Separates, are they really worth it? - Page 3

U have to take things with few grains of salt. Some of these is personal taste. No matter how much money you have to spend, the truth is, lots of time, man-made machines is gonna to put some "coloration" into how it sounds.

10 years ago, I spent $250 (already discounted) on a pair of walkman earphones (Ethymotic ER4), at the time the most expensive, I couldn't believe I spent so much money on them, but all the rage I just had to give it a try. WOW, AMAZING, I could hear instruments on my old songs that I couldn't hear b4r (more like the earphones made them come to the foreground). Am usually describe myself NOT the golden ears type, but these phones, WOW. But if you ask the community, 1/2 of the people say they don't like how these phones sound to them, and find it "clinical." So this taught me, personal taste has a lot to do with what you like about the sounds you hear.

W i t h i n t h e i r l i m i t s. There I said it slow. Not one person in this discussion has said that a receiver that is clipping will sound the same as amp that isn't.


If you tell someone that something is going to sound better it often times will. I am not saying that you are lying because I wasn't there and it's possible that your receiver didn't have enough power to drive your speakers so adding an amp was an improvement for you. If you did a blind test you would know for sure as expecting an improvement will often times cause one. At lower volumes, I bet you would not be able to pick the amp over the receiver in a blind test.


If you added an amp and your opinion is that is sounds better than your receiver then that's great but posting that separate amps that have the build quality of your NAD will sound better than receivers is an incorrect statement. I can have an opinion that Smoking is good for you but that doesn't mean it's correct. In fact, most knowledgeable people will tell me I'm wrong.

I think alot of the earlier class d amps did have issues with the higher frequencies(rolling off for example), and people probably still rely on those older designs for comparisons. Again, just a guess though.


I'd chalk it up to brand loyalty. But that's just a guess.

speakers/cans/earbuds/in-canals aren't analogous to amplifiers... there is no doubt that there are actual real live differences there...

i like those ety's, btw...

yup... they did... some of them were bad bad bad... and if all anyone ever heard was old technology, their comaparison is valid to them... however, that's the same as the person who heard a crappy low bit rate mp3 on cheap earbuds 10 years, and proclaims the suckiness of mp3's to this day, completely ignoring that the technology was in it's infancy then, and is mature now...

brand loyalty... and they know that their choice is better... it's a self-fulfilling prophecy...

This is an easy out for an explanation of why one sounds better than the other. It's because it was outside of it's limit. What is it's limit? I noticed a difference at low volumes. I could hear things with an amp I could not hear with my receiver at low volumes. I double checked and it was more distinctly audible with an amp.


I never stated this definitively as fact. When a sentence begins with 'I Would guess' then it's implied I'm stating an opinion.

I really don't need anyone policing my comments. I said what I believe to be true based on my own experience. If someone had an experience with an amp that didn't improve their sound. I accept what they say as true and leave it at that.

Comparing the argument to $100,000 speaker wire and then to smoking makes one side look really childish.

Once Rotel became and “Audiophile” brand it was over from there. They didn't need new technology. Once you are labeled an "Audiophile" brand you will never run out of faithfull followers. Just look at Marantz, people still claim they are more “musical” even though they have been rebranded Denons for the past 2 years.

^^^

lol, yea, i get a kick out of:

"compared to the denon, the marantz was much more musical, yada yada yada"

when it's the same thing in 2 different looking boxes...

op, right there is a fine example of expectation bias...

When wasn't Rotel an "Audiophile" brand?

You can make money, because as they say, "One is born every minute."

It is absolutely fine to pay extra for better design and workmanship, and it is often worth it to the purchaser. As long as you understand that there will be no audible improvement in sound quality.

There are a number of blind tests done that show that listeners cannot tell a difference between amps (see guitaraficionado thread on the subject for links provided, and duly ignored).

Yet, there are no blind tests done by manufacturers, which show that their high end equipment is audibly superior. And there is a good reason for it.

[quote=Psycho Marco;21244301]Hey all,

I´m about to buy a new receiver, and I´m debating whether to buy it as a single unit or on separate components.

I´m thinking about the Marantz SR7005 (single unit) or the AV7005 with the corresponding amplifier.

The thing is, as separates, they cost more than double the money than the single unit (aprox 1450 vs 3000 including taxes and shipping) so I´m curious if making the expense is really worth it, I mean, is there an audible and realistic difference between the two of them or is it a mere feature or advantage for people with an incredibly educated ear (which I don´t).

I had the same Marantz combo you are considering (AV7005 & MM7055.) I sold them both after I got an SR6005 on closeout for $589. I use it 99% of the time for watching movies and I can honestly say I hear no difference.

CD

Hey, I didn't ignore your links -- I read each one. I didn't respond because they tended to be on the anecdotal, amateurish side of things. I was looking for something beyond a Google search, see the AES ABX test of digital sampling rates for an example.

