AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Biggest myths in audio that tick you off/General things in audio that tick you off.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Biggest myths in audio that tick you off/General things in audio that tick you off. - Page 21

post #601 of 997
4/17/12 at 8:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by halo71 View Post

Okay, 1 last reply....then I am done.

Most here will say NO to your question. I don't agree myself but that's okay.

I still wonder though, assuming all SS amps DO sound the same. Why do some folks mod SS amps? Why do that if they will STILL sound the same? I guess upgrading to better caps is just to extend amp life. Or bypassing a circuit does nothing.....

Read this thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1336902
Especially the last several pages after the DBT was completed.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #602 of 997
4/17/12 at 8:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post

Yet you and your buddies on the other site have no problem using what has been said on this site for your "amusement" over there. You are the first to cry foul when someone has done it to you, says a whole lot about your character. Like someone else said, take your ball and go home.

And there is only ONE CORRECT way to restore a car....trust me I have been doing it for 23 years. There are lots of ways to make a car look shiny and pretty though.

I dunno...you can do it slowly over a long period of time, or more rapidly over a shorter period of time. Sounds like two ways to do it to me.
Reply
Reply
post #603 of 997
4/17/12 at 8:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by saeyedoc View Post

Read this thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1336902
Especially the last several pages after the DBT was completed.


Thanks for the link! But still, no DBT or anyone else here or anywhere is gonna tell me my ears are lying to me.

Let's just believe what we want and move on? Can we all agree on that at least?
Reply
Reply
post #604 of 997
4/17/12 at 8:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by halo71 View Post

Thanks for the link! But still, no DBT or anyone else here or anywhere is gonna tell me my ears are lying to me.

Let's just believe what we want and move on? Can we all agree on that at least?

Fair enough, at least you're not the one trying to sell the upgrades, they're the ones that really need to prove their claims.
Reply
Reply
post #605 of 997
4/17/12 at 8:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

You're not telling anyone anything interesting. I can hear a difference between my desktop system now....and now.

The difference? I changed the volume control a tiny bit.

What you're describing is more likely than not just mismatched levels along with a dollop of expectation bias.

I did not expect to hear a difference when I replaced my Denon 3808 (may it rest in peace) with my Pioneer, but I did. The Pioneer is not nearly as "good: sounding as the Denon. I suspect it is the difference between the two room correction systems, though. I suspect I just really like what Audyssey does.
Reply
Reply
post #606 of 997
4/17/12 at 8:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

This is the reason that most Modifiers are vehemently opposed to publishing specs, measurements, or engaging in DBT's. They simply can't sustain their claims under any level of scrutiny.

As I recall speaker cable company was presented with a once in a lifetime marketing opportunity to demonstrate the superioriority of their product. All they had to demonstrate was that their cables performed better--or even just differently--than a more moderately priced set of cables. In addition to the free publicity they would also be rewarded $1,000,000.

They declined. I wonder why.
Reply
Reply
post #607 of 997
4/17/12 at 8:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by halo71 View Post

Thanks for the link! But still, no DBT or anyone else here or anywhere is gonna tell me my ears are lying to me.

Let's just believe what we want and move on? Can we all agree on that at least?

True believers never change their minds, regardless of the facts at hand. This thread and the TUC thread are prime examples where consistent, compelling, and repeatable evidence is ignored as addressing it would force a "true believer" to seriously examine their dogma.
Reply
Reply
post #608 of 997
4/17/12 at 8:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

I did not expect to hear a difference when I replaced my Denon 3808 (may it rest in peace) with my Pioneer, but I did. The Pioneer is not nearly as "good: sounding as the Denon. I suspect it is the difference between the two room correction systems, though. I suspect I just really like what Audyssey does.

Room correction will make a huge difference, not really a fair comparison. compare them level matched with no room EQ on, then see if you can tell a difference in a DBT.
Reply
Reply
post #609 of 997
4/17/12 at 8:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

I did not expect to hear a difference when I replaced my Denon 3808 (may it rest in peace) with my Pioneer, but I did. The Pioneer is not nearly as "good: sounding as the Denon. I suspect it is the difference between the two room correction systems, though. I suspect I just really like what Audyssey does.

Yup, DSP is a huge variable and the various products definitely produce different results.
Reply
Reply
post #610 of 997
4/17/12 at 8:36am
Next personal jab that crosses the line will get the member removed from the thread.

