or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › SE WI Tower speaker GTG
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SE WI Tower speaker GTG - Page 12

post #331 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warpdrv View Post

RIGHT

Twasn't loaded - just for a nice photo shoot...

Ha haaa. Warp, I figured she thought it WAS loaded.

Having hung around with you on a couple of forums for 5 or 6 years, now...I know a little of your self-stated history with wimmins...and that she had something to say to you....


J/K
post #332 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowmanick View Post

I am highly disappointed that you didn't include photo's of the speakers with Booth Babes in them. I read and fully understand your reasoning, but photo's without Booth babes are for neutered men, and as a manly man, I think all future photo's of gear should have the aforementioned Booth Babes as a prerequisite before any posting is allowed. Booth Babes are easy enough to attain, so I m flabbergasted by their omission from an otherwise enjoyable read, and what appears to be a fantastic line-up of speakers. Please see that this deficiency is resolved before any future listening.

Thank you for your time and attention on this serious matter.

Signed,
Guy That Is Never Going To Coordinate A GTG

LOL - Hilarious! Thanks for that; too funny.

Patrick - HAHA, now it's on! She had better be at the next GTG......................................................... ............................................................ ............with the gun, of course.
post #333 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Patrick - HAHA, now it's on! She had better be at the next GTG......................................................... ............................................................ ............with the gun, of course.

LOL

The ACR stays with me, but if you or anyone else gets out of line again - I will turn her loose with it loaded - and run the other way, god knows what the hell will happen, you guys will be on your own... I'll make sure shes all liquored up while I'm at it - and just tell her - shoot first ask questions later... !!!!!

Action Shot !!!
post #334 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

From what I've heard Parasound will be releasing a new P2 that will include HT bypass and a subwoofer output. It will be 2(.1) channel only, and will fall in between the Classic 2100 and the Halo P7. If this is true the new P2 will be my next preamp.

Very interesting! Where/how have you heard about this new P2? I would be very interested in this preamp as well.
post #335 of 1777
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparktheyank View Post

Very interesting! Where/how have you heard about this new P2? I would be very interested in this preamp as well.

Us 2100 owners will probably jump on this preamp as well I got the news from a Parasound rep who said expect it later this year with a price between the P3 and P7.
post #336 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrymaid520 View Post

Us 2100 owners will probably jump on this preamp as well I got the news from a Parasound rep who said expect it later this year with a price between the P3 and P7.

Brandon,

My wallet hates you! Seriously I'll wait for an "open box" P2 from Audio Advisor. And you are right "us" 2100 owners will be all over this baby.

Bill
post #337 of 1777
Very interesting indeed. I was planning on getting the classic 2100 but may hold out for this P2.
post #338 of 1777
I almost bought a 2100 but it only has an 80hz crossover, and no 60hz... Why...

I'm quite doubtful it would be a significant upgrade over a DEQ2496... What is this P2 going to cost around? Could have bought a used 2100 for 400...
post #339 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

I almost bought a 2100 but it only has an 80hz crossover, and no 60hz... Why...

I'm quite doubtful it would be a significant upgrade over a DEQ2496... What is this P2 going to cost around? Could have bought a used 2100 for 400...

We aren't sure yet, but I would guess right around the $1000 mark.
post #340 of 1777
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

Brandon,

My wallet hates you! Seriously I'll wait for an "open box" P2 from Audio Advisor. And you are right "us" 2100 owners will be all over this baby.

Bill

Sorry Depending on price, not sure how soon I will grab one, but if it offers a little more functionality over the 2100 and better sound...who knows!

Grandarf,
Ya, thats the main limiting factor with the 2100 although most of us who have one cross it over to our subs and 80hz tends to work just right anyway. I have even taken lots of measurements using REW through my Yamaha receiver which allows much more XO options and 80hz still gives me the best in room response.

As for price, I heard around $1500 or so.
post #341 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

I almost bought a 2100 but it only has an 80hz crossover, and no 60hz... Why...

Grandarf,

You should grab a 2100 and try it in your system. The 80Hz crossover works fine for me which I checked with REW as well. No problems although I do use an Antimode 8033 to EQ the sub when using the 2100.

Bill
post #342 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrymaid520 View Post

Sorry Depending on price, not sure how soon I will grab one, but if it offers a little more functionality over the 2100 and better sound...who knows! As for price, I heard around $1500 or so.

I'm thinking the same thing. If the P2 is over $1k I will likely pass and stay with the 2100. I recall comments from several people very knowledgable with Parasound products and they thought the 2100 was very close in SQ to the P7. So the P2 would have to be a step up in SQ over the 2100 for me to upgrade. Has Parasound said the new preamp will be called the P2? I ask as I would think it would be the P5 (P3/P5/P7).

Bill
post #343 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warpdrv View Post

LOL

The ACR stays with me, but if you or anyone else gets out of line again - I will turn her loose with it loaded - and run the other way, god knows what the hell will happen, you guys will be on your own... I'll make sure shes all liquored up while I'm at it - and just tell her - shoot first ask questions later... !!!!!

Action Shot !!!

Hard to get the Gun Conceal law passed with that Whopper of a automatic! LOL

Where are you guys all located as I am in a sub-burb of Madison and use to work for a high end Audio shop years ago. Now my basement is a testing ground for gear and my wife hates me for it!
post #344 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

Grandarf,

You should grab a 2100 and try it in your system. The 80Hz crossover works fine for me which I checked with REW as well. No problems although I do use an Antimode 8033 to EQ the sub when using the 2100.

Bill

Well... I'm not huge on dropping a couple hundreds just to try out something I'm not convinced would be a significant upgrade... I'm vaguely looking at a miniDSP to crossover a sub (use DEQ to crossover mains, miniDSP for sub), but just the miniDSP doesn't take digital, so would require analog out or an additional dongle... But anyhow, I'm not really missing the sub anyhow... Maybe I'll check the P2, although >1000 I'd most definitely pass it too.

