or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy? - Page 74

post #2191 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

An honest 100 wpc in the correct room would not cause damage to any persons hearing,
I know someone with a pair of 97db efficient speakers. With 100watts, one of them would produce about 116.5 db at 1 meter. A pair would produce 119.5 db. That's just about at the risk of hearing damage after 7.5 minutes of exposure (15 minutes exposure at 115 db).
Quote:
nor "desensitize" their hearing.
Reread my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

All of this set up in a controlled environmentally correct listening room,
Will typical residential living room qualify?
Quote:
with no viewing of any of the amplifiers before testing.
Why not? What about during testing?
Quote:
Then a simple watt meter placed in front of the listener along with a remote volume control.
What brand / model watt meter was it and how did you connect it when you did it?
post #2192 of 3048
This article might have some thought in the debate.

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/08/op-amps-myths-facts.html

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/search/label/op%20amps
post #2193 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S 
Nope, not joking. You go to the heavens and back to find no audible differences. You are great at doing that. Now ... science must prove that audible differences exist! Let us see how well you do with that. If there any logical holes then present them! Let the final battle commence!

You have it backwards. Controlled testing is trying to prove there are audible differences, exactly as you are asking for. Researchers have used the most sensitive test methodologies trying to prove that such audible differences exist. There is no better test. In fact, there really is no other test.

That these tests have failed in their attempt to show such differences is not an indictment of science or scientists. Nor does it prove there are not audible differences, though it offers a compelling mountain of evidence that such is actually the case.

The only logical holes are contained in your post.
post #2194 of 3048
Quote:
An example of an analytic statement due to Bertrand Russell: The round square does not exist. Putting this into the form you say cannot be proven: There is no example of a round square.
You're playing semantics. It's just a definitional game. If I define a pig as a mammal that cannot fly, then we can say that there is no example of a pig that can fly. But something that is true by definition cannot be proven.
post #2195 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

Simple, same test as previously used, with a few very different changes. First select equal power ratings from all amplifiers used, secondly, select a speaker capable of driving the full frequency range- of which a Maggie mg3 cannot do as well as many, many other speakers. All of this set up in a controlled environmentally correct listening room, with no viewing of any of the amplifiers before testing. Then a simple watt meter placed in front of the listener along with a remote volume control.
Good grief. The power ratings of the amplifiers used are irrelevant, providing the amplifiers are operating within their linear region, ie they are not clipping. This can be tested before actual (discriminatory) listening tests to determine if all the DUTs are capable of driving the given speakers to the levels the test is applied at. If amp B cannot, replace it with another, or as an interesting aside, providing it is not clipping badly, it could be left in to see it could be identified.

If the peak power required during the test was determined to be say 100W, then having a 1000W amplifier included will make no sonic difference as it will never supply more than 100W to the speaker. In the same vein, a 20W amp would be an inappropriate candidate to test with as it would likely be audible, simply on it's overload performance.

The watt meter on display would be a distraction from the listening as it will be dancing around in time with the source signal.
post #2196 of 3048
Quote:
First select equal power ratings from all amplifiers used
What does this even mean?
post #2197 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

I keep seeing stuff like this. It makes no sense. Is this "negative" that supposedly can't be proved a negated sentence? Your example "PCBs (were) not detected" is a negated sentence which states the result of a test -- is that what you mean by "proving" something? Or maybe by a "negative" you mean the negation of an existence statement -- but it can be proved that there is not a thing which is not equal to itself. Or maybe a "negative" is supposed to be a universal statement of non-existence? Yet it is provable for all things that they are not different from themselves.

We must come from different planets. Can't prove a negatve is something I've been seeing and hearing since maybe sixth grade. Not bleeding edge stuff, just basic logic. Again, if you don't grasp it, you could google it for yourself and at least try to see what it is. Or you could continue to play games with words so you think you're winnign something.

Silly rabit.
post #2198 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 
Edit: also note that of 15 of the 25 people tested were correct over 50%, so I would state that when averaging this test, that the persons that failed, brought the over all averages below what I feel is real world.