K
Reply
Reply
post #611 of 997
4/17/12 at 8:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by saeyedoc View Post

Room correction will make a huge difference, not really a fair comparison. compare them level matched with no room EQ on, then see if you can tell a difference in a DBT.

I cannot, the Denon died. Like I said, I did not expect there to be a difference and there was a big difference. I do suspect it is the room correction software, as I can see no other reason why they would sound different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by repete66211 View Post

I don't understand why the same methodology that debunks silly things like cable risers is scrutinized when evaluating other performance claims. I also don't understand why the "anti-science" crowd is so dead-set in refusing to acknowledge the shortcomings of human perception. I'm sorry to continue the digression, but given the topic I suppose we all knew the thread would eventually take this route. Whenever the myths of some are the sacred cows of others I suppose it's inevitible.

I believe it is because many science types dismiss personal preference and instead demand charts and graphs alone. Not saying you do this, but many do. There was a discussion about how charts and graphs are more important than how things actually sound, in another thread. I think that is silly, if a chart says I should not like the way something sounds better than it was previously, but I actually DO like it better that way, I am going to ignore the charts and graphs and enjoy my system more.
Reply
Reply
post #612 of 997
4/17/12 at 8:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by saeyedoc View Post

Fair enough, at least you're not the one trying to sell the upgrades, they're the ones that really need to prove their claims.

Thank you! That is all I was doing....telling MY experience and everyone tries to tell me I am wrong because a paper says so. lol


Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

True believers never change their minds, regardless of the facts at hand. This thread and the TUC thread are prime examples where consistent, compelling, and repeatable evidence is ignored as addressing it would force a "true believer" to seriously examine their dogma.

Exactly! I believe my ears. Why some try so hard to tell others they are not really hearing what they are hearing is beyond me. I've read the papers. Big deal, I still hear what I hear. My wife tells me ghosts are real too. I don't really take to that as being fact. But I still do not tell her she has not seen what she says she has seen.
Reply
Reply
post #613 of 997
4/17/12 at 8:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67jason View Post


And there is only ONE CORRECT way to restore a car....trust me I have been doing it for 23 years. There are lots of ways to make a car look shiny and pretty though.

There is? I thought there was a bunch of different ways. Body on frame, body off frame, original, matching numbers, non matching numbers, custom, modernizing engine and suspension or not. Light restoration, drive able or trailer queen. Etc.....etc......
Reply
Reply
post #614 of 997
4/17/12 at 8:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

True believers never change their minds, regardless of the facts at hand. This thread and the TUC thread are prime examples where consistent, compelling, and repeatable evidence is ignored as addressing it would force a "true believer" to seriously examine their dogma.

I just replaced my Elite SC-37 with Ada gear and the Ada gear sounds much better. Now as I was listening to the differences my first question was why, and what are the differences. I used the Elites MCAAC to EQ all the speakers and I used my DCX to EQ my speakers with the Ada. BTW the difference in audio is not detail, not dynamics, not airy highs(I still don't know what that is), etc... The difference is the ability to play reference without sounding harsh. The elite did on only low recorded movies and the Ada sounds great with any movie. The fix was turning down the Elite but I still wanted to know why. I measured both systems and the Manual EQ with my DCX has me flat +/- 2.5 dBs and the MCAAC had me +/- 5 dBs, can this be it? Anyways someone told me it was MCAAC and to turn it off and use the Elite as a processor with the DCX but I don't have it with me right now as my cousin is trying it out. Anyways, if this turns out to be the case then it kind of makes the great amp section in the Elite obsolete and wasteful. Now one can grab an older Elite like the SC-05 for cheaper and use it as a processor and I may just do that if it turns out to be the case.
Reply
Reply
post #615 of 997
4/17/12 at 8:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

I just replaced my Elite SC-37 with Ada gear and the Ada gear sounds much better. Now as I was listening to the differences my first question was why, and what are the differences. I used the Elites MCAAC to EQ all the speakers and I used my DCX to EQ my speakers with the Ada. BTW the difference in audio is not detail, not dynamics, not airy highs(I still don't know what that is), etc... The difference is the ability to play reference without sounding harsh. The elite did on only low recorded movies and the Ada sounds great with any movie. The fix was turning down the Elite but I still wanted to know why. I measured both systems and the Manual EQ with my DCX has me flat +/- 2.5 dBs and the MCAAC had me +/- 5 dBs, can this be it? Anyways someone told me it was MCAAC and to turn it off and use the Elite as a processor with the DCX but I don't have it with me right now as my cousin is trying it out. Anyways, if this turns out to be the case then it kind of makes the great amp section in the Elite obsolete and wasteful. Now one can grab an older Elite like the SC-05 for cheaper and use it as a processor and I may just do that if it turns out to be the case.

