Jump to content

Advice for Beginners - consider this test from an audio club


ODS123

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ODS123 said:

 

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.

If you agree with me you are smart. If you don't you are not even though I refuse to research what you say. OD = NPC = BEEP BEEP BOOP BOOP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, wvu80 said:

 

I think I used the right term.  Maybe listening modes?  Each AVR has their own verbiage.

 

My Onk 717 AVR has Dobly PL IIx, Panarama, Mono, Stereo, Neo:6, Pure Audio, Theater Dimensional and I can change those for Music, Movie/TV, Game and THX.  The combinations boggle the mind, and they all sound different from one another greatly, it is NOT subtle.

 

If I am interpreting this correctly, then the word that you're looking for is "codec". It stands for "coder-decoder"; the information is "coded" at the source and "decoded" at the receiver. Dolby Pro Logic (in several flavors) and Neo:6 rely upon the material being "matrix encoded", though they do a reasonable job of synthesizing surround-sound with non-encoded material, too. Panarama, Pure Audio, and Theater Dimensional are unfamiliar to me; they may be proprietary algorithms that do the same thing.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TubeHiFiNut said:

What seems far fetched to me is your seemingly blind and unquestioning belief in the DBT/ABX religion.

 

Years ago I entered a discussion (argument) with another audiophile, who authoritatively stated the following: "If there is a difference in the sound, then ABX testing will find it." In response to that, I wrote down on a piece of paper, with him watching:

 

If there is a difference in the sound, then ABX testing will find it.

 

Under that, I wrote the following:

 

If there is a difference in the sound, then harmonic distortion testing will find it.

If there is a difference in the sound, then intermodulation distortion testing will find it.

If there is a difference in the sound, then frequency response testing will find it.

If there is a difference in the sound, then phase response testing will find it.

If there is a difference in the sound, then transient intermodulation distortion testing will find it.

If there is a difference in the sound, then crossover distortion testing will find it.

 

I pointed out that all of the latter statements had, at some point in the past, been asserted just as authoritatively as his ... and that all of them had later been proven wrong.

 

I'm not saying that the statement about ABX testing is false. (I actually believe that it may be the best test that we currently have.) I'm saying that asserting something is not the same as proving it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Edgar said:

 

Years ago I entered a discussion (argument) with another audiophile, who authoritatively stated the following: "If there is a difference in the sound, then ABX testing will find it." In response to that, I wrote down on a piece of paper, with him watching:

 

If there is a difference in the sound, then ABX testing will find it.

 

Under that, I wrote the following:

 

If there is a difference in the sound, then harmonic distortion testing will find it.

If there is a difference in the sound, then intermodulation distortion testing will find it.

If there is a difference in the sound, then frequency response testing will find it.

If there is a difference in the sound, then phase response testing will find it.

If there is a difference in the sound, then transient intermodulation distortion testing will find it.

If there is a difference in the sound, then crossover distortion testing will find it.

 

I pointed out that all of the latter statements had, at some point in the past, been asserted just as authoritatively as his ... and that all of them had later been proven wrong.

 

I'm not saying that the statement about ABX testing is false. (I actually believe that it may be the best test that we currently have.) I'm saying that asserting something is not the same as proving it.

There have been so many "be all, end all" tests that were supposed to tell us how a component sounds and, as you point out, none of them have panned out.

 

In my opinion it takes time to familiarize the listener with the subtle pros and cons of a particular component. The DBT/ABX protocol is short term and focuses on "different" rather than quality.

 

My criteria for selecting components is simple: the components that facilitate my emotional connection with the music I love are the components I keep and use. Might be tubes, might be solid state. I try to use the right tool for the job. Others may have different criteria - each to their own.

 

Experience is gained by listening to lots of gear over time. That is what I suggest to audio newbies.

 

Just my opinion. :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 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. 

You forgot my fave...................Yamaha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TubeHiFiNut said:

In my opinion it takes time to familiarize the listener with the subtle pros and cons of a particular component. The DBT/ABX protocol is short term and focuses on "different" rather than quality.