Take 25 people and have them flip coins repeatedly. How many of them get heads greater than 50% of the time? Does that mean these people are successful at the ability of flipping coins to head intentionally, while the other (roughly half) of the people failed at that task?

Statistics isn't "easy" but I'm sometimes amazed that the simplest concepts continue to elude people.
post #2199 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S 
How do scientists avoid bias affecting their results? I'm sure scientists have biased views... like everyone else.
For gathering of data, controlled testing, of which DBT is the gold standard. For analysis and reporting of results, that is generally under the umbrella of peer review.
post #2200 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post

If the peak power required during the test was determined to be say 100W, then having a 1000W amplifier included will make no sonic difference as it will never supply more than 100W to the speaker. In the same vein, a 20W amp would be an inappropriate candidate to test with as it would likely be audible, simply on it's overload performance.

That's pretty much what I said on the last page but that he conveniently ignored.

I would guess that you couldn't do an amp vs amp test over 90db, it would probably be too much to ask of a normal room, and even 20w would get you there at 8' with 87db efficiency speakers
post #2201 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

That's pretty much what I said on the last page but that he conveniently ignored.
One of many relevant points / questions he's been ignoring on this thread.
post #2202 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post


To my thinking, and you may choose to disagree, but most people purchase higher end amplifiers to have quality sound when the volume knob reaches the 12 o'clock position. This is why I asked the previous question of WPC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

Yes, and all I care about is weather or not both amplifiers were driven to it's rated power- this is a true comparison, not some 10 wpc from each amplifier, that sort of testing means nothing to me. Nor should it to you.


In other words then, an amp like this, for about five hundred bucks, is better than any audiophile amp up to and including 100 thou



After all, it has 4000 watts. Why bother testing at 100 wpc.

And the knob will go to one o'clock.

sheesh.
Quote:
Obviously it is easy to control a given speaker at 10 watts, but not so easy at 100watts- by way of example.

what does this even mean??
post #2203 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

...

That's a true A/B test. LOL, all Humans can run so there for all humans are all the same is what this test is akin to- hardly the truth.

What a lame example or attempt to equate the two.eek.gif
post #2204 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Take 25 people and have them flip coins repeatedly. How many of them get heads greater than 50% of the time? Does that mean these people are successful at the ability of flipping coins to head intentionally, while the other (roughly half) of the people failed at that task?

Statistics isn't "easy" but I'm sometimes amazed that the simplest concepts continue to elude people.
That was my point with this abx test, it proves nothing really- totally blind is w/o the "show me then I will make a decision" essence. From what I am reading, it would appear that many persons here do not seem to understand the amplifier / speaker relationship, how and why they interact and why high power is required- EVEN in a typical living room or your typical HT room. But then it's simply run it's course for me, many, many, different types and brands of audio gear that I have used over the years have proved that the source components, mainly pre-amp and the speakers are the most important factors and have the most dramatic effect upon over all sound quality. This is my personal experience (35 years worth), if you do not believe what I say- hey that is your choice, but unless you own a pretty high end AVR or a decent multi channel amplifier for a Music/HT system them you are shooting yourself in the foot to spite your efforts. (if your effort is quality sound reproduction). To say cheap amp x @ 100 watts will drive a speaker system as well as a better built (and usually more expensive) amp y of the same power is simply foolish, but then if you are using speakers that are @96 db 1w/1m, well I question the quality of said speaker for home and critical listening. Yea Cerwin Vega, JBL, and a few other build high spl speakers for the home- have you ever seriously listened to them for any length of time? Good for one thing, and one thing only VERY LOUD. Easy to drive tho, one can only wonder why.
post #2205 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

..

When Arny and his chums built the first ABX Comparator, they did not know exactly what they'd find. I'm sure they had a hunch, which is why they started, but there was no guarantee that the results would turn out the way they did. Arny may seem pretty sure of himself now, but that's what 35 years of data will do to you.
...