I heard a massive difference going from an Onkyo 707 to an XPA-5 (wides & mains) and UPA-2 (surrounds) combo.

Things that the 707 just couldn't do were in the sound with the Emo's. I tested an Integra 40.2 both ways and saw less of a swing, but still a swing.

When I hooked up my 4311CI I didn't bother doing any objective testing, by that point I was happy with the sound (and am running on an XPA-5 & 3 UPA-2's for 11.2 DSX).

It's not really a question about "is it worth it", the real question is "if I can afford it, will I be happy afterwards?"

If the answer to that is yes, then what do you have to lose?

You "hear" sound from your speakers, you don't "hear" sound from your receiver or amplifier. Speakers change the way things sound, not amps or receivers.

Here is the bottom line; hard to drive speakers player at spirited levels you may need an amplifier. Easy to drive speakers played at spirited levels; you probably don't need anything more than a mid-level receiver.

Finally, if you heart really desires separates, them get 'em already!! Just don't expect that they will perform any better than a decent receiver.

My 2Cnts

And yet Richard Clark is willing to put his $10k vs. yours to prove you can pass his "anecdotal, amateurish" test. Time for you to either put up or....

I've been thinking seriously adding an Emotive XPA3 to my Pioneer VSX 1120 to run the fronts. I have PM'd a couple of users here with my speakers and the XPA# for opinion/advice.

For $6-700 I am not convinced I need it.

But for ~$300 for the EP4000... you got me thinking.

Should I only look at external amping for all 3 fronts, or do you think taking the burden off the receiver's right/left will free up some breathing room for it?

Would the center sound too different from the R/L with 2 different power sources?

Are you saying that the processors in all receivers sound the same and that they also sound the same as a stand alone processor?

I can't believe that switching ABX is the same as spending time in one's personal environment. In the ABX testing is the same passage started over and replayed (I think not). That would seem critical to me.

I personally do not need a test to know when two receivers sound different when the stage is broadened and channel separation is apparent . How about when panning effects are improved. Some processors/receivers put all the sound in the middle of the speakers. With others you can hear a singer on one side and another on the other side of the stage.

Is this covered in the ABX test?

Just asking for knowledge.

The point of the ABX test is to create an environment where variables such as room interaction and gain differential an be removed from the test. Once you start adding device based processing, of course things will be different, that's why they wouldn't be part of a properly run ABX.

No reason the test couldn't utilize the same passage - in fact, they should to ensure a proper comparison.

As to using your personal environment, it simply isn't possible to run a comparison based on aural memory rather than true ABX. This has been validated numerous times in controlled testing. Let's not lose focus that the discussion here is really whether amplifiers sound the same. Again, once you introduce different receiver based processing modes and tech, sound will be altered, and I haven't heard anyone suggest otherwise.

The OP basically asked if separates would sound different than a receiver. Receivers have processors and a separate amp and processor gives the ability to have a different sound than a receiver. As usual it was diverted to "all amps sound the same".

I suppose the correct answer is "DEPENDS" or "YES IF THE OUTBOARD AMP IS MORE CAPABLE OF DRIVING THE SPEAKERS".
In the OP's scenario the processor and receiver should sound the same. Likely it will not with the CM9's. The 7005 receiver with those speakers sounded as if it need more power when I listened to the combo.

BTW, It has been mentioned that receivers do not change the way things sound. See post # 78.

I agree with what you're saying. An ABX test of course relies heavily on aural memory short or long term, depending on when the switches are made.

There have been blind tests with various equalization systems, including Audyssey. Interestingly, some preferred the systems, some liked nothing, and some showed the particular technology worsened the sound!

Some people do claim they've won Richard Clark's challenge -- but he has refused to pay claiming he mistakenly didn't properly level-match.

I didn't say that receivers inherently sound different. My statement was that once you introduce processing modes, the sound will be different.

Put two properly built AVR into its their version of "pure audio" and I doubt they could be differentiated in a proper ABX.

Parse it however you like, but the fundamental question raised by the OP is really, will the amp in a receiver sound different than an external amp? When run within their limits, they won't. If your speakers are inefficient and you listen at loud volumes, there are benefits to an external amp, but if that doesn't describe the OP's situation, than the additional cost driven by low sales volumes of pre/pros doesn't buy any performance benefits.

That said, there is nothing wrong with buying an amp because you want one. I did. With my 91db sensitive speakers, I know it adds no real value until I get to near my spl tolerance level and even then, I suspect I'm more a victim of expectation bias than really hearing an audible improvement. Probably the most valuable part of my amp is that with the 100 lbs on the bottom of the rack, even an earthquake won't knock it over:-)

According to cult leader Richard Clark...

Does this mean all amps sound the same in a normal install?

