Originally Posted by cfineman
lol after reading some of the threads in this forum in more detail I feel like I just wrapped myself in fish and walked into an alley full of cats.
I saw the charts and other comments by the "no significant differences crowd".
The above statement shows more than a little catiness itself.
I recently did a "one variable" change of my old Nak AVR (20 yrs old) with a newer Onkyo and it just sounded very different to me
The above statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the issue.
Unless you just did a comprehensive set of bench tests on the 20 year old NAK AVR, and did your listening tests level-matched, time-synched, and bias controlled your evaluation was about 3,000 miles from being a "one variable test" The actual operational state of a 20 year old receiver can be logically expected to be anything from soup to nuts. The alleged test seems to have failed to control just about every relevant variable.
The fundamental difference here wold be the pre-processor in the two receivers since the audio signal is going out the pre-out to the McIntosh AMP but it still sounds "lessened" to me. I've removed as much of the processing in the AVR as I could but well... there you have it.
The above statement shows that a complete misunderstanding of the issues that it purports to comment on.
Anyway... perhaps most of what you guys were talking about were the final amplification stages but my recent experience calls into question the quality of the path through the AVR.
Pehaps we have a severe reading comprehension problem?
What is all that complex about doing comparisons of equipment known to be in original condition? Do you seriously believe that a 20 year old receiver that has not been checked out thoroughly is representative of anything but its sweet self in a totally unknown state?
What is all that complex about matching levels with simple measurements?
What is all that complex about actually listening to the identical same music and not being mislead by the fact that the tonal and detailed nature of music varies from second to second?
What is so complex about normal bias controls?
That's 4 strikes against your post, and it only takes one to put any conclusions it might present in serious doubt!
Subjective? Yeah... I'll cop to that.
How about grotesquely flawed?
I agree with the point that speaker placement/choice and treatment have a lot do with it but I would have assumed that, across the spectrum, there would be variations in the way the electronics process the signal.
In your test we see a comparison with two very different kinds of equipment. 20 year old AVRs are in general no way similar to current products. For example, Dolby Digital was introduced in a preliminary form no earlier than 1994 which was 18 years ago, so your 20 year old receiver couldn't have possibly implemented it in a form that would in any way comparable to what we might find in even a 10 year old AVR.
I'm no EE (by choice thank you :-) ) so I don't have the training to know for sure but...
Perhaps you should have some respect for the consequences of your choices? One choice would be to educate yourself, but your post shows clear evidence of side-stepping that critical step.
Anyway... have fun soapboxing :-) I'll stop by to watch
It appears that your soapbox is rather full of holes... Perhaps it was a Swiss Cheese box in a former life! ;-)