Earlier tonight looking for DEQ2496 as pre vs pres, was reading about a guy who compared a 2000$ DAC http://www.audiosmile.com/forum/printthread.php?t=11540 But not that much otherwise... I really doubt a pre would make a significant difference...

For example, the DAC1 has been extremely well reviewed, and the DEQ is indistinguishable... I don't think you an improve much here...
post #345 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

Well... I'm not huge on dropping a couple hundreds just to try out something I'm not convinced would be a significant upgrade... I'm vaguely looking at a miniDSP to crossover a sub (use DEQ to crossover mains, miniDSP for sub), but just the miniDSP doesn't take digital, so would require analog out or an additional dongle... But anyhow, I'm not really missing the sub anyhow... Maybe I'll check the P2, although >1000 I'd most definitely pass it too.

Earlier tonight looking for DEQ2496 as pre vs pres, was reading about a guy who compared a 2000$ DAC http://www.audiosmile.com/forum/printthread.php?t=11540 But not that much otherwise... I really doubt a pre would make a significant difference...

For example, the DAC1 has been extremely well reviewed, and the DEQ is indistinguishable... I don't think you an improve much here...

How can you make that last statement when you have not compared the gear in question?`

I think you need to try it yourself and not make decisions based on "reviews" or other people's opinions. "Pro reviews" are a joke, driven by marketing dollars. You don't see bad reviews, even though bad measurements coincide with said reviews. Bad equipment doesn't exist in the "professional" realm. And other people's opinions are just that; they should just be taken as suggestions.

If you're interested in the 2100, or any other pre for that matter, try it. If you don't like it, sell it/return it. At least you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you own the best gear for the price. Oh, and Audio Advisior offers a 30-day money back guarantee, so it's a win win; all you pay is shipping.

For what it's worth, I disagree with your opinions about the DAC1 and DEQ2496. I don't want to derail the thread, but I can share my experience with them via PM if you'd like. But again, they are just one guy's opinion (mine), so it's best that you actually make the comparisons yourself, preferably in your own system. There is just no better process to find the best equipment for your own system.

As always, to each their own and YMMV.
post #346 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

How can you make that last statement when you have not compared the gear in question?`

I think you need to try it yourself and not make decisions based on "reviews" or other people's opinions. "Pro reviews" are a joke, driven by marketing dollars. You don't see bad reviews, even though bad measurements coincide with said reviews. Bad equipment doesn't exist in the "professional" realm. And other people's opinions are just that; they should just be taken as suggestions.

If you're interested in the 2100, or any other pre for that matter, try it. If you don't like it, sell it/return it. At least you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you own the best gear for the price. Oh, and Audio Advisior offers a 30-day money back guarantee, so it's a win win; all you pay is shipping.

For what it's worth, I disagree with your opinions about the DAC1 and DEQ2496. I don't want to derail the thread, but I can share my experience with them via PM if you'd like. But again, they are just one guy's opinion (mine), so it's best that you actually make the comparisons yourself, preferably in your own system. There is just no better process to find the best equipment for your own system.

As always, to each their own and YMMV.

Well too late you I think the thread is already derailed

For the DEQ vs Dac1, I take it you did a sighted test? Under blind conditions, people were unable to differentiate the units...

http://translate.googleusercontent.c...SiDVoYokyzzMzA
(google translation so bare the engrish...)
Quote:


Some argue that the Benchmark DAC 1, digital-analog converter is able to surpass others in lower or higher price, and in particular to the Behringer DEQ2496 (equalizer with built DAC). This issue hits the statement by Matrix-HiFi, maintaining that sound alike. Therefore, we designed an experiment the maximum extent possible in order to elucidate the truth of those assertions by both sides. Thinking about how to eliminate the influences of the room or the speakers used, we have introduced a variant that had not used in previous blind tests: the use of headphones. In this way we eliminate the bud any criticism of the acoustics of the room and / or speakers. To this end, we chose three ear as solvent in the market to detect differences if any.
[...]
RESULTS

Of the 14 subjects:

- 10 state pilot test to perceive no difference.
- 4 decide to take the blind test and those four, 1 leaves the 4 th test to miss 2 times and the other 3 arrive at the end of the sequence with a result equivalent to the random errors. Thus, we conclude there is no difference between these two converters.

Quote:


To make matters worse, we made a thorough analysis and study inside the Behringer accompanied by many measures that allow us to complete the result. You can see the study here. http://translate.googleusercontent.c...RCULB421KinSYg

So in this particular case, I don't think it would be a worthwhile investment, both financially and time & effort, to compare a DAC1 and a DEQ... And then, going one step further, if it's worth it to check any pre amp as an upgrade to the DEQ...

Logically, or technically/scientifically, I have doubts that there's a significant upgrade to be had. Most reviews aren't done under blind conditions, and are prone to placebo errors and the such, questioning the validity of the review in question. Not a lot offer measurements and comparisons between units. User experience is again error prone. I could order gear left and right, wasting money, time and energy in the process, but to do so I'd have to be in the mindset that doing this would result in an improvement, which I quite doubt at the moment... Blind tests and measurements like the above only reinforce my doubts that a substantial upgrade is to be made...

Quote:


For example, the DAC1 has been extremely well reviewed, and the DEQ is indistinguishable... I don't think you can improve much here...

Quote:


How can you make that last statement when you have not compared the gear in question?`

In this case, DBT tests & measurements trumps opinions & error prone tests. I can understand that some people might well think that one is better than the other, but DBT & measurements pretty much proves that they're wrong... There just doesn't seem to be any audible difference to be heard. Even if I didn't hear both gear, I don't think it's a case where I need to use my own ears to determine that going from a DEQ to a Dac1 would yield no audible difference...