No. Richard Clark is very careful to say that amps usually do not sound the same in the real world.

http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm

Did you actually read the quote? Here it is in full:

"No. Richard Clark is very careful to say that amps usually do not sound the same in the real world. The gain setting of an amplifier can make huge differences in how an amplifier sounds, as can details like how crossovers or other filters are set. When played very loud (into clipping), the amplifier with more power will generally sound better than a lower powered amp."

In other words, if you drop the requirement to gain/level match amps, change crossovers, or drive the amp into clipping, there will be differences. The primary objective of his testing process is to take these user controlled and/or induced changes out of the equation. What owners do in the "Real World" with xovers and filters obviously can change the resulting sound. If I take two identical Twinkies out of the package and pour Tabasco sauce on one, they won't taste the same anymore either.

If you're going to attempt to slam someone with the "cult" crack, it's best to understand the quote, which doesn't actually mean what you apparently thought.

Boy, this is a religion for some.

This what the entire quote says:

"Does this mean all amps sound the same in a normal install?

No. Richard Clark is very careful to say that amps usually do not sound the same in the real world. The gain setting of an amplifier can make huge differences in how an amplifier sounds, as can details like how crossovers or other filters are set. When played very loud (into clipping), the amplifier with more power will generally sound better than a lower powered amp.

Most people perceive slight differences in amplitude as quality differences rather than loudness. The louder component sounds “faster, more detailed, more full”, not just louder. This perceptual phenomenon is responsible for many people thinking they liked the sound of a component when really they just liked the way it was set up. "

I have bolded the important parts....

P.S. bfreedma beat me to it.

LOL.

So, you found some paper which has nothing to do with the subject, pulled a quote from the three sentence summary, and that's your criteria for a well conducted experiment?! There is no mention of the methodology and there is no mention of the specific results (and no, you did not actually purchase the study, or you would have supported your claim better.)

But you dismiss outright two blind test described in the first link I posted (one being the well-known Stereo Review magazine test), as well as the matrixhifi blind test, which is perfectly open and clear in describing and explaining its methodology and results?!

Again, show me a blind test, employing similar methodology (which is perfectly fine for the purposes, BTW), which shows that some amps (like the really expensive ones), are consistently identified as "better" (or even different) than cheaper amps.

Have you asked yourself why manufacturers of expensive equipment do not conduct such tests? Hell, have you asked yourself why HK blind-tests its speakers, but not amps?

I guess not.

(BTW, just in case, here are the links you ignored:

"The Ongoing Debate about Amplifier "Sound" (specific to amps. Ian Masters was the one who reported the test for Stereo Review)

The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests (general defense of blind testing)

And here is a sort of fun one, but also perfectly valid: http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_ppec.htm")

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post21249973

My belief is that all receivers do not follow a holy path to pure sound regardless of user settings and or a magical direct, pure or whatnot button. Just like Blu-ray players the processing isn't entirely under the user's control and varies per device. As the insiders state there are numerous differences and some are the result of the manufacturers' preferences.

There is a big difference in theory and the real world which is exactly what the cult leader was clearly stating.

Ryan -

MCode has said Harman does blind test there amps.

See my thread on what I see as a well conducted test. You posted there - did you bother to read my initial post or the Kevin Voecks interview?

The AES test is fascinating because what many consider even more subtle in sonic differences - CD sampling rate vs. high frequency, an ABX test shows positive results. Unlike your examples it is published by a reputable scientific organization and I believe has been peer reviewed.

I should conduct an ABX test in my basement and post pictures to the web, you could use it as a reference too -

By the way I agree with the sighted tests reference and the basic validity of blind testing, if conducted well.

Since you need an AES membership for the study I mentioned here's one summary I found:

- Trained listeners were 9 sound engineers and 4 musicians of age ~28 (SD 5.6 yr)
- LAME used, unknown version. 96, 128, 192, 256 and 320. Alas, no VBR it seems. Pity.
- Genres: Pop, Metal/Rock, "Contemporary", Classical, Opera. <10sec excerpt.
- HQ speaker setup (not headphones). Wonder if it would have made much difference?
- 150 randomized trials (per excerpt? overall? not clear). Pairwise A/B. Testers asked to "prefer" one or the other and then the overall % tested for statistical significance.
- For 256 and 320 preference was 50/50 (so not significant). For 192, 128 and 96 it was 60/40, 75/25 and 80/20, respectively (significant).
- Sound engineers were more likely to prefer the higher quality version than musicians. Electric genres (pop/metal) were more frequently preferred in their HQ version than acoustic ones.
- Order of problems cited in decreasing frequency were: high freq artefacts, general distortion, transient artefacts, stereo image, dynamic range, reverb, background noise.
- No correlation between listening habits and performance.
- In the conclusion it is stated that trained listeners can not discriminate between CD quality and mp3 compression at 256-320 kb/s, while expert listeners could. Not sure who these "expert listeners" are supposed to be, but probably the test subjects from a referenced paper (Sutherland 2007?) who reportedly could do so even at 320.