Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 155

post #2311 of 3671
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

 

So what you're saying if I'm understanding everything properly is that finding a "cheap" amp that's also good is kind of hit or miss? I looked into receiver prices for brands like Onkyo, Denon etc, and for the Wattage I need, the prices are pretty much hand in hand with my Quad amps, so it doesn't really seem worthwhile to make a switch just so I can get AM/FM radio and a remote control...

 

really it's about the wattage....not sure what your quad amps cost (i've never seen a cheap monoblock LOL), but you obviously have a pre-amp already, so for "cheap" you'd be better off to look into say an emotiva (125wpc for $399) rather than an integrated AVR setup.  this will give you the true power rating at least

 

receiver pricing goes up exponentially with wattage, and even then the rated wattage is more often than not a marketing ploy, they rarely get the rated power unless you are into some higher end stuff which isn't cheap anymore.

 

i'm of the mind that SS is SS as long as it's not a total disaster of a setup...that said i'd love to be able to justify some nice monoblocks LOL i think they are so pretty and offer a different tactile experience (i don't mean sound-wise) than an AVR or stereo amp.  however, a very nice AVR will offer an amazing feature set and when combined with a "cheap but good" stereo/multi amp one has everything one could possibly need IMO.

post #2312 of 3671

This is the Yamaha receiver I have. 110 watts $411.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004QR56SE

post #2313 of 3671

That's about half the price I would get for selling my Quads. My dad has an Onkyo receiver 5.1, it should be pretty decent, I will borrow it and do some testing.

post #2314 of 3671

The other nice thing about AV receivers is they usually have very good built in equalizers. Mine has a five band parametric that has vastly improved the sound of my stereo in my listening room.

post #2315 of 3671
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

The other nice thing about AV receivers is they usually have very good built in equalizers. Mine has a five band parametric that has vastly improved the sound of my stereo in my listening room.

 

this is true!  i'm extremely impressed with the sound of my new onkyo, i finally jumped a bit over entry level AVR and i believe it was well worth it for the feature set (which includes built in EQ) and as a bonus the sound quality is up a lot more than i expected

post #2316 of 3671

Not sure if anybody has watched this but :

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9HrYAyVItY

 

And :

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lozs7KWlQ7Q

 

What do you make of these videos?

post #2317 of 3671

Now let's see him compare the "little wiggles" on his scope to the thresholds of audibility.

post #2318 of 3671
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Now let's see him compare the "little wiggles" on his scope to the thresholds of audibility.


Oh I am sure the mantra applies.  If you hear it and can't see it (in measures or scopes), it is still there.  If you see it in measures or scopes, then you can hear it for sure. 

 

No such thing as a measurement difference that can't be heard.  But there are surely things that can be heard yet cannot be measured.

post #2319 of 3671

You're being ironic I guess, right?

post #2320 of 3671

The Onkyo receiver has now been thoroughly tested against my Quads. It doesn't even come close, the difference is really obvious, so I am guessing that its 80W/channel into 8ohms might have something to do with it vs the 150W of the quads. In any case, considering the small difference in price between my Quads and a similarly powerful cheaper amp, I might as well just keep the Quads. I'll eventually try something like the emotiva posted above considering it can be found for 250usd or so used, just out of curiosity.

post #2321 of 3671
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
 

The Onkyo receiver has now been thoroughly tested against my Quads

 

So it was a blind test with the levels matched?.

 

Output power doesn't matter I highly doubt you have the quads at maxium volume, <1watt is average listening volume.

post #2322 of 3671

There is no volume control on the Quads, they are monoblock power amps.

 

I didn't do a blind test, because the difference was so obvious there was no need to. Levels were matched roughly, but I did that by ear not with a dB meter, anyway the difference was so obvious even at lower volume levels (on tube preamp) the Quads were much more dynamic.

post #2323 of 3671
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
I didn't do a blind test, because the difference was so obvious there was no need to.
Levels were matched roughly

Don't you love reading the same argument again and again.