And maybe I'm wrong in making this statement, but I also doubt going with a pre might improve things over using a DEQ as a pre... (that statement might very well be wrong, but I've not seen much info to validate or invalidate this statement...). Maybe the XLR outputs of the DEQ are of lesser quality that a good pre, but I'm really not quite sure... I have serious doubts Making the whole buying a pre adventure seem a bit unexciting to me... (And even if a GOOD pre is better, how much better? 1%? And at what cost, 1200$? :\\ )
post #347 of 1777
So you're saying you'd take the results of a double blind test I conducted (lets pretend I conducted it flawlessly) over your own opinion? If yes, okay, I understand, but what if you also performed the same test and the results differed? Now who's right and who's wrong? Who's equipment gets blamed for the variances, and who's doesn't? etc, etc, etc...

God knows I am a big proponent of double blinds tests, but I also know how difficult they are to perform and participate in. The problem with such tests is I'd prefer to participate in them and use the findings to make my decisions rather than read about someone else's conclusions based on said tests. It's not because I think I hear better, but more like I am anal and want to be "sure."

In regards to the DAC1 and DEQ, I didn't mean that one is better than the other, but rather I meant that there is no way both have been compared to every DAC out there, especially not by the same person(s), so how will you ever know? The results of a double blind test, if performed correctly (which virtually none are), are only applicable to the gear included; they hold no merit when being compared to components that were not present during said test. So unless you've heard my PS Audio Digital Link III, for example, and compared it under double blind tests with your DEQ, you cannot say one is better than the other. And most people, myself included, do not want to take the time and effort to compare every single piece of equipment that peaks their interest under such conditions; it's just too difficult and impractical, even if it is ideal.

In short, you're preaching to the choir, as I too like DBT's. But in reality, hardly anyone will do them, and I'd say less than 1% perform them correctly or have the means and methods to do so. This is why simply comparing in your own home, using whichever methods you deem necessary, is the best solution. Feel free to disagree; I'm just trying to help in any way I can. If you don't want to audition components, it's okay with me.

P.S. Besides sound quality, different gear offers different features, so many people buy based on that too. Not all features are the same, or even offered by every manufacturer.
post #348 of 1777
By the way, I skimmed the link you provided. It sounds as if the participants of the test used different headphones, is that correct? In other words, there wasn't only one pair everyone used.
post #349 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

By the way, I skimmed the link you provided. It sounds as if the participants of the test used different headphones, is that correct? In other words, there wasn't only one pair everyone used.

Correct, 3 different headphones, could choose to use any or all of them. Each headphone is clearly identified and even has a paragraph dedicated to describe. Is there any point in you asking that question? It sounds like you think this had a (negative?) impact on the results...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

So you're saying you'd take the results of a double blind test I conducted (lets pretend I conducted it flawlessly) over your own opinion? If yes, okay, I understand,

I don't really have an opinion on the matter, I only have a DEQ2496 and never heard a DAC1. There's basically two possibilities here. 1) They sound the same. (Seem to confirm what I've read about DACs...), and 2) they sound different.

If they sound the same, then they will be indistinguishable in DBTs, and will also measure the same, albeit to a level where we can perceive differences using our ears. If they sound significantly different, the differences should be identifiable in the DBTs and so there should also be differences in measurements. If DBTs seem to indicate that they sound the same, and measurements do too, then it would seem to me rather illogical to insist that they do sound different...

Even if I believed that they sounded different, what would be my basis for doing so? A placebo prone sighted test using my imperfect human hearing and acoustic memory? I'd have to face the fact that I might have been wrong when I thought I heard differences...

Quote:
but what if you also performed the same test and the results differed? Now who's right and who's wrong? Who's equipment gets blamed for the variances, and who's doesn't? etc, etc, etc...

If I performed the same tests and measurements and got different results, means a test variable was different... I'd have to identify what it is, before claiming who's right or wrong... If I was certain that my test was flawless, and that there were audible differences & differences in measurements, then maybe the tested units themselves were different, or as I said some variable/error occurred in the other test... I couldn't tell you for sure...

Quote:
God knows I am a big proponent of double blinds tests, but I also know how difficult they are to perform and participate in. The problem with such tests is I'd prefer to participate in them and use the findings to make my decisions rather than read about someone else's conclusions based on said tests. It's not because I think I hear better, but more like I am anal and want to be "sure."

sigh... You'd have heard differences where others didn't? There was 14 listeners for that particular test, actually... 15: "15 people fond of HIFI with high experience and own equipment auditions medium-high level. From various forums and convinced many readers that sound different." That sounds just like the type of people who could actually hear differences, just not in a DBT... Go figure!

Quote:
In regards to the DAC1 and DEQ, I didn't mean that one is better than the other, but rather I meant that there is no way both have been compared to every DAC out there, especially not by the same person(s), so how will you ever know? The results of a double blind test, if performed correctly (which virtually none are), are only applicable to the gear included; they hold no merit when being compared to components that were not present during said test. So unless you've heard my PS Audio Digital Link III, for example, and compared it under double blind tests with your DEQ, you cannot say one is better than the other. And most people, myself included, do not want to take the time and effort to compare every single piece of equipment that peaks their interest under such conditions; it's just too difficult and impractical, even if it is ideal.

Ouch... Where to begin... Too much wrong here imho... That DBT you skimmed, if you read it, you'd probably find the answers to all the questions you've raised.

-Subjects were allowed to hear the passages of the songs they wanted to hear, both with their own music CDs, as with the material provided by MatrixHifi. Also available to them any of the 3 headphones to try to capture the differences. They could use one or two or all three. A choice.

QUESTIONNAIRE MATRIX-HiFi
1 & Behringer DAC with Headphone
Number of subjects: 14

Do you think enough quality headphones for the test? 100% answered yes.
Do you think he is well-designed experiment? 93% answered yes.


