind testing proven that one wine is better than another?  If not, should everyone drink the cheapest bottle of wine for a specified varietal?   Some people are content with the cheapest option that meets their basic needs, whereas others enjoy judging for themselves what they like (i.e., John Q. Public vs. hobbyist/enthusiast).

 

I enjoy my approach to the hobby of hi-fi, and my approach to the enjoyment of recorded music.  Some newbies will enjoy forming their own opinions, based on their unique approach to the hobby.  Others (non-hobbyists) are content with some expert making a recommendation for a mass-market modern solid-state amp (i.e., an amp they can buy at a big-box store).   People are different.

 

I think that if you were writing for Consumer Reports, and your audience were John Q. Public (i.e., someone who is not a hobbyist and will purchase an amp from a big-box store) then your comments would have relevance for a relatively higher percentage of readers.  However, you are writing on a forum for hi-fi hobbyists, and the premise of your entire approach to decision making (i.e., no one has (arguably) proven that similar solid-state amps sound different, therefore buy the cheapest modern solid-state amp that meets your basic needs) will likely resonate with a relatively lower percentage of readers.  Many experienced hobbyists have said that they prefer amps other than “big-box store solid-state amps”, and that’s something that a newbie hobbyist might want to consider.

 

Regarding “proving” that someone can hear differences in audio technologies, my suggestion is this:  Spend as many hours as you wish reading about the complexities of - and problems with – ABX testing.   You’ll find that it’s a very complicated topic.  The more you read, the less likely you’ll conclude that ABX testing for audio quality is straightforward and meaningful, and the more likely you’ll conclude that ABX testing for audio quality is fraught with problems.  You’re presenting ABX testing as an infallible approach to audio testing, whereas this is hotly debated.   

 

Moreover, your suggested test is highly restrictive (only comparing modern solid-state amps that are linear).

 

Moreover - and most important IMO - your suggested test is focused on the wrong issue, i.e., do two similar modern solid-state amps sound different, vs. which amp (whether tube or solid-state) results in the most musical sound when paired with particular speakers – as judged by the consumer.  Who cares if two modern solid-state amps sound the same, if the consumer concludes that the most musical sounding amp for a given pair of Klipsch speakers is a tube amp?

 

As has been pointed out repeatedly, why not suggest that the newbie who is interested in hi-fi as a hobby listen with their own ears, and suggest that they consider the full range of options (e.g., solid-state amps, tube amps, LPs, streaming, CDs, “hi-res” recordings, etc.)?  

 

As I’ve said before, here’s my advice for a newbie to the hobby of hi-fi:  https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/180122-advice-for-beginners/&do=findComment&comment=2324328

Thank you, @robert_kc , for this insightful and well reasoned post.

 

I agree with your comments.

[TubeHiFiNut]

7 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

I've already expressed my opinion on the differences between 2 channel and multichannel folks and I am a "hi-fi" enthusiast with the latter in mind. That said, I also feel people can over-spend in the amp department thinking they need gobs of power because they've read it on the internet. 

I don't need gobs of watts for my Belles, just the right kind (SE) of watts.