People asuming that their senses always work at full power and are not to be questioned by some kind of objectivity.

 

Elmoe, are you aware that the majority of people claiming "night and day" audible differences when testing this way, can't tell things apart anymore in a blind test?

 

How many times will we have to state that human hearing is the easiest thing to fool, especially when you're expecting to hear something in the first place?

 

Non blind testing is meaningless.

Non carefully matching volumes implies nothing can be concluded from any listening test.

post #2324 of 3671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizz View Post
 

Don't you love reading the same argument again and again.

People asuming that their senses always work at full power and are not to be questioned by some kind of objectivity.

 

Elmoe, are you aware that the majority of people claiming "night and day" audible differences when testing this way, can't tell things apart anymore in a blind test?

 

How many times will we have to state that human hearing is the easiest thing to fool, especially when you're expecting to hear something in the first place?

 

Non blind testing is meaningless.

Non carefully matching volumes implies nothing can be concluded from any listening test.

 

What you don't seem to understand is that I couldn't care less whether you think I'm being objective or truthful. I'm not trying to argue anything. I was curious about people in here claiming a cheap (but decent enough) receiver would sound exactly the same as my monoblocks, so I tested it out for myself. If I hadn't switched back n worth 10 times and wasn't sure about what my ears were hearing, I still wouldn't even have bothered doing a blind test and matching levels perfectly - I would've instead instantly agreed with those claims and left it at that. After close to 20 years as a musician, and close to half of that as an audiophile, I don't really feel the need to prove anything to anyone other than myself. I could set everything up and do a blind test and match levels perfectly using a dB meter, but honestly the difference is so blatantly obvious that it wouldn't change a thing - that's how much of an audible difference there is.

 

You're right about expectancy, I was expecting to hear the Onkyo receiver sounding exactly the same as my Quads (in fact I had an ebay ad all written out for the Quads!). It didn't, just like it didn't with the InterM amp. Now you and others will certainly not believe a word of that and think it's placebo, but I believe myself to be experienced enough as a musician and a listener to not have to get into blind testing/exact level matching when the difference is just that obvious to my ears (especially since this was done to satisfy my curiosity, not to prove a point on the internet). Maybe the Onkyo was defective (although it seems to work just fine with my father's 5.1 system), maybe the wattage being different was a bigger influence, maybe there is something else in my audio chain that has some kind of effect on this, who knows. The result I got still stands either way and is well enough to satisfy my curiosity, regardless of what your opinion may be.

 

If ever you're near Grenoble, France, you're very welcome to come to my home for a beer and a listen. If my dad (an engineer by trade, a little hard of hearing in his old age, who was the first to tell me all this was total bullsh!t, pardon my french ;)) noticed a big difference right away, there's no doubt in my mind you will too.


Edited by elmoe - 2/15/14 at 4:56am
post #2325 of 3671
Quote:

Originally Posted by elmoe View Post

 

If I hadn't switched back n worth 10 times and wasn't sure about what my ears were hearing, I still wouldn't even have bothered doing a blind test and matching levels perfectly

 

Level matching by ear is notoriously unreliable, especially if not done with very fast (sub-second) switching between the sources, and is a major source of "night and day" differences heard between amplifiers. Just out of curiosity, could you repeat your listening test at what you think is equal volume, and then replace the music with a test tone, and measure the output levels (preferably with a multimeter) without touching any volume controls ? I suspect there will be a difference of a few dB.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by elmoe View Post

 

You're right about expectancy, I was expecting to hear the Onkyo receiver sounding exactly the same as my Quads

 

Expectation bias works on a sub-conscious level. You may have wanted the Onkyo to sound the same, but you have no control over what you expect the result to be (if only it was possible). Just like you cannot simply "turn off" this or this effect, even after you already know about them being illusions.

 

Then again, the receiver might really have sounded different for whatever reason, but so far you did not provide any convincing evidence.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths