[artur9]

There are more differences in tube amplifiers IMHO and often because of specific tube types and brands used. I have heard plenty of DACS but now want to concentrate on tube DACS but they are less common.

In retrospect, I should have qualified it with good "solid state" amplifiers

Thinking more on it, with DACs I can (or think I can) hear differences fairly quickly. With solid state amps ( ) the differences I've heard become apparent over days/weeks; i.e. much less immediately.

 

[Paladin79]

In retrospect, I should have qualified it with good "solid state" amplifiers

Thinking more on it, with DACs I can (or think I can) hear differences fairly quickly. With solid state amps ( ) the differences I've heard become apparent over days/weeks; i.e. much less immediately.

I like to quantify results so I have some basis when I hear new gear. It is done through blind listening and not measurements. I cannot just listen and say wow this DAC or amp is so much better than one I heard three years ago. What I can do is see how a specific item scored and refer to that score later on. That means my next DAC listen will have past DAC’s involved so I can see if the numbers are still realistic.

 

[FLTWS]

I have both (2 old Panny plasmas, and a Sony OLED). The plasmas still do it. The extra brightness on the Sony is good to have. The Sony is much larger and so a little more cinematic. (Won't buy another Sony, however). I wish Panasonic would re-enter the U.S. market. Want one of these: https://www.skyworth.net/global/tv/Q72.html

I also have a cheap Hisense 4k. Not worth the trouble.

The brief demos I've had of the newer technologies in 4K picture look very good with say video games. The problem is a bit of that video game picture quality seems to run over into film watching.

My friends would all still be on CRT's if I hadn't convinced them that LED tech would be more energy efficient, run cooler and come with a larger screen so I have no extensive 4K experience when I visit for sports or movies. And all 3 groups are on Ipods /PC's and earbuds for their audio but one of them does have a pair of speakers he got at Walmart..

One issue I'm up against (other than the obvious inability to play my 4K's) is the Pioneer only has L/R SE audio out and all the decent sound bars I've seen require HDMI or wireless (again the Pioneer is a dumb TV, LOL).

When I had my surround set up I ran the HDMI off the FIOS cable box into the receiver which would then pass the sound and picture to the surround setup and the picture on to the Pioneer and the sound was very good even given my current hearing issues. When it went away I had to connect the speakers that came with the Pioneer in 2008. I can't tell if the speakers suk or are dried out/damaged, the audio circuitry in the Pioneer is failing or just suks. Or both.

When I move to my new place in April the community is all Comcast and I'm not sure what kind of hardware and what capabilities I'll have available.

If the Pioneer should die before April it becomes an easy decision.

One thing I haven't seen discussed on 4K is the up-scaling for BRD's and DVD's (I've probably got around 100 DVD's that never got BRD issues). Back in 2007/08 the quality of the up-scaler was one of the big selling points. I don't know if that's an issue anymore among different brands of various LED technologies or not, but I'll hang on to my Oppo 105D.

And lastly, your right, the slasher/torture films aren't that scary or tension inducing and I find them boring compared to the "what's behind that basement door"? Duh! Or "what the hell is that creature" (thinking of the whatever it was in "Cloverfield") type.

Give me a good, atmospheric, dark old house or haunted mansion / castle type. Like "Woman in Black". I've also enjoyed the first couple of "Paranormal Activity", "Conjuring", and "Insideous" series. Films like "Sinister" have there moments as well.

And, yes, again, Carpenter's filmography is textbook "how to do it right!".

 

[Plautus001]

Source is essential, but from all reports amps like the Tyr take such firm control of the speaker it becomes a new entity.

Also, DACs change so quickly in comparison to amps.

 

[FLTWS]

To get things back on audio;

 

[Plautus001]

One issue I'm up against (other than the obvious inability to play my 4K's) is the Pioneer only has L/R SE audio out and all the decent sound bars I've seen require HDMI or wireless (again the Pioneer is a dumb TV, LOL).

Old Pioneer and other plasmas are still quite great for sports.

Have you tried the optical out?
Another option would be an HDMI switcher with optical or HDMI audio out.

One thing I haven't seen discussed on 4K is the up-scaling for BRD's and DVD's (I've probably got around 100 DVD's that never got BRD issues). Back in 2007/08 the quality of the up-scaler was one of the big selling points. I don't know if that's an issue anymore among different brands of various LED technologies or not, but I'll hang on to my Oppo 105D.

I have not read of any great 4K upscalers. Back in the pre-4K days, there were a couple good upscalers, but most just add lines that do not improve the actual picture quality.

 

[wout31]

 

[FLTWS]

Old Pioneer and other plasmas are still quite great for sports.

Have you tried the optical out?
Another option would be an HDMI switcher with optical or HDMI audio out.

I have not read of any great 4K upscalers. Back in the pre-4K days, there were a couple good upscalers, but most just add lines that do not improve the actual picture quality.

It has optical out so that's a possibility with a soundbar that has optical in. I'm hoping the comcast box gives me some options with respect to HDMI.

The Pioneers' built in upscaler for DVD playback was considered one of the best in it time.

 

[JLoud]

To get things back on audio;

Totally agree, all their songs sound the same.

 

[DougD]

Some people choose their gear based on what other people think.
Some people choose their gear based on brand names.
Some people choose their gear based on list price.
Why? That will remain forever puzzling to me.

RKW already commented on this, but I'll just frame it a bit differently. These are all commonly used heuristics. (I don't think this is really "forever puzzling" to ArmchairPhilosopher, but that assertion provides me an excuse to counter-philosophize.)

This is a pretty good definition of a heuristic:
"Heuristics are mental shortcuts that can facilitate problem-solving and probability judgments. These strategies are generalizations, or rules-of-thumb, reduce cognitive load, and can be effective for making immediate judgments, however, they often result in irrational or inaccurate conclusions." (The Decision Lab, it was the top of the list on a Google search. Emphasis in the original.)

But I would quibble about the "immediate judgments" in that definition. That applies for sure if the question is "is the shadow under that bush over there a lurking lion"? In modern life where most of us don't deal with the immediate existential threat of Lion-equivalents so often, heuristics are often useful in getting more quickly to a short list of candidate solutions for the problem at hand.

Very few people, making a decision on buying a piece of audio gear to fit some perceived audio need, are going to bring all of the top candidates into their house for an extended audition ... that takes a lot of money, time, space, spousal tolerance, etc.

* Some people choose their gear based on what other people think. ==> wisdom of the crowds, and/or specific people who seem to be experts

* Some people choose their gear based on brand names. ==> track record and/or "reputation." Since this is a Schiit thread, I can stay on-topic by saying that my personal experience and bias is that if I buy Schiit, I'm going to get great performance for the price, i.e., high value. (Bifrost OG, SYS (n=2), Magni 3, Yggy LIM, Freya+, Loki, Lyr3, Folkvangr.)

* Some people choose their gear based on list price. ==> assumes the manufacturer knows the value of its products vs the marketplace.

The more you know about a subject, the less you tend to lean on heuristics.

AND ... the more important a decision is to you personally, the more effort you're willing to invest in trying to make the optimal decision for you.

I go to the grocery store. I buy the same brand of toilet paper I bought the last time. Why? It did its job as expected, and absent a problem, I'm not spending more time on re-thinking which type to buy.

(Which brings up a blindness in how we generally do things. I didn't think of my first decision on a preferred brand of toilet paper as "I'm choosing the quality/price/brand for the next 5,000 rolls of toilet paper I will need." Had I done so, maybe I would have made a more thoughtful choice, at the beginning. Eh.... NAH! Or maybe I would have planned to try a different brand every 12 months, as a challenger for the current king of the hill, as a strategy for painlessly evolving to the optimal-for-me decision over time.)

$1,000-plus for a tube amp or new headphone? For me, that's a decision that will require a lot of "research" and thought. But planning the trip is part of the fun of the hobby. (To me, maybe not to everybody.)

Also ... if you are the kind of person prone to second-guessing yourself, or buyer's remorse, you probably should invest more time and perhaps more formality into making decisions.

</end_unauthorized_chapter>

TL;DR -
if people inexplicably use different heuristics in making decisions than you would,
...they probably think that decision isn't as important to them, in their personal situation,
......as you think it is to you, given your personal situation.

 

[Paladin79]

RKW already commented on this, but I'll just frame it a bit differently. These are all commonly used heuristics. (I don't think this is really "forever puzzling" to ArmchairPhilopher, but that assertion provides me an excuse to counter-philosophize.)

This is a pretty good definition of a heuristic:
"Heuristics are mental shortcuts that can facilitate problem-solving and probability judgments. These strategies are generalizations, or rules-of-thumb, reduce cognitive load, and can be effective for making immediate judgments, however, they often result in irrational or inaccurate conclusions." (The Decision Lab, it was the top of the list on a Google search. Emphasis in the original.)

But I would quibble about the "immediate judgments" in that definition. That applies for sure if the question is "is the shadow under that bush over there a lurking lion"? In modern life where most of us don't deal with the immediate existential threat of Lion-equivalents so often, heuristics are often useful in getting more quickly to a short list of candidate solutions for the problem at hand.

Very few people, making a decision on buying a piece of audio gear to fit some perceived audio need, are going to bring all of the top candidates into their house for an extended audition ... that takes a lot of money, time, space, spousal tolerance, etc.

* Some people choose their gear based on what other people think. ==> wisdom of the crowds, and/or specific people who seem to be experts

* Some people choose their gear based on brand names. ==> track record and/or "reputation." Since this is a Schiit thread, I can stay on-topic by saying that my personal experience and bias is that if I buy Schiit, I'm going to get great performance for the price, i.e., high value. (Bifrost OG, SYS (n=2), Magni 3, Yggy LIM, Freya+, Loki, Lyr3, Folkvangr.)

* Some people choose their gear based on list price. ==> assumes the manufacturer knows the value of its products vs the marketplace.

The more you know about a subject, the less you tend to lean on heuristics.

AND ... the more important a decision is to you personally, the more effort you're willing to invest in trying to make the optimal decision for you.

I go to the grocery store. I buy the same brand of toilet paper I bought the last time. Why? It did its job as expected, and absent a problem, I'm not spending more time on re-thinking which type to buy.

(Which brings up blindness in how we generally do things. I didn't think of my first decision on a preferred brand of toilet paper as "I'm choosing the quality/price/brand for the next 5,000 rolls of toilet paper I will need." Had I done so, maybe I would have made a more thoughtful choice, at the beginning. Eh.... NAH! Or maybe I would have planned to try a different brand every 12 months, as a challenger for the current king of the hill, as a strategy for painlessly evolving to the optimal-for-me decision over time.)

$1,000-plus for a tube amp or new headphone? For me, that's a decision that will require a lot of "research" and thought. But planning the trip is part of the fun of the hobby. (To me, maybe not to everybody.)

Also ... if you are the kind of person prone to second-guessing yourself, or buyer's remorse, you probably should invest more time and perhaps more formality into making decisions.

</end_unauthorized_chapter>

TL;DR -
if people inexplicably use different heuristics in making decisions than you would,
they probably think that decision isn't as important to them, in their personal situation,
as you think it is to you, given your personal situation.

Well said. My situation is somewhat unique since I spent my career in electronics and developed a close bond with local audiophiles. Same on Head-Fi, if I want to hear specific items they tend to appear at my door, within reason.

My local group helps each other and tests we do tend to benefit said group. What is interesting is finding gear that rates higher than gear costing four times as much as well as some of the after parties following a weekend of listening.

Many here are older and better off financially than in early phases of their careers so there are more options.

 

[DougD]

RKW already commented on this, but I'll just frame it a bit differently. These are all commonly used heuristics. (I don't think this is really "forever puzzling" to ArmchairPhilosopher, but that assertion provides me an excuse to counter-philosophize.)

.... yada yada yada

I neglected to mention the Paladin79 approach to decision-making in the audio hobby:

* buy one or more of every candidate on the short list
* have a block party with 100 selected friends
* do a design of experiments for double-blind testing
* have a subset of the "most proficient listeners" participate in the blind testing
* enjoy wine & cheese etc during the event
* have a statistician analyze the results
* distribute findings to the group

That's not really a heuristic approach.

(edit/add: Crossed threads with the Master ... I saw he had read my post.)

