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 191

post #2851 of 3124
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferday View Post
 

 

another good post, thanks for your efforts!

 

FWIW copywrite to post sound clips is generally 30 seconds or less (fair use).  it's not a written rule but no one has ever been slapped over it.  i believe you have violated site rules by posting that link, however, so you might want to remove that ;)

Thank you for the comment - and I will remove the link. I merely wanted to show what is not permissible - one can not pretend to post an entire album while pretending it to be "for educatinal purposes/fair use". I am the first to condemn such behaviour - as I would not like anybody to "educationally" distribute my own work either.

post #2852 of 3124
http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-ii.html?m=1

No surprises in this result just in. ^
post #2853 of 3124
Quote:
Originally Posted by James-uk View Post

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2014/06/24-bit-vs-16-bit-audio-test-part-ii.html?m=1

No surprises in this result just in. ^

i started a thread about it ;)

 

it was such a well done piece that it deserves a thread, and archimago deserves credit for what was no doubt a lot of work!

post #2854 of 3124
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferday View Post

i started a thread about it wink.gif

it was such a well done piece that it deserves a thread, and archimago deserves credit for what was no doubt a lot of work!

Brilliant. I will subscribe . His blog is brilliant.
post #2855 of 3124
First thing, I said brilliant twice in one sentence, bit weird . Second , to save me searching can you link the thread please . Thank you.
post #2856 of 3124
post #2857 of 3124
Quote:
Originally Posted by James-uk View Post


Brilliant. I will subscribe . His blog is brilliant.

 

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by James-uk View Post

First thing, I said brilliant twice in one sentence, bit weird .

 

There are two periods between the first instance of "brilliant" and the second. Therefore, you did not say "brilliant" twice in one sentence. :p

 

However, that technicallity does not invalidate that the study in the blog is very nice, indeed! :D

 

Cheers

post #2858 of 3124

Yes very interesting read and probably one of the better made tests, thanks for sharing, that kind of test and sample size leaves little doubt.

post #2859 of 3124

Some people I've heard on other audio forums claim that AVRs can sound just as good for music as a stereo amp. To me it's unfair as an avr is a processor even in pure direct its simply too busy with too much going on. (5-11 power amps) lift the lid on any decent stereo amp and if will find very little going on. (Less is more) well shielded.

post #2860 of 3124
Great sound comes from the proper settings... equalization, DSPs, dynamic correction, etc. It doesn't come from not being able to apply the proper settings at all. I guess you could go out and buy an outboard equalizer, dynamic expander/contractor and signal processing, but that would be very expensive and would get you to the same place as just using an AV receiver.

Midrange amps are generally audibly transparent, and processing doesn't degrade the signal, it improves it. So AV receivers are great choices for audio systems, not just home theater. The added benefit of 5:1 makes them much better than 2 channnel alternatives.
post #2861 of 3124
Would you buy a receiver over a stereo amp (same Price) for a stereo setup?
post #2862 of 3124


If you mean AV receiver then yes.  It would provide room calibration and bass amanagement where an integrated amp would not.  If you mrean a stereo receiver then probably not.  The integrated amp would likely be smaller and less complex.

post #2863 of 3124
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsh View Post

Would you buy a receiver over a stereo amp (same Price) for a stereo setup?

Yes...because after running a good 7.1 I'm never going back. Even cheaper modern receivers support bi-wire and often passive bi-amp if one is so inclined.

If it's money someone wants to spend there are multi channel receivers that can be properly (actively) bi-amped as well

I came from a (DIY x-over) active bi-amp stereo to a high-mid receiver, any nuance I may (or may not) have lost in the sound is overshadowed by the awesome true surround sound and the flexibility, and drop in wires and amps hanging around, is priceless
Quote:
Some people I've heard on other audio forums claim that AVRs can sound just as good for music as a stereo amp. To me it's unfair as an avr is a processor even in pure direct its simply too busy with too much going on. (5-11 power amps) lift the lid on any decent stereo amp and if will find very little going on. (Less is more) well shielded.

prove it. anything, c'mon...you were already roasted on this on another forum....
Edited by ferday - 7/10/14 at 8:30am
post #2864 of 3124
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsh View Post

Would you buy a receiver over a stereo amp (same Price) for a stereo setup?

 

I would imagine that the receiver would have more and better features. Since sound quality probably wouldn't be an issue, features count. But I would still recommend going 5:1 even if all the music you listen to is stereo.

post #2865 of 3124

I'm at conflict. Someone in my family wants to sell a hifi class A 40 watt, class AB 200 watt switchable power amp with full mundorf caps, wiring, expensive aftermarket components etc.

The audiophile in me screams omg must have! 

But with the knowledge I have now.. Not so sure it's a good idea after all, but darn, it's a cool amp. It doubles as egg-frier :D 

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