If I remember correctly, but you can ask him directly here, they were all golden ears before the invention and wanted to have credible evidence to support their beliefs.
post #2206 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post


In other words then, an amp like this, for about five hundred bucks, is better than any audiophile amp up to and including 100 thou



After all, it has 4000 watts. Why bother testing at 100 wpc.

And the knob will go to one o'clock.

sheesh.
what does this even mean??

How about you explain it wise guy, you think that Behringer amp sounds good? I do not see to many of those in the studio's or concert sets. And state it's REAL power over all, if your going to flame me, better yet I will do it for ya 8ohm 550w, 4ohm 950w and 2ohm 1250w, so perhaps you should get your facts straight first, which would include reading the entire thread not just part of it and then making your .......uninformed comment. I have several AB International amps with much more power. And no they do not sound as good as what I presently use.

It would seem you believe what you read, unless it does not fit your purposes.
Edited by kodi41 - 3/11/13 at 8:48pm
post #2207 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

That's pretty much what I said on the last page but that he conveniently ignored.

I would guess that you couldn't do an amp vs amp test over 90db, it would probably be too much to ask of a normal room, and even 20w would get you there at 8' with 87db efficiency speakers
Oh really, explain how you have gleaned such an answer.
post #2208 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

How about you explain it wise guy, you think that Behringer amp sounds good? I do not see to many of those in the studio's or concert sets. And state it's REAL power over all, if your going to flame me, better yet I will do it for ya 8ohm 550w, 4ohm 950w and 2ohm 1250w, so perhaps you should get your facts straight first, which would include reading the entire thread not just part of it and then making your .......uninformed comment. I have several AB International amps with much more power. And no they do not sound as good as what I presently use.

It would seem you believe what you read, unless it does not fit your purposes.

Oh, so now it has nothing to do with the power at which the test is run?

make your mind up.

So all of a sudden a lesser powered amp can sound better than a higher powered. Then why your insistence that the earlier tests were flawed because they were only run at 10 watts?

And you still not have explained just what was meant in the statement questioned. I suspect it is meaningless but I'll give you the chance to explain.

And ultimately as a first stop position, I do take it that people mean what they say. In your case however I see what you say is a moving target.
post #2209 of 3048
post #2210 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

Oh, so now it has nothing to do with the power at which the test is run?

make your mind up.

So all of a sudden a lesser powered amp can sound better than a higher powered. Then why your insistence that the earlier tests were flawed because they were only run at 10 watts?

And you still not have explained just what was meant in the statement questioned. I suspect it is meaningless but I'll give you the chance to explain.

And ultimately as a first stop position, I do take it that people mean what they say. In your case however I see what you say is a moving target.
Read all of this from when I began to post, other wise, and from here on, you are on ignore until such time.
post #2211 of 3048
Now you've done it terry. You're on ignore. Not only that but you're in double secret probation. Soon you'll be on timeout and banned from eating Tim Tams. If this continues, I'll post a video of you doing the Harlem Shuffle.
post #2212 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

For gathering of data, controlled testing, of which DBT is the gold standard. For analysis and reporting of results, that is generally under the umbrella of peer review.

precisely. WHile you can't completely avoid bias in analyzing the data, by doing testing, where necessary, "double blind" the person who is giving the test cannot bias the test because he does not know whether s/he's also blind as to which of the tow is being administered. DOne because of the amazing ability of humans to communicate at a subconscious level . . . which is actually pretty cool.

The other thing that science requires is that any given scientist's results be reproduceable by other scientists. IF they can't, then everybody who's interested sets to trying to figure out why and that is how advancements are made, often.
post #2213 of 3048
This is for bigus: deny this....and I quote:
Quote:
I can't answer the question because it is ambiguous.

Do I think all amplifiers sound the same? Of course not. It's not too difficult to make a really crappy amp that has high distortion, terrible frequency response, meager power output, etc.