I don't doubt that two different EQ solutions produce significant differences in the resultant sound. Just a guess, but perhaps MCACC was boosting one or more EQ elements more than the DCX, which your measurements also seem to indicate, and that the result was that the Pio amp section was pushed into some form of bad behavior. Did the xovers stay the same, or is it possible that the Pio was crossed higher, adding additional load on the amps?
Reply
Reply
post #616 of 997
4/17/12 at 8:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by halo71 View Post

...no DBT or anyone else here or anywhere is gonna tell me my ears are lying to me.

Actually, that's exactly what double blind tests have been demonstrating to people for years. Those willing to participate in them anyway.
Reply
Reply
post #617 of 997
4/17/12 at 8:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

...The difference is the ability to play reference without sounding harsh.

this partially answers the question I asked a few posts back.
Reply
Reply
post #618 of 997
4/17/12 at 9:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

I don't doubt that two different EQ solutions produce significant differences in the resultant sound. Just a guess, but perhaps MCACC was boosting one or more EQ elements more than the DCX, which your measurements also seem to indicate, and that the result was that the Pio amp section was pushed into some form of bad behavior. Did the xovers stay the same, or is it possible that the Pio was crossed higher, adding additional load on the amps?

First, my speakers are 105 dBs sensitive and the surrounds are 98 dBs and this is outdoors! I doubt I use over 40 watts ever! Anyways, my crossover for the Elite was 150 hz but I did try other settings like 80hz and 100hz. 100 hz gave me the flattest response. My Ada is set at 80hz but a lower crossover will require more power for the speakers to reproduce anything above 80hz which is harder than say 150hz unless I had a dip or something in that range. My speakers are more sensitive than most so if an AVR can't play at reference without being over driven with them(8 ohms as well) then they won't be able to with any other speaker. Once I get it back I will try it as a processor alone and see what happens. I will also use it as an AVR but just turn off MCAAC and see if reference is harsh or not but then my speakers won't be EQ'd so a peak could make it harsh. Double edged sword there to try to see if it the eilte's amp section.
Reply
Reply
post #619 of 997
4/17/12 at 9:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

I believe it is because many science types dismiss personal preference and instead demand charts and graphs alone. Not saying you do this, but many do. There was a discussion about how charts and graphs are more important than how things actually sound, in another thread. I think that is silly, if a chart says I should not like the way something sounds better than it was previously, but I actually DO like it better that way, I am going to ignore the charts and graphs and enjoy my system more.

You're misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) the argument. No one says you can't prefer one piece of equipment to another. If you prefer A to B and there is an actual difference between A and B then there is nothing wrong with preferring A to B. The argument I most often see is whether or not there is an actual difference between A and B. If there is no difference--if A and B produce an identical "product"--then there is nothing to prefer, they're both the same. So the argument boils down to this: Does A output the same as B? If not, how can that be demonstrated (i.e. measured) in a manner that is independent of subjective bias.
Reply
Reply
post #620 of 997
4/17/12 at 9:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

First, my speakers are 105 dBs sensitive and the surrounds are 98 dBs and this is outdoors! I doubt I use over 40 watts ever! Anyways, my crossover for the Elite was 150 hz but I did try other settings like 80hz and 100hz. 100 hz gave me the flattest response. My Ada is set at 80hz but a lower crossover will require more power for the speakers to reproduce anything above 80hz which is harder than say 150hz unless I had a dip or something in that range. My speakers are more sensitive than most so if an AVR can't play at reference without being over driven with them(8 ohms as well) then they won't be able to with any other speaker. Once I get it back I will try it as a processor alone and see what happens. I will also use it as an AVR but just turn off MCAAC and see if reference is harsh or not but then my speakers won't be EQ'd so a peak could make it harsh. Double edged sword there to try to see if it the eilte's amp section.