There's no such thing as a singular be all, end all test. I disagree about the short term aspect of your comment. If you own one, you can take as much time as you like. However, when you round up people interested in ABX testing, they get very impatient and frustrated when they can't hear any difference between Electronic components that are matched to 0.1 db difference in amplitude; Especially when their expensive Pet Piece of equipment is shown to have no audible superiority over a cheaper one (if that's what is being tested) or a different brand. 41 years ago, I was part of the local Audio Engineering Society meeting where the AB/X box was unveiled, so I heard it in action first hand. It was very revealing and a great myth buster!!

 

That being said, AB/X testing is only ONE method of listening and other methods of MEASURING with instruments tell a story also. We need to understand ALL of the languages of audio in order to come up with conclusive and satisfactory answers to whatever questions we have...................or, like so many, keep up the illusion of being right all the time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TubeHiFiNut said:

Robert_KC..........<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.)?>  

I had both solid state and tubes in my teens (60's and 70's). The most insightful thing I learned from Saul Marantz himself when I met him (after he sold his name to SuperScope in Japan) and he was President of Dalquist. He recommended Tubes on the mids and highs and Solid State on the woofer/subwoofer section........best of both worlds.

 

Now that we have single ended Jfet or MOSfet, of Vfet class A, Class D, class A/AB, etc. all having a lack of Transient Intermodulation Distortion (Otala Distortion), the differences (if any) are much less than they were back then. I just don't like the maintenance and inefficiency of tubes or just the inefficiency of Class A, but they do sound good in all flavors. So my personal preference, like all choices in this hobby, is a compromise.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ClaudeJ1 said:

There's no such thing as a singular be all, end all test. I disagree about the short term aspect of your comment. If you own one, you can take as much time as you like. However, when you round up people interested in ABX testing, they get very impatient and frustrated when they can't hear any difference between Electronic components that are matched to 0.1 db difference in amplitude; Especially when their expensive Pet Piece of equipment is shown to have no audible superiority over a cheaper one (if that's what is being tested) or a different brand. 41 years ago, I was part of the local Audio Engineering Society meeting where the AB/X box was unveiled, so I heard it in action first hand. It was very revealing and a great myth buster!!

 

That being said, AB/X testing is only ONE method of listening and other methods of MEASURING with instruments tell a story also. We need to understand ALL of the languages of audio in order to come up with conclusive and satisfactory answers to whatever questions we have...................or, like so many, keep up the illusion of being right all the time.

A very reasoned response. Thank you, Claude.

 

My user ID notwithstanding, I use what I perceive to be the "right tool for the job" whether Solid or Vaccum State. Two examples are the Topping TP60 and the TPA3250 with Astron 28V Linear PS. Both are inexpensive (~$200) Class D Solid State amps that sound great on the right speakers. I learned what these amps can do by listening to them on a variety of speakers over time. And, yes, they do sound different.

 

I still don't buy the efficacy of DBT/ABX for audio. Test Anxiety is very real and, IMO, renders any results as suspect.

 

Our hobby is based on the source and the gear combining to elicit an emotional response in the listener. In my opinion, the DBT/ABX process removes the primary thing I seek (the emotional response) and is the antithesis of why I love audio.

 

I fully understand that this is one of those subjects on which reasonable folks will simply have to agree to disagree.

 

Just my opinion. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ClaudeJ1 said:

I just don't like the maintenance and inefficiency of tubes or just the inefficiency of Class A, but they do sound good in all flavors. So my personal preference, like all choices in this hobby, is a compromise.

Agree, well said.

+++

 

I remember well in 1978 when I was in college at WVU buying my first speakers, some Fried Model Q's.  I went to the audio store in Morgantown and my audiophile buddy taught me what to listen for.  My method was not a blind listening test between two speakers, but sighted.

 

I would listen to the Q's for $250, then listen to the Boston Acoustics for $260 and decide which I liked better, my buddy pointing out the nuances.  Then I would listen to the $240 speakers, and for $10 less, were these speakers better or worse?  I spent at least a half hour per speaker, listening and fretting over the sound AND over the $10 price difference.

 

I always tested with eyes wide open and "for this much more money..." how good were the speakers the next step up in my price range?  How much worse by dropping down into the next lower price point?  ALL of this, really mattered to me, I wanted the absolute best sound, for the money.