Btw, this test tested the DAC1 and the DEQ, no other DAC... Of course you can question the test, the validity of the test, the results, the hearing of the participants, the weather, the gear, fairies, temporal or space time distortions... But in the end, what do you have? Like I said earlier, a bunch of opinions formed by error prone tests, vs a rigorous DBT... Which one is more reliable... Hmmm... I think it should be easy to answer...

Quote:
In short, you're preaching to the choir, as I too like DBT's. But in reality, hardly anyone will do them, and I'd say less than 1% perform them correctly or have the means and methods to do so. This is why simply comparing in your own home, using whichever methods you deem necessary, is the best solution. Feel free to disagree; I'm just trying to help in any way I can. If you don't want to audition components, it's okay with me.

P.S. Besides sound quality, different gear offers different features, so many people buy based on that too. Not all features are the same, or even offered by every manufacturer.

I'll strongly disagree here. The point is that whatever test you'd do, or I would do, at home won't be as rigorous as a DBT test... We'd likely just switch the DACs a couple of times and form an opinion from that, that's exactly the error prone tests aimed to bypass with a DBT... You've said that less than 1% of DBTs are done correctly... Hehe, I find that statement hilarious! Maybe you meant home tests or auditions, that less than 1% of those are true DBTs, then yeah, I'd definitely agree, but most people willing to go through the hassle of doing DBTs actually know what a DBT is and try to do it correctly... A lot more than 1% of DBTs are done correctly...


You've said earlier you disagreed with what I had stated with DAC1 vs DEQ2496, and I could PM you for details... Well, what's your opinion on the DAC1 vs DEQ? What tests did you do?

Going back to DAC1 vs DEQ, just read reviews of DAC1...
Quote:
"There are plenty of DACs I'd rather listen to - but they all consume in sales tax alone what the Benchmark DAC retails for." This from a high-profile reviewer who recommends this piece to anyone on an insanity-deprived budget. Now make that two of us. Granted, when considered on an endless scale of sheer sonic performance -- unlimited by any considerations other than what is possible -- the Benchmark is somewhat overrated and not exactly what I'd ultimately want in my reference system. However, that's not entirely surprising given my penchant for the $10,000 Zanden DAC, my enthusiasm for the $5,500 Audio Aero Prima SE or my go-and-get-one feelings about the $3,500 sold-direct Resolution Audio Opus 21. But back in the real world, this little box from the pro world is an uncontested overachiever.

Quote:
For today, the simple fact that Derek Wilson of Overkill Audio, Alon Wolf of Magico and Stephen Balliet of Reflection Audio -- to name just the few I personally know -- think highly enough of this unassuming affordable black box to make it part of their operations should confirm that the Benchmark DAC1 is far closer to perfection than its price would suggest.

Now, they basically measured the same, and 15 audiophiles who could supposedly hear differences couldn't tell them apart in a DBT... Reviews describe the DAC1 as an amazing performer, with outstanding quality, way beyond it's price point... Well... I dunno man... To me it sounds a little bit like a useless exercise to try to find something better than the DEQ... Being that it looks like it sounds exactly the same as the highly regarded 1000$ DAC1 and I'm definitely not interested in paying 1000 or even 500 for a replacement...

And seriously, don't mean offense, but what's a preamp if not a glorified volume control and source switcher? I'd still need a DAC in my chain... If that remains the DEQ, I'm just adding another element the chain (bad), and if it's the pre amp which is the DAC, do I really stand to gain anything from it? That's really my big question... I don't think so...
post #350 of 1777
Thread Starter 
Grandarf,
I will let you and nuance hash out the discussion above but I do want to throw in my two cents
I too was a DAC skeptic thinking they all sound alike. From a recent GTG I was proven wrong and was able to discern differences between two DAC's. I am no expert by any means but I attribute theses differences in the design of the power supply and other parts of the overall component rather than the actual DAC chip itself. Again, is the difference worth it, will you or anyone else hear the same thing? Only you can answer that, no worries!

As for the preamp amp argument, this I can tell you will make a difference! I feel other than my speakers (excluding room treatments), the preamp made the single largest improvement in my system for 2ch listening. If you dont believe us, you need to try it first I wont get into technical details, DBT, etc, simply put, preamps did make a huge impact (for the good) in my setup. Its cool you beg to differ, you are probably saving a ton of money not screwing around with all this equipment, ha!
post #351 of 1777
Merry: isn't a preamp "a glorified volume control and source switcher?". What role does the preamp really serve?

From wiki:
Quote:


In general, the function of a preamplifier is to amplify a low-level signal to line-level. A list of common low-level signal sources would include a pickup, microphone, turntable or other transducers. Equalization and tone control may also be applied.

In a home audio system, the term 'preamplifier' may sometimes be used to describe equipment which merely switches between different line level sources and applies a volume control, so that no actual amplification may be involved. In an audio system, the second amplifier is typically a power amplifier (power amp). The preamplifier provides voltage gain (e.g. from 10 millivolts to 1 volt) but no significant current gain. The power amplifier provides the higher current necessary to drive loudspeakers.

Ok so it does provide some amplification... (or can? :\\ ?)

Quote:


Why different equipment may sound different.

There are both solid state and tube stereo preamplifiers and with that, also the everlasting discussions in forums, blogs etc about tubes compared to semiconductors, transistor/mosfet amplifiers.
And in the view of that, something to be considered, and worth knowing, is the fact that some manufacturers have used filters in the circuits to add just a little coloring, not more than still keeping the sound within the "hifi"-norm, but enough to make the sound "softer" or whatever words are to be used. Even very very small tonal differences can be heard immediately in an a/b comparison by audio devoted listeners. And this, maybe just because of a pair of capacitor/resistor or two somewhere in the circuits, may ultimately lead some people to buy certain equipment that cost tons of more money. Some equipment really is very expensive.