Then again, it's not that difficult to make a competent amplifier either. If we are talking about competently designed amplifiers that have similarly good levels of distortion, wide frequency range, adequate output impedance, and adequate power output, then I would say yes - they will be indistinguishable under conditions where psychological influences are removed.

So what is the question asking again? That every amplifier ever made sounds the same? Or that Mark Levinson and Rotel amps sound the same? Very different questions, with two different answers.

post 12 in another thread.

and post 17
Quote:
Gordon, there is a difference between amplifier output being measurably different and being audibly different. Sure, if you crank up the global feedback so aggressively that TIM skyrockets you could make it sound different. In that case it would no longer fall under the "competently designed" category.

Test instruments are orders of magnitude more sensitive than human ears. This has been shown to be the case in virtually every controlled test I've read about. Why people continue to believe the opposite baffles me.

So, once again, I'll restate - it is possible to design amps that sound different. However, if the goal is to design an amplifier that is neutral (i.e., flat amplitude and phase response targets, low distortion products, etc.) then the task isn't as difficult as some would have you believe so long as being audibly transparent is the measurement criterion. Whether the output stages are MOSFET or N-FET makes absolutely no difference if the affect on the output is below our threshold of hearing, and you can rest assured that in the majority of mid-fi and hi-fi amplifiers that is absolutely the case.

Now, about those $5000 amplifiers: how does a price tag clarify anything? There are expensive amplifiers out there that have purposefully designed topologies that do impart a coloration to the sound. Witness the numerous uber-expensive tube amplifiers with extremely low output impedance. It's the same for cables - easy to make them sound the same (and sound as "good as possible" to the human ear), but there are examples of cables costing thousands of dollars that are poorly designed if accuracy is the standard to judge by (e.g., MIT).

And post 19
Quote:
Yes, I suppose that's a philisophical question. Some people actually might like equipment that is less accurate. I can't really imagine why, since pretty much any inaccuracy introduced on purpose by an amplifier or cable could be much more easily added with a dedicated processor or equalizer (with more flexibility to boot). I like the idea of accuracy in the source chain... give the speakers the opportunity to reporduce what was on the CD.

So, in that line of thinking, the "best possible speaker cable" would be identical to soldering the speaker terminals directly to the amplifier outputs. If a speaker cable can be shown under controlled conditions to be perceptually identical to that standard, then it will sound the same as any other also meeting that standard. Incidentally, since passing such a test would be very easy for even cheap cables, you must come to the conclusion that if two expensive cables really do sound different than at least one of them is broken - on purpose or otherwise.

The argument is the same for amplifiers, though not as straightforward. The end judgement should still be perceptual audibility.
Shall I go on?
post #2214 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

From what I am reading, it would appear that many persons here do not seem to understand the amplifier / speaker relationship, how and why they interact and why high power is required- EVEN in a typical living room or your typical HT room.
I do, very well, but my reading of your posts so far is that you do not. However, I'm always open to learning something new, so explain it to me please.

Exactly what amp parameters distinguish a watt from one amp than another?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

But then it's simply run it's course for me, many, many, different types and brands of audio gear that I have used over the years have proved that the source components, mainly pre-amp and the speakers are the most important factors and have the most dramatic effect upon over all sound quality.
With the exception of electromechanical devices such as the TT system or R2R, source components are all but irrelevant these days. Speakers and room are by far the two biggest problems with trying to obtain accurate reproduction. If a preamp has a distinguishable sonic signature it was either designed to have that, it's faulty, or the designer is incompetent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

To say cheap amp x @ 100 watts will drive a speaker system as well as a better built (and usually more expensive) amp y of the same power is simply foolish,
Please consider this when giving the explanation in the first part of this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

but then if you are using speakers that are @96 db 1w/1m, well I question the quality of said speaker for home and critical listening. Yea Cerwin Vega, JBL, and a few other build high spl speakers for the home- have you ever seriously listened to them for any length of time? Good for one thing, and one thing only VERY LOUD. Easy to drive tho, one can only wonder why.
You are obviously speaking from ignorance on two fronts. JBL have for years made spectacularly good home speakers in the upper ranges, such as the Everest DD66000. Not cheap, but definitely not crap.