I'll be interested to see what you find when you have the chance to test. Certainly doesn't seem like a power issue given your gear unless MCACC was boosting an EQ point an absurdly large amount.
Reply
Reply
post #621 of 997
4/17/12 at 10:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by repete66211 View Post

Actually, that's exactly what double blind tests have been demonstrating to people for years. Those willing to participate in them anyway.

Please direct us to a DBT that replicates actual listening practices.
Reply
Reply
post #622 of 997
4/17/12 at 10:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

Please direct us to a DBT that replicates actual listening practices.

Chris Wiggles did a fairly benign test. All you have to do is sit and listen. You aren't being instructed how to listen. Listen any way you want.

I even offered what is considered one of the best ways to evaluate cables (burned in and non).

Link

Link

I ask in all seriousness how can it get any lower key than that? No one standing over your shoulder, no one telling you when to switch, no one doing the switching for you, it's 30 days.

I removed EVERY single loosely and even the absurdly plausible contention and still nothing. If anyone can think of an easier way of doing this I am all ears.

Even if it was a 'more rigorous' test how does that negate the 'night and day' differential?
Reply
Reply
post #623 of 997
4/17/12 at 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

Please direct us to a DBT that replicates actual listening practices.

Please define "actual listening practices".

The DBTs I've come across involve people listening as they normally would, with the simple exception that they're doing so without the knowledge of what particular component, cable, etc. they are listening to.
Reply
Reply
post #624 of 997
4/17/12 at 11:00am
One casual observation, as gleaned by multiple copies of the same conversation:

Those with no stake in the game will willingly and eagerly participate in a DBT.

Those with a claim that may be overturned as a result of DBT think they are a silly waste of time.

Hmmm...
Reply
Reply
post #625 of 997
4/17/12 at 11:00am
I tried a blind test to my friends many times. The convenience of having your gear in another room and the speakers and subs behind the screen. I told them that I want them to tell which sounds better or if it sounds the same. I ran a 2 channel with subs of the dark night movie sound track with number 1 and number 2. I kept switching back and forth within the tracks and let the whole song play as well. Number one was McIntosh amp and number two was a EP-2500. Every single person chose a winner, number 2!
Reply
Reply
post #626 of 997
4/17/12 at 11:05am
Where do I start?

1. Rebadging
2. Stupid mods, like sticking tubes into CD player and charging more just for mod than the original cost of the CD player.
3. Brands that pay more attention to how their products look rather then how they sound and are proud about it.
4. Overall silly and outrageously overpriced audio products be it $500 power cord or 50K TT sitting on 500 pound stand that reduces "vibration".
5. Because it's FLAC, it sounds great. FLAC from what? I will happily listen MP3's of the same album made from well mastered CD or Vinyl rather than FLAC made from Loundness war "demo" one.

That'll do for now
Reply
Reply
post #627 of 997
4/17/12 at 11:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

I tried a blind test to my friends many times. The convenience of having your gear in another room and the speakers and subs behind the screen. I told them that I want them to tell which sounds better or if it sounds the same. I ran a 2 channel with subs of the dark night movie sound track with number 1 and number 2. I kept switching back and forth within the tracks and let the whole song play as well. Number one was McIntosh amp and number two was a EP-2500. Every single person chose a winner, number 2!

Just a coincidence. All the many scientists on this site claim all amps sound the same.
Reply
Reply
post #628 of 997
4/17/12 at 11:05am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

Every single person chose a winner, number 2!

That doesn't surprise me at all!
Reply
Reply
post #629 of 997
4/17/12 at 11:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

Just a coincidence. All the many scientists on this site claim all amps sound the same.

MK can fill in the details, but he didn't mention level matching the amps. If that wasn't done, the louder amp will invariably be called out as the best sounding.

More details needed before any conclusions can be drawn by either camp.
Reply
Reply
post #630 of 997
4/17/12 at 11:17am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post


MK can fill in the details, but he didn't mention level matching the amps. If that wasn't done, the louder amp will invariably be called out as the best sounding.

More details needed before any conclusions can be drawn by either camp.

Perhaps the McIntosh amp was clipping/distorting.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Biggest myths in audio that tick you off/General things in audio that tick you off.