So even though a tube preamp may have a certain sound mainly because of its (asymmetrical) smooth overdrive distortion, parts of the sound may also come from the transformer and/or internal filters.
When the shorter stereo preamp term is used, it also refers to studio related 2-channel mic/instrument preamplifiers.

Reassuring...

Quote:


From a recent GTG I was proven wrong and was able to discern differences between two DAC's. I am no expert by any means but I attribute theses differences in the design of the power supply and other parts of the overall component rather than the actual DAC chip itself. Again, is the difference worth it, will you or anyone else hear the same thing? Only you can answer that, no worries!

Wasn't it a wireless squeezebox or something? Again, if we contrast with the DEQ/DAC1, if you're correct, and there is a difference, then it should be verifiable with a DBT or measurements. If you're positive that there are differences, and that the squeeze box sounded worst, it could well be that the squeeze box does in fact perform worst, for whatever reason... But in this case, since the Dac1 is a renown great, heck, fantastic sounding DAC, the DEQ also would fit that definition since it seems to sound exactly he same... By that, I mean that it does not appear that the DEQ or Dac1 have something wrong to begin with, unlike maybe a squeezebox...

It might well be that a very good preamp sounds better than the DEQ, might not have to do with the DAC section, but preamp section... Sadly haven't found many comparisons, and those I did didn't seem to infer that there was a big performance gain to be had...

Argh... At this point, I'm more inclined just to let it be... I'd love to see direct comparisons, or even better, MUCH better, DBTs... Measurements... I'd maybe even just be content with direct comparisons, and that might motivate me to check out preamps, but as is, I sort of doubt something like a 2100 would be an upgrade... (And who knows, maybe a better sounding preamp just alters the signal instead of just straight up amplifying it... Which is something I'd definitely be weary of...)
post #352 of 1777
Thread Starter 
^^
I cannot comment on the DEQ you speak of, I know nothing about it As for the preamp, yes, it acts as a volume control but also directly handles the signals coming from your analog sources. I cannot explain the technology/science behind any electronics, but I know what I hear every day. I can easily swap from my yamaha receiver back to the 2100 preamp with a push of a button using the same source and the differences are easily audible...mostly in terms of imaging and soundstage. Again YMMV depending on what receiver you use, your hearing, various equipment, etc etc.

I highly recommend that you snag a 2100 off audiogon or from AA and try it for yourself before forming any opinions one way or another. Then you will know for sure They have great resale, I doubt you would lose anything but S&H.

Hope this helps,
B
post #353 of 1777
Thread Starter 
Side note,
Were you on the debate team in school? You would have won nationals


Just having fun
post #354 of 1777
Haha! Don't look in the Totem thread... lol

Yeah not sure about Yamaha vs 2100... I'd be curious to know why they sound different. I believe that modern amplifiers are very good at amplifying, and that there shouldn't be any difference between non-clipping amps... DBTs seem to confirm this. Specs too... As a preamp would, it seems, simply amplify the signal for the power amp, it should do so accurately, and given that current amplifiers are extremely good as amplifying... We're back to "all amplifiers sound the same" (not clipping, etc..) And again, if they're designed to accurately amplify the signal without altering it, there shouldn't be any difference if they both do the job correctly...
post #355 of 1777
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

Haha! Don't look in the Totem thread... lol

Yeah not sure about Yamaha vs 2100... I'd be curious to know why they sound different. I believe that modern amplifiers are very good at amplifying, and that there shouldn't be any difference between non-clipping amps... DBTs seem to confirm this. Specs too... As a preamp would, it seems, simply amplify the signal for the power amp, it should do so accurately, and given that current amplifiers are extremely good as amplifying... We're back to "all amplifiers sound the same" (not clipping, etc..) And again, if they're designed to accurately amplify the signal without altering it, there shouldn't be any difference if they both do the job correctly...

I'll stay out of the Totem thread, thanks for the warning

Rather than you debate what I heard, you need to try a separate preamp for yourself. This really has nothing to do with the amplifier whether its the one in the yamaha or my separate amp. Im strictly talking the preamp section of the equation.
post #356 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by merrymaid520 View Post

I'll stay out of the Totem thread, thanks for the warning

Rather than you debate what I heard, you need to try a separate preamp for yourself. This really has nothing to do with the amplifier whether its the one in the yamaha or my separate amp. Im strictly talking the preamp section of the equation.

Yeah same here. I wasn't entirely sure if the preamp only reduced the volume (acts only like a volume pot), or if it does some amplification, the wiki stated that it can do some amplification...

Quote:


In a home audio system, the term 'preamplifier' may sometimes be used to describe equipment which merely switches between different line level sources and applies a volume control, so that no actual amplification may be involved. In an audio system, the second amplifier is typically a power amplifier (power amp). The preamplifier provides voltage gain (e.g. from 10 millivolts to 1 volt) but no significant current gain. The power amplifier provides the higher current necessary to drive loudspeakers.

But there seems to be contradictory information...

Quote:


An amplifier can be split into two main parts - the preamp and the power amp.

The preamp is the signal processing part of an amplifier
. This means it's the section of the ampthat allows you to plug in sources such as tuner and CD player. It's also the section that allows you to change volume and possibly to change treble and bass settings. So it's a glorified switch with volume pot.

The power amp is the section of the amplifier that drives the speakers.

Now traditionally, as you went up the amplifier hierarchy, one way of deriving better fidelity was to separate the two sections of the amplifier. By separating the preamp from the power amp, you could design a dedicated power supply to manage the electronics dealing with the more delicate signals without interference from the noisier power amp circuits. In some cases (Naim Audio and Nytech for example), even the power supply was separated into another case to reduce the noise in the preamp further. Preamps can also be 'passive'. These do not need a power supply since the components (basically a quality switch and a volume potentiometer) are being driven directly by your sources. Theoretically this is the best way forward but in practice there are quite a few limitations which mean the passive preamp remains relatively rare.