Also, many of their drivers are very well engineered, and have had advancements such as shorting rings for much longer than most home drivers, as well as advancements such as differential drive in some models. Likewise most of the pro driver manufacturers constantly move the technology forward with real design innovations. Just because you have heard a lot of crap PA, doesn't mean the PA itself is crap (lots of people have no idea how to run or set them up well), nor does it mean the components are poor.

Lastly, many HE designs get the efficiency as a freebie; many use larger drivers for LF with 12 and 15" drivers common which will give a higher efficiency than smaller units used domestically. If you are looking for a given F3 roll off when designing, then a 6.5" bass driver will automatically mean less efficient than a similar 12 or 15" unit, and far and away, most speakers sold for home use have a circa 6.5" unit, which automatically sets a limit on the system efficiency, irrespective of other factors such as motor design or cone materials/construction.

0ac38ba97d4a900976178709209cbf5f.png

Notice the Sd on the top line? That's cone area.

The speakers I am currently building have a pair of 15" drivers/channel which gives the system an intrinsic sensitivity of 97.5dB/W or 102.9dB/2.83V. With that much cone area available, they will barely move even at high levels, so less distortion than a small driver working harder (more excursion, so more distortion) to get the same SPL. As well as they have a really excellent motor design.
post #2215 of 3048
Stereopile used to be the gold standard for self serving drivel in an audio magazine. The Imademy Ownnameup started 6Loons. Stereopile is only good for the measurements page and sometimes the music.
post #2216 of 3048
Here, I believe I have a possible answer:

Do you love your wife- your children, your parents, your friends? Do you? If so, prove it to me.

Or, we could additionally do this with any of our human senses:

Prove to me a color description- any color, your choice.

Prove to me something that you smell- create a description of a smell that provides imperial proof of such. (this is the easiest of the senses)

Do you believe in God? Well if you do, prove God's existence.

Do you have any proof what so ever that I am wrong, save that of what you have read? Have you personally tried these tests yourself, using multiple, good quality amplifiers? I have. And yes there is a difference.

Believe what you will, perhaps, someday we will be able to imperially prove any of the above, however, until such time- dare to compare.
post #2217 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

This is for bigus: deny this....and I quote:
post 12 in another thread.

and post 17
And post 19
Which thread? I want some context for the discussion, even though by and large I agree with most of what you quoted, except for the very last line.

This line from post 17 is incorrect: "Witness the numerous uber-expensive tube amplifiers with extremely low output impedance." It should say high output impedance. I does surprise me that someone who purports to know so much about amp/speaker interaction missed such a clanger.
post #2218 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post

I do, very well, but my reading of your posts so far is that you do not. However, I'm always open to learning something new, so explain it to me please.

Exactly what amp parameters distinguish a watt from one amp than another?


With the exception of electromechanical devices such as the TT system or R2R, source components are all but irrelevant these days. Speakers and room are by far the two biggest problems with trying to obtain accurate reproduction. If a preamp has a distinguishable sonic signature it was either designed to have that, it's faulty, or the designer is incompetent.
Please consider this when giving the explanation in the first part of this post.
You are obviously speaking from ignorance on two fronts. JBL have for years made spectacularly good home speakers in the upper ranges, such as the Everest DD66000. Not cheap, but definitely not crap.

Also, many of their drivers are very well engineered, and have had advancements such as shorting rings for much longer than most home drivers, as well as advancements such as differential drive in some models. Likewise most of the pro driver manufacturers constantly move the technology forward with real design innovations. Just because you have heard a lot of crap PA, doesn't mean the PA itself is crap (lots of people have no idea how to run or set them up well), nor does it mean the components are poor.

Lastly, many HE designs get the efficiency as a freebie; many use larger drivers for LF with 12 and 15" drivers common which will give a higher efficiency than smaller units used domestically. If you are looking for a given F3 roll off when designing, then a 6.5" bass driver will automatically mean less efficient than a similar 12 or 15" unit, and far and away, most speakers sold for home use have a circa 6.5" unit, which automatically sets a limit on the system efficiency, irrespective of other factors such as motor design or cone materials/construction.

