or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › How do I verify - or debunk - the claims of The Upgrade Company?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How do I verify - or debunk - the claims of The Upgrade Company? - Page 18

post #511 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

Doing ABX with pink noise eliminates more variables but some of those variables might be significant. Transient response, for one, might be an inconsequential parameter in pink noise which, although random, is subjectively continuous. Still, pink noise ABX would provide some sort of base line reference.

Hmmm... good point Kal... But I agree, we should include pink noise in the trials as a baseline.
post #512 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post

Does the SW allow you to use the same point in space, or is it too smart for that old trick?

Sure it does.
post #513 of 1596
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post

Does the SW allow you to use the same point in space, or is it too smart for that old trick?

Wow, of course, three measurements in the same spot!!! DOH!

Gracias!!
post #514 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

XT32 on my 80.2, (identical to 5508), requires 3 measurements before it will calculate.

While all three could be with the same fixed mic position, I wonder if such an EQ would be so useful.
post #515 of 1596
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

While all three could be with the same fixed mic position, I wonder if such an EQ would be so useful.

Just wondering if the spectral changes we heard in the pink noise would be "corrected out." If the FR is purposely being manipulated ...
post #516 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

While all three could be with the same fixed mic position, I wonder if such an EQ would be so useful.

Well, it should be useful in that one spot - should be optimized for that one spot. We were able to do the trials one person at a time in the sweet spot. We would have to do that again if we used Audyssey...
post #517 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Just wondering if the spectral changes we heard in the pink noise would be "corrected out." If the FR is purposely being manipulated ...

It is possible if, indeed, they were really there.
post #518 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Just wondering if the spectral changes we heard in the pink noise would be "corrected out."

Good question Jeff, I just sent an email to DS to see what he has to say on the subject....

Although some of the changes I heard with the modded unit (sighted), were a larger, more open soundstage - I doubt an EQ change would have any effect on that aspect...
post #519 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMark1 View Post

Good question Jeff, I just sent an email to DS to see what he has to say on the subject....

Although some of the changes I heard with the modded unit (sighted), were a larger, more open soundstage - I doubt an EQ change would have any effect on that aspect...

See Kal's response just above yours...
post #520 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMark1 View Post

Although some of the changes I heard with the modded unit (sighted), were a larger, more open soundstage - I doubt an EQ change would have any effect on that aspect...

While changing the EQ certainly can produce such effects - raise 8-20kHz and/or lower bass frequencies - so long as each UUT is EQ'd the same, it should matter not.
post #521 of 1596
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMark1 View Post

Good question Jeff, I just sent an email to DS to see what he has to say on the subject....

Wow, you sure are brave ... or a masochist.

Quote:
Although some of the changes I heard with the modded unit (sighted), were a larger, more open soundstage - I doubt an EQ change would have any effect on that aspect...

And where did the more open sound stage go during the blind test?
post #522 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Wow, you sure are brave ... or a masochist.

...Nah, DS and I are on a first name basis now... :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

...And where did the more open sound stage go during the blind test?

Maybe I was just imagining it during the sighted listening? I guess I do have a vivid imagination. :-)

Coulda swore it was there, though...
post #523 of 1596
Thread Starter 
I had not listened for things like that. As I have said, I tried to focus on inner details. And, of course, for me that went as well as the sound stage did for you.
post #524 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I had not listened for things like that. As I have said, I tried to focus on inner details. And, of course, for me that went as well as the sound stage did for you.

Speaking of which, here are the overall results, and my individual results:

Overall Group Totals:
Stereo test: 9/18 correct for X (50%), preferring mod 10/18 times (56%)
Multichannel test: 5/15 correct for X (33%), preferring mod 8/15 times (53%)
Totals: 14/33 correct for X (42%), preferring mod 18/33 times (55%)

Individual Results: (Dennis)
Stereo test:3/6 correct (50%), preferring mod 5/6 times (83%)
Multichannel test: 3/5 correct for X (60%), preferring mod 3/5 times (60%)
Total: 6/11 correct for X (55%), preferring mod 8/11 times (73%)
post #525 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

MultEQ Pro requires minimum of three measurements, which requires moving the mic. And that would introduce a variable. A single measurement, the min for MultEQ XT, would involve the mic on a stand and untouched between calibrations.

Wouldn't that result in identical calibrations?

I took Kal's comments to mean that both 5508's would need there own Pro license. Do one measurement of 3 or more locations, save it, then load the same measurement information onto both 5508's so they will be identical.
post #526 of 1596
Thread Starter 
For stock units that might be the way to go, but I don't think so for a modded vs stock as we know from what we heard that they have different responses. I also don't see that Pro is necessary.

My only interest is to listen to know if Audyssey makes the pink noise sound the same on the modded unit as the stock unit.
post #527 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

For stock units that might be the way to go, but I don't think so for a modded vs stock as we know from what we heard that they have different responses. I also don't see that Pro is necessary.

I agree with you, in principle, but using Pro is the only way to ensure that an effective EQ is implemented identically in both processors.
post #528 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

For stock units that might be the way to go, but I don't think so for a modded vs stock as we know from what we heard that they have different responses. I also don't see that Pro is necessary.