 

[ArmchairPhilosopher]

RKW already commented on this, but I'll just frame it a bit differently. These are all commonly used heuristics. (I don't think this is really "forever puzzling" to ArmchairPhilosopher, but that assertion provides me an excuse to counter-philosophize.)

This is a pretty good definition of a heuristic:
"Heuristics are mental shortcuts that can facilitate problem-solving and probability judgments. These strategies are generalizations, or rules-of-thumb, reduce cognitive load, and can be effective for making immediate judgments, however, they often result in irrational or inaccurate conclusions." (The Decision Lab, it was the top of the list on a Google search. Emphasis in the original.)

But I would quibble about the "immediate judgments" in that definition. That applies for sure if the question is "is the shadow under that bush over there a lurking lion"? In modern life where most of us don't deal with the immediate existential threat of Lion-equivalents so often, heuristics are often useful in getting more quickly to a short list of candidate solutions for the problem at hand.

Very few people, making a decision on buying a piece of audio gear to fit some perceived audio need, are going to bring all of the top candidates into their house for an extended audition ... that takes a lot of money, time, space, spousal tolerance, etc.

* Some people choose their gear based on what other people think. ==> wisdom of the crowds, and/or specific people who seem to be experts

* Some people choose their gear based on brand names. ==> track record and/or "reputation." Since this is a Schiit thread, I can stay on-topic by saying that my personal experience and bias is that if I buy Schiit, I'm going to get great performance for the price, i.e., high value. (Bifrost OG, SYS (n=2), Magni 3, Yggy LIM, Freya+, Loki, Lyr3, Folkvangr.)

* Some people choose their gear based on list price. ==> assumes the manufacturer knows the value of its products vs the marketplace.

The more you know about a subject, the less you tend to lean on heuristics.

AND ... the more important a decision is to you personally, the more effort you're willing to invest in trying to make the optimal decision for you.

I go to the grocery store. I buy the same brand of toilet paper I bought the last time. Why? It did its job as expected, and absent a problem, I'm not spending more time on re-thinking which type to buy.

(Which brings up blindness in how we generally do things. I didn't think of my first decision on a preferred brand of toilet paper as "I'm choosing the quality/price/brand for the next 5,000 rolls of toilet paper I will need." Had I done so, maybe I would have made a more thoughtful choice, at the beginning. Eh.... NAH! Or maybe I would have planned to try a different brand every 12 months, as a challenger for the current king of the hill, as a strategy for painlessly evolving to the optimal-for-me decision over time.)

$1,000-plus for a tube amp or new headphone? For me, that's a decision that will require a lot of "research" and thought. But planning the trip is part of the fun of the hobby. (To me, maybe not to everybody.)

Also ... if you are the kind of person prone to second-guessing yourself, or buyer's remorse, you probably should invest more time and perhaps more formality into making decisions.

</end_unauthorized_chapter>

TL;DR -
if people inexplicably use different heuristics in making decisions than you would,
they probably think that decision isn't as important to them, in their personal situation,
as you think it is to you, given your personal situation.

Precisely. Heuristics is pretty much exactly what I intended to describe with the "sometimes, we just wanna be monkee" line.

Also, folks: See what happens when I reduce a complex argument to just one line? Someone else will step up and write an essay. Because context and detail actually matters!

 

[StimpyWan]

Fun note here. John Carpenter's The Thing (not to be confused with the good but very different 50's version, The Thing) is pre-CGI and pre-a-whole-lot-of-special-effect-tech. His guidance to the SFX crew was, "I do not want the alien to look like a man in a rubber suit." I think they met and exceeded that brief in stupendous manner. John Carpenter is a national treasure!

We need a list of these movies somewhere. I am low on good, not gory, scary movies/monster movies!

Makeup Effects expert Rob Bottin almost killed himself on the movie. Fifty-seven weeks straight, of nearly 24/7 work, creating all of the practical effects for the various Things. Still some of the creepiest Schiit I've seen on film...!

 

[DougD]

Precisely. Heuristics is pretty much exactly what I intended to describe with the "sometimes, we just wanna be monkee" line.

Also, folks: See what happens when I reduce a complex argument to just one line? Someone else will step up and write an essay. Because context and detail actually matters!

Nature abhors a vacuum.

Even in the "audio hobby discussion" ecosystem.

I blame Darwin.