When we talk about preamps we usually mean preamps in a separate case. This requires a separate power amp to drive speakers. An amplifier with both pre- and power sections in it is either just called an amplifier or, more accurately, an integrated amplifier.

It used to be fairly obvios where integrated amps stopped and separate pre/power amps started, but in the last 5 years this line has gone with more highly specified, better quality integrated amps appearing at much higher quality (and expense) levels than had ever been imagined in the past. This is partly due to costs (extra packaging and casings are a wasteful luxury in this day and age) but also due to living constraints where many people simply won't accept between 2 and 4 boxes for a single amplifier in their modern rooms.

Quote:


"So it's a glorified switch with volume pot." Yes!

With 2-channel stereo one can connect most sources, today, directly to the input of a power amp. Does not work with phono, however. A simple, passive, input selector switch allows one to choose between different sources.

Underline mine...

So I'm not even entirely sure (still ain't actually...) that they do ANY kind of amplification... As I said, a switcher & a volume pot... If it's the case, given that using a DEQ you effectively bypass a preamp, you're removing a component in the chain which could do nothing beneficial to the signal, if the goal is hifi...

You'd gain nothing by going source -> digital -> DEQ -> analog -> PreAmp -> analog -> amp. instead of directly source -> digital -> DEQ -> analog -> amp... Well... At least that's my guess...
post #357 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

Correct, 3 different headphones, could choose to use any or all of them. Each headphone is clearly identified and even has a paragraph dedicated to describe. Is there any point in you asking that question? It sounds like you think this had a (negative?) impact on the results...

That's correct, it did have an impact on the results, and thus the test is flawed. DBT's are all about control, that's why they are also called controlled tests. The fact that the same headphones were not used among the entire group is taking a variable that could have been controlled and making it uncontrolled. Letting them chose was a big mistake, as there should have been one static pair, that's all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

I don't really have an opinion on the matter, I only have a DEQ2496 and never heard a DAC1. There's basically two possibilities here. 1) They sound the same. (Seem to confirm what I've read about DACs...), and 2) they sound different.

There's your mistake; you've never heard them. Weather under blind or sighted conditions, you've never even bothered to compare. I love science, but to say one product cannot be superior to another because of what you've read...well, it just doesn't hold any merit in this hobby. This hobby is about the science and the listening. Why even bother listening to anything at all if you just choose based on measurements? Do you just buy speakers and set them in place at home and stare at them? Also, how do you explain clear differences in speakers that measure almost identical, such as our WI GTG the first go around at Brandon's? Measurements are very important, but they aren't the be all, end all. I've heard speakers that measure extremely well but sounded bad. It's all about tastes and a connection with the music, and measurements won't show you that. Some also believe there are things that humans can hear that microphones cannot. I don't necessary subscribe to those notions, but it's a thought.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

Even if I believed that they sounded different, what would be my basis for doing so? A placebo prone sighted test using my imperfect human hearing and acoustic memory? I'd have to face the fact that I might have been wrong when I thought I heard differences...

Ah yes, but isn't it your "imperfect human hearing" that you will be using to listen to your system? Oh, the irony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

sigh... You'd have heard differences where others didn't?

Did I say that? Show me where I said that. You completely missed the point, which is that human nature would rather be satisfied by personal experience rather than reading about someone else's experience. You totally misunderstood that one. Try not to read so quickly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

There was 14 listeners for that particular test, actually... 15: "15 people fond of HIFI with high experience and own equipment auditions medium-high level. From various forums and convinced many readers that sound different." That sounds just like the type of people who could actually hear differences, just not in a DBT... Go figure!

There could have been 10,000 listeners, but the test wasn't fully controlled, so it's flawed and a moot point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

Ouch... Where to begin... Too much wrong here imho... That DBT you skimmed, if you read it, you'd probably find the answers to all the questions you've raised.

-Subjects were allowed to hear the passages of the songs they wanted to hear, both with their own music CDs, as with the material provided by MatrixHifi. Also available to them any of the 3 headphones to try to capture the differences. They could use one or two or all three. A choice.

QUESTIONNAIRE MATRIX-HiFi
1 & Behringer DAC with Headphone
Number of subjects: 14

Do you think enough quality headphones for the test? 100% answered yes.
Do you think he is well-designed experiment? 93% answered yes.


Btw, this test tested the DAC1 and the DEQ, no other DAC... Of course you can question the test, the validity of the test, the results, the hearing of the participants, the weather, the gear, fairies, temporal or space time distortions... But in the end, what do you have? Like I said earlier, a bunch of opinions formed by error prone tests, vs a rigorous DBT... Which one is more reliable... Hmmm... I think it should be easy to answer...

Uh yeah, just one problem chief, the test was flawed. Seriously I love a truly well performed DBT, such as Sean Olive's and Flood Toole's controlled tests, but in reality there are very very few truly DBT, controlled tests that are valid. Just look at every single one performed by someone on this forum (myself included). Someone always found a valid flaw. Search around this forum alone, and you'll see. You sound so sure that there are lots of valid DBT's out there, but if you put in the research you'd quickly change your tune. I won't debate that point with you further until you're willing to put some time into researching the topic of debate.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

I'll strongly disagree here. The point is that whatever test you'd do, or I would do, at home won't be as rigorous as a DBT test... We'd likely just switch the DACs a couple of times and form an opinion from that, that's exactly the error prone tests aimed to bypass with a DBT... You've said that less than 1% of DBTs are done correctly.