0ac38ba97d4a900976178709209cbf5f.png

Notice the Sd on the top line? That's cone area.

The speakers I am currently building have a pair of 15" drivers/channel which gives the system an intrinsic sensitivity of 97.5dB/W or 102.9dB/2.83V. With that much cone area available, they will barely move even at high levels, so less distortion than a small driver working harder (more excursion, so more distortion) to get the same SPL. As well as they have a really excellent motor design.
More BS from a person that chose to post on what one page reflects rather then the entire article- are you not able to follow, or, would you rather simply try to enlighten me with what I already have accounted for. As for JBL, see my sig. I am well aware of JBL abilities, and deficits- their Non Synthesis lines are terrible compared to previous designs. Shall we also discuss Revel? Or should you and I ask a previous poster why they think 92 db with in an 8 foot parameter is not enough? Please- READ what I have posted- driving, what you purpose with accuracy will require serious power- no matter the room size, perhaps more if the room is small, as it less forgiving. I have already mentioned these things, and why a quality amplifier is superior to it's lessor ccompadre.

edit: and btw, I am driving five 12's, two 14's and two 18's in a 12' by 42' room. Do the math.
Edited by kodi41 - 3/11/13 at 10:25pm
post #2219 of 3048
I snipped most of the psuedo-philosophical drivel out
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post


Do you believe in God? Well if you do, prove God's existence.
No. If you do believe in a god, how about you prove it's existence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

Do you have any proof what so ever that I am wrong, save that of what you have read? Have you personally tried these tests yourself, using multiple, good quality amplifiers?
Yes on many instances over many years. I've also modified a lot and tested for changes in sound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

I have. And yes there is a difference.
Sometimes there is but for good designs that are intended to be accurate (I'd rather a component was as accurate as possible, so that if I decide to change the sound for some reason I can, rather than being stuck with the same sonic signature for everything) it is in the realm of insignificant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

Believe what you will, perhaps, someday we will be able to imperially prove any of the above, however, until such time- dare to compare.
It's not a belief, it's my present understanding based upon a lot of actual experimenting. As I actually like studying amp design and building them, coming to the honest realisation that the differences between two non pathologically bad amps are trivial, it's actually taken away some of my fun.
post #2220 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

That was my point with this abx test, it proves nothing really- totally blind is w/o the "show me then I will make a decision" essence. From what I am reading, it would appear that many persons here do not seem to understand the amplifier / speaker relationship, how and why they interact and why high power is required- EVEN in a typical living room or your typical HT room. But then it's simply run it's course for me, many, many, different types and brands of audio gear that I have used over the years have proved that the source components, mainly pre-amp and the speakers are the most important factors and have the most dramatic effect upon over all sound quality. This is my personal experience (35 years worth), if you do not believe what I say- hey that is your choice, but unless you own a pretty high end AVR or a decent multi channel amplifier for a Music/HT system them you are shooting yourself in the foot to spite your efforts. (if your effort is quality sound reproduction). To say cheap amp x @ 100 watts will drive a speaker system as well as a better built (and usually more expensive) amp y of the same power is simply foolish, but then if you are using speakers that are @96 db 1w/1m, well I question the quality of said speaker for home and critical listening. Yea Cerwin Vega, JBL, and a few other build high spl speakers for the home- have you ever seriously listened to them for any length of time? Good for one thing, and one thing only VERY LOUD. Easy to drive tho, one can only wonder why.
Took a while for this to surface but now that it did, there is an explanation on why you post what you post.
Quote:
But then it's simply run it's course for me, many, many, different types and brands of audio gear that I have used over the years have proved that the source components, mainly pre-amp and the speakers are the most important factors and have the most dramatic effect upon over all sound quality.
kodi41, where dose room acoustics stand in the effect upon over all sound quality?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?