Did you verify that in a blinded listening test?
post #529 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Did you verify that in a blinded listening test?

No, we didn't have pink noise as one of the trials. Afterward is when we had the thought that we should have included it, if only as a baseline....
post #530 of 1596
I just popped in to say, "awesome thread." Thanks guys.

Carry on.
post #531 of 1596
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

I agree with you, in principle, but using Pro is the only way to ensure that an effective EQ is implemented identically in both processors.

The goal is to have them both equalized to the same target curve, right? If so, that doesnt mean they get the same filters loaded ... right?
post #532 of 1596
I have not read this entire thread but it seems to me that the "net net" is that test was "fail". That is the modded unit could not be identified under blind test conditions on a statistical meaningful basis. So the claims of TUC are totally unsubstantiated as was stated some time ago by others. More importantly, there was no statistically meaningful " preference" for the modded unit under blind testing.

While future testing might be interesting, at this point, I am really really glad I saved my money for audio purchases that make more sense (room treatment, more music, new improved hardware).

Based upon what i had previously read as well as responses from the owner of TUC on other forums, the results were not a surprise!!
post #533 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post


edit: Sorry, SB, that's what happened.

Exactly what I expected, Jeff. People believe what they want to believe - nothing more, nothing less. Personally, I'm allergic to snake oil

I've got to commend you guys for going through all of the trouble.

Cheers,
SB
post #534 of 1596
Pink noise is the signal that Harman found best at revealing differences in blind tests. For testing with actual program material, they tried forty-some recordings, finding Tracy Chapman's 'Fast Cars' second to pink noise. Must be the steady, monotone nature of the recording that makes differences easier to hear.

They also did a huge number of blind tests on speakers, with set-ups ranging from multi-channel to stereo to mono. Ranking results remained the same across all three, BUT multi-channel required the highest number of trials, stereo required fewer trials, mono required the least number of trials.

If you want to make it easier to hear differences, use pink noise and a single speaker. Switching to music, like 'Fast Cars' might help with preference.
post #535 of 1596
deleted
post #536 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Hey now, we don't really want to start a flame war and get the thread closed. I say that because that is the typical course of things; I think it's planned on his part ...

I suggest you delete your post .. and I'll delete mine. We need to stay smart here and stick with the facts and conclusions from our test.

Done
post #537 of 1596
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Pink noise is the signal that Harman found best at revealing differences in blind tests. For testing with actual program material, they tried forty-some recordings, finding Tracy Chapman's 'Fast Cars' second to pink noise. Must be the steady, monotone nature of the recording that makes differences easier to hear.

They also did a huge number of blind tests on speakers, with set-ups ranging from multi-channel to stereo to mono. Ranking results remained the same across all three, BUT multi-channel required the highest number of trials, stereo required fewer trials, mono required the least number of trials.

If you want to make it easier to hear differences, use pink noise and a single speaker. Switching to music, like 'Fast Cars' might help with preference.

Kal had suggested that the pink noise be used as an A/B/X selection in the middle of the test ... to serve as sort of a clue as to what the audible differences are. Puzzling enough, I tried to do that, thought I had it sussed ... and then bombed completely.

I'm going to d/l and try Olive's listener training course to see if I can raise my ... LQ.
post #538 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Pink noise is the signal that Harman found best at revealing differences in blind tests. For testing with actual program material, they tried forty-some recordings, finding Tracy Chapman's 'Fast Cars' second to pink noise. Must be the steady, monotone nature of the recording that makes differences easier to hear.

They also did a huge number of blind tests on speakers, with set-ups ranging from multi-channel to stereo to mono. Ranking results remained the same across all three, BUT multi-channel required the highest number of trials, stereo required fewer trials, mono required the least number of trials.

If you want to make it easier to hear differences, use pink noise and a single speaker. Switching to music, like 'Fast Cars' might help with preference.

Very, very interesting info Sanjay, thanks. I wasn't aware of Harman's findings, but the pink noise info seems to mirror my own independant thinking after doing this test. I would be very interested in trying it again with pink noise to see if it makes any difference in the results. I also wish we would have had more people for more data.

The rest of your comments make sense to me, too - mono vs stereo vs multichannel... I definately found multichannel to be much more difficult to hear differences using music.

Thanks for that info... those findings make alot of sense to me.
post #539 of 1596
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMark1 View Post

Very, very interesting info Sanjay, thanks. I wasn't aware of Harman's findings, but the pink noise info seems to mirror my own independant thinking after doing this test. I would be very interested in trying it again with pink noise to see if it makes any difference in the results. I also wish we would have had more people for more data.

There is no reason why, with the extended use of Kal's switch and my 5508 in your system, we shouldn't be able to roll the whole gang through. The beauty is that it can be one at a time if schedules don't allow a group get together.

Jeff
post #540 of 1596
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

There is no reason why, with the extended use of Kal's switch and my 5508 in your system, we shouldn't be able to roll the whole gang through. The beauty is that it can be one at a time if schedules don't allow a group get together.

Jeff

I'm definately game.

The only issue will be getting the modded unit back for an extended period... I think I may have a solution to that, but I'm not sure it will pan out just yet... I'll keep you in the loop...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › How do I verify - or debunk - the claims of The Upgrade Company?