Speak for yourself dude! Ask my wife how often I've put her behind the acoustically transparent but visually opaque speaker cloth while I had her swap cables, DAC's, amps, etc. I guess I am more methodical than you when choosing gear. At least we both have one thing in common: we want to pay as little as possible for a great sounding system.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

You've said earlier you disagreed with what I had stated with DAC1 vs DEQ2496, and I could PM you for details... Well, what's your opinion on the DAC1 vs DEQ? What tests did you do?

A simple comparison, and the differencd in audible distortion with the DEQ was all I needed to hear. I didn't much care for how stale the DAC1 was either, for what it's worth. I think I remember finding some measurements of the DEQ showing a little more distortion than normal. I may be confusing it with the SMS-1 or another EQ device, so I'll search around and PM you the link if I find it. It sure would explain what I heard, which is more than you can say, since you haven't even bother to compare anything to your DEQ (or so you say).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

Going back to DAC1 vs DEQ, just read reviews of DAC1...

Let's not get back to the "reviews" and say we did. You must have clearly missed where I said said reviews are useless, as they are driven by marketing dollars and always praise the product up for review. They are also nothing more than opinions, just like mine and yours. Why would I listen to someone who gets paid to fluff products that may actually be trash? The measurements compared to the reviewers comments are the real telling truth, as they frequently never coincide. The proof is right there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf View Post

And seriously, don't mean offense, but what's a preamp if not a glorified volume control and source switcher? I'd still need a DAC in my chain... If that remains the DEQ, I'm just adding another element the chain (bad), and if it's the pre amp which is the DAC, do I really stand to gain anything from it? That's really my big question... I don't think so...

I take no offense, no worries. I hope you don't either, as this is simply a debate. Anyway, if you haven't actually put that naughty, nasty extra component in your system, you simply can't know, therefore can't comment. Do your precious reviewers shun preamps and claim they're Satan's spawn because they are another element in the chain? I think not. So I guess you only pay attention to their opinions when they say what you want to hear?

Well, this has been fun, but it has nothing to do with this thread. I think it's cool that you're a measurements and DBT guy, because I am too, but you're not bothering to look at the other side of the spectrum (read Folyd Toole's book), so I can see this is going to be a useless discussion. If you'd like to continue this meaningless debate, PM me or start another thread and send me the link. This has nothing to do with the SE WI GTG.

P.S. You get your "debate information" from wikipedia? LOL! I could log into that site right now and add any drivel I wanted to. Come on now, Grandarf...even you should know better than that.
post #358 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

That's correct, it did have an impact on the results, and thus the test is flawed. DBT's are all about control, that's why they are also called controlled tests. The fact that the same headphones were not used among the entire group is taking a variable that could have been controlled and making it uncontrolled. Letting them chose was a big mistake, as there should have been one static pair, that's all.

They could use one pair if they wished, they could alternate between two, or between the three, or use only one pair. They had the choice...

Look at it that way, if it was with speakers, then its like having the choice to do the test either with Salk Speakers, with JMLabs and/or with Magnepans. They could listen to only one set of speakers if they wanted, or 2 of them, or the 3. Listen 2 mins with Salks, the switch to the JMs, then back to Salks, etc... To claim that the test was flawed because they has the choice or what pair of headphones they wanted to use is absolutely ridiculous.

Quote:


I don't really have an opinion on the matter, I only have a DEQ2496 and never heard a DAC1. There's basically two possibilities here. 1) They sound the same. (Seem to confirm what I've read about DACs...), and 2) they sound different.

Quote:


There's your mistake; you've never heard them.p

That's my mistake? lol Dude, out of 15 people, none were able to tell the difference in a DBT... You act as if it's my mistake not to have heard the Dac1. Why? If it sounds exactly the same as the DEQ... (confirmed via DBT & measurements...).

If I say I have two glasses of water, 15 people have tasted them, and they were unable to taste any difference. We've also measured the content of the water, and it is the same for both. Are you going to say: "But have you tasted it? No? That's your mistake! You should head out, go buy the water and taste it for yourself! You can't say that it'll taste the same because you've not tasted it! Go out, try to find and buy that water! And taste it for yourself! How can you know if it tastes the same if you don't taste it yourself!"

Quote:


Weather under blind or sighted conditions, you've never even bothered to compare.

I've not bothered to compare because others have done a much better comparison that I would have done... A comparison which eliminates bias, preconceptions, placebo effect, mental delusions, etc... That's why I've not bothered to compare... That and the fact that I'm not interested in purchasing a 1000$ DAC1...

Quote:


I love science, but to say one product cannot be superior to another because of what you've read...well, it just doesn't hold any merit in this hobby.

Right, and that's exactly why nobody said such thing.

Quote:


This hobby is about the science and the listening. Why even bother listening to anything at all if you just choose based on measurements?

Again, who said such thing?

Quote:


Do you just buy speakers and set them in place at home and stare at them?

Yes...

Quote:


Also, how do you explain clear differences in speakers that measure almost identical, such as our WI GTG the first go around at Brandon's?

Define "almost identical". Also, it depends on the accuracy of the measurements, and the types of measurements... Using more precise instruments and better/different set of measurements you'd have noticed more differences than you did.

Quote:


Measurements are very important, but they aren't the be all, end all. I've heard speakers that measure extremely well but sounded bad.

Define bad... And what kind of measurements? Did you take them? Were they on-axis in an anechoic room?

Quote:


It's all about tastes and a connection with the music, and measurements won't show you that.

Subjectivity vs objectivity. High fidelity vs audiofoolery... Call it what you will... "connection with the music" is quite abstract. You could have perfect speakers and go "MEh, I don't like that, no warmth.. no soul!", then some piece of **** bass bloated **** buckets: "Now that's what I'm talking about! These truly convey the essence, the soul of the music..."

Quote:


Some also believe there are things that humans can hear that microphones cannot. I don't necessary subscribe to those notions, but it's a thought.