 

They had had Khorns at this store on the second floor in a private room with some other expensive speakers, and this is where all the really smart audiophiles went.  I felt privileged to be able to go there with my buddy and hear what the Big Boys sounded like.  It was very exciting to hear esoteric jazz music played on such great speakers.  It's 40 years later and I still remember that audio signature to this day.

 

And that's how I like to test speakers; eyes AND MIND, wide open.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TubeHiFiNut said:

Experience is gained by listening to lots of gear over time. That is what I suggest to audio newbies.

This advice is good for folks who want to learn more about audio, components, and what other people think.  In the real world I gotta go back to the difference between 2 channel (used to be called "stereo") and multichannel folks. I venture to guess most of the people who listen to 2 channel material are doing so through headphones or earbuds. Some of those people do want to understand more about how to listen and consider the options out there--most don't.. OTOH, the vast majority of folks who are into movies and multichannel music may "upgrade" to get better sound but at some point they realize the theory of diminishing returns and spend more time listening/appreciating source material...

 

All of this being said, I wonder the percentage of people who buy speakers for 2 channel with so much competition for their entertainment dollar? 😕 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

All of this being said, I wonder the percentage of people who buy speakers for 2 channel with so much competition for their entertainment dollar? 

😕

 

Well count me in on whatever that percentage might be. I have no use for car chases, explosions and dinosaur stomps as part of my entertainment. And even when I did, I made sure it was completely separate from what I was using to enjoy music...

 

Shakey

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Shakeydeal said:

Well count me in on whatever that percentage might be. I have no use for car chases, explosions and dinosaur stomps as part of my entertainment. And even when I did, I made sure it was completely separate from what I was using to enjoy music...

Sure. You are a 2 channel person. I, otoh, haven't purchased any stereo material in almost 2 decades and during that time have appreciated multichannel music formats as well as movies and the system listed in my sig is great for both...Different strokes for different folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

Sure. You are a 2 channel person. I, otoh, haven't purchased any stereo material in almost 2 decades and during that time have appreciated multichannel music formats as well as movies and the system listed in my sig is great for both...Different strokes for different folks.

Agree with @Shakeydeal on this point. 

 

I love Jazz and Classical recorded in the 1950s and 1960s - Stereo and Mono. In addition to the stereo systems, I'm in the process of assembling a nice mono system for the large number of mono records in the collection.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, TubeHiFiNut said:

Agree with @Shakeydeal on this point. 

 

I love Jazz and Classical recorded in the 1950s and 1960s - Stereo and Mono. In addition to the stereo systems, I'm in the process of assembling a nice mono system for the large number of mono records in the collection.

I'm not sure where we disagree but feel your further audio pleasures dating back to the 50's and 60's make me think you may be in the lower single digits of audio enthusiasts...Just sayin' :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Klipsch would have folded long ago if everything sounded the same, luckily many of us can hear well enough to decipher what sounds great to us and what does not.

 

The bonus of having a tin ear = huge cost savings for you.

 

The rest of us = pay dearly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Zen Traveler said:

I'm not sure where we disagree but feel your further audio pleasures dating back to the 50's and 60's make me think you may be in the lower single digits of audio enthusiasts...Just sayin' :) 

No disagreement, just preference. :)

 

Some folks prefer home theater and multi-channel audio. I think that's wonderful.

 

Stereo and even Mono (especially on a true Mono system) are what I prefer.

 

There's room for everyone in our hobby. :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest take-away of this thread has got to be the observation of folks' tendency to denigrate others for certain behavior, engaging in it themselves to do so.

 

Many valid points have been raised from both sides, but there is a large lack of congruity (as a matter of fact).  Not being entirely fair to everyone involved, the best way I can think of to describe this present argument is "straw man".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously don't know how anyone can say speakers are hard to tell apart.  All speakers have certain characteristics that make them easily told from one another.  Electronics, not so easy unless you know what to listen for.  The ATCs in the first post are of limited bandwidth and I find much of the frontend equipment differences lie in the extremes.... grainy highs, flabby thin bass, etc.  Not sure the ATCs would show that later... grainy highs I would think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...