Let's not go over things which people believe... Too many idiocies to name... Let's just say that microphones are much more sensitive and reliable than your ears...

Quote:


Even if I believed that they sounded different, what would be my basis for doing so? A placebo prone sighted test using my imperfect human hearing and acoustic memory? I'd have to face the fact that I might have been wrong when I thought I heard differences...

Quote:


Ah yes, but isn't it your "imperfect human hearing" that you will be using to listen to your system? Oh, the irony.

Ah yes, better believe that gear X is better than gear Y even if it sounds exactly the same... Staying deluded and holding false beliefs is the sensible thing to do... If we think we can hear difference, who cares if there's not! It's not like we can waste money on useless crap...

Quote:


Uh yeah, just one problem chief, the test was flawed.

Flawed how? From users having the choice of headphones? Nope... That doesn't ruin the DBT at all. Some people will never be happy about any tests and will always find ways to complain and criticize tests where the results does not fit their beliefs, preconceptions, bias, etc...

Quote:


Speak for yourself dude! Ask my wife how often I've put her behind the acoustically transparent but visually opaque speaker cloth while I had her swap cables, DAC's, amps, etc. I guess I am more methodical than you when choosing gear. At least we both have one thing in common: we want to pay as little as possible for a great sounding system.

That's not a DBT btw... Even if you did, are you 100% your results were statistically viable? That everything was level matched?


Quote:


A simple comparison, and the differencd in audible distortion with the DEQ was all I needed to hear.

Let me guess... Sighted test? Pretty cool how you managed to hear distortion that wasn't even measurable. You must have fantastic hearing... Much better than the measuring gear they used... Did you rip off your shirt and fly off to save a damsel in distress afterwards superman?

Quote:


I didn't much care for how stale the DAC1 was either, for what it's worth.

Yeah I don't know what's that worth... What do you mean by stale? It's a DAC what did you expect? Just converts digital to analog... It won't do pirouettes or sing you a tune...

Quote:


I think I remember finding some measurements of the DEQ showing a little more distortion than normal. I may be confusing it with the SMS-1 or another EQ device, so I'll search around and PM you the link if I find it.

ok thanks I'm curious to see it if it's really the DEQ and another piece of equipment you might be confusing it with... I've looked for it, but "deq2496 measurements" return a trillion links related to its ability to connect a microphone and do actual measurements... sigh...

Quote:


It sure would explain what I heard, which is more than you can say, since you haven't even bother to compare anything to your DEQ (or so you say).

More or less. Analog out of laptop = garbage. Analog out of SBLive! ext. SC = garbage. Analog out of NAD 541i or something, was quite close, wasn't exactly sure one way or another... Haven't compared it with another DAC if that's what you mean.

Problem is I wouldn't be sure what kind of credibility I could give to what you thought you heard... You see folks (15 people) who could also hear differences have done a DBT to compare the DEQ & Dac1 and have been unable to tell them apart under blind conditions, even measurements indicate that there's no differences to be heard... So honestly, unless you pass a DBT and prove that you can actually do better than the other 15 guys who thought they could hear differences, what rational reason could you give me to take your word over the DBTs and measurements? I thought so...

Quote:


Let's not get back to the "reviews" and say we did. You must have clearly missed where I said said reviews are useless, as they are driven by marketing dollars and always praise the product up for review. They are also nothing more than opinions, just like mine and yours. Why would I listen to someone who gets paid to fluff products that may actually be trash? The measurements compared to the reviewers comments are the real telling truth, as they frequently never coincide. The proof is right there.

You see, if we look at the bolded parts, I think we agree on the concepts here. That reviews/opinions are subjective and possibly flawed/false... And measurements in contrast are objective... Where we seem to disagree is DBTs. You seem to view a DBT as just another opinion... I disagree, it's pretty much hard evidence. A DBT where 15 people fail to demonstrate that X is audibly different trumps 1 opinion claiming that they do...

Do we see eye to eye here? Can you see why a 16th's guy's opinion that he can hear difference is somewhat useless when the 15 folks failed a DBT and the 16th guy never did a DBT?

Quote:


I take no offense, no worries. I hope you don't either, as this is simply a debate. Anyway, if you haven't actually put that naughty, nasty extra component in your system, you simply can't know, therefore can't comment. Do your precious reviewers shun preamps and claim they're Satan's spawn because they are another element in the chain? I think not. So I guess you only pay attention to their opinions when they say what you want to hear?

Well I don't see this as a debate but to each its own... In fact, it's not really like adding a preamp in my system, it's adding a second preamp as the DEQ is already fulfilling the role of a preamp... It's like adding a second pair of RCA/speaker cables hoping it'll improve the sound... Adding a 2nd preamp can't improve the signal, only degrade it... At best, it can be 100% transparent, so again, what would be the point?
post #359 of 1777
You aren't understanding what I am saying; you just don't get it, so this is pointless. We are done here, Grandarf. Take it somewhere else.
post #360 of 1777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

You aren't understanding what I am saying; you just don't get it, so this is pointless. We are done here, Grandarf. Take it somewhere else.

lol, I accept your resignation. I know it sucks to try to defend an esoteric position... It's getting quite late anyhow

I've given some thought about one of your comments, and actually, I'd like to re-address it... If I might...

Quote:


Some also believe there are things that humans can hear that microphones cannot. I don't necessary subscribe to those notions, but it's a thought.

Actually, that's perfectly true... I had an aunt who could hear things microphones couldn't... She had just incredible hearing... She could even hear things others couldn't... Voices I believe it was she was hearing... Just amazing she could hear all those things... No one could tell what she was hearing exactly... I think she could even see things that cameras or other people couldn't see... Some things just cannot be explained... And it reminds me, I should go visit her... But I don't like hospitals... Especially those with all those crazy people in it...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › SE WI Tower speaker GTG