Count 1 more for all receivers sound the same - Page 6

IMHO the whole "everything sounds the same" reasoning has gone too far. There are those that argue 128k mp3s cannot be distinguished from lossless flacs, yet lossless sounds better to me especially with complex music. I'm willing to concede that 192k flacs are indistinguishable from 48k ones but do perceive, rightly or wrongly, a difference between 16bit and 20bit and 24bit sources. The same with Dolby Digital and DD+ compared with HD lossless formats, I hear a difference. This doesn't prevent me from enjoying DD or DD+, but even good jazz and classical can be enjoyed through an old boombox if one can suspend judgement but this doesn't mean it sounds the same.
Edited by Theresa - 2/7/13 at 5:04am

 

I'd never say that everything sounds the same - but I’d say amps and DACs do (usual caveats). And even receivers if everything is disabled or bypassed.  I think it's important to understand where audible differences do occur and to concentrate on that. This avoids wasting money on illusory differences between one amp or DAC and another (not to mention avoiding the ludicrously expensive 'magic' cables) and directs one to the important areas for audible difference: the speakers and the room. The only reason I join in on these discussions from time to time is because I see so many people just throwing their money down the drain, buying expensive amps, overpriced cables etc, when they could spend the same money (or less) on speaker/sub improvements or room treatments and really get a substantial improvement in SQ.  I know you know all this - I am in rant mode ;)

The only way a DAC can possibly sound the same as another is if it is using the same OPAMP and has similar specs. Just changing the OPAMP in a DAC can change the whole sound signature. Also, OPAMPS can sound different IN different DACS.

Well, you can all try and prove me wrong, so far no one has given me anything but opinion. Science is not the, "end all, be all" always because sometimes it is wrong as well. Ancient scientists thought the Earth had everything revolving around it. Ask Russian scientists about Laika or astronomers they lost in space.

I am still waiting for someone to prove to me that all receivers sound the same with CONCRETE proof. If you cannot do that then this thread is getting pointless and redundant. Lots of opinions getting thrown around but the fact it is split with some saying they sound the same, others saying not...proves to me something it up.

 

How many of those links I posted did you read?

 

Over the years you'll notice it's the identical lecture... everything sounds the same (in theory) although of course there might be differences (for a number of reasons when pushed) but they are dismissed (should never be used as a buying decision) since in theory they might not exist. They simply reduce the debate to the point of theory where it's meaningless... has no relevance to the real wold. Same as saying two different colors are identical because you started with the same base color.

 

Theories are great when they are self-contained not so much when they are misapplied. Which creates the great debate... some refuse to look beyond (their self-imposed) theory never seeing the real world. After a lecture or two adding them to your Block Member list works wonders as what they say is so meaningless one doesn't need to be endlessly reminded.

actually, wandering through (IIRC) links in the Michael J Human amps sticky, I found a discussion of an effort to prove op amps do not all sound the same. The testers stacked (two or more, I forget) op amps, level matched against a no-opamp chain, and virtually everybody heard the difference. So they had a third party look at the test setup. Turns out they rigged the opamps to be nonlinear (not on purpose). And when they reconfigured so the opamps were operating linearly, in double blind listening tests, folks could n't detect the difference. Lost the link in a hard drive crash. Not motivated to try to find it again.

There also was a story about a fairly intensive effort in a scandanavian country to use blind testing with normal folks to determine which of several competing OTA digital radio systems to use. After they got the results, they ran it by a person experineced with the systems in general, who immediately identified an audible (must've been pretty low in level) carrier tone always present in the preferred system. Moral of the story being, IMO, that at least in some cases actually having knowledge and ear training can make a person more aware of the potential issues with specific systems. Imagine the discomfort of radio listeners in that country once they happened to hear that carrier tone. My guess is once they heard it, they'd never be able to un-hear it and it would bollix up their enjoyment forever after.

A hard thing to deal with in any audio comparison is audible memory, which something I read a couple of weeks ago suggested was completely accurate for .5 seconds. Half a second. If I disconnected an amp, reconnected and compared, I can't trust my memory of what I heard before. Which means you have to have everything live and switched. Which means you have to demonstrate the switching system is transparent. THeoretically, somehow by comparing it in a setting that lacked a switching system. IOW, plenty of actual scientific bases (even if they're little) to hang your hat on rather than suggesting that somehow audio science is different from other sciences (unless one poster thinks it won't be long before we discover that the earth is actually the center of the solar system which is actually the center of the universe . . . ) Un-science proves nothing. Yet millions of people in Asia take little yellow pills contining high levels of arsenic because of the positive health effects they believe they bring. Because "everybody says so."

But if a sonic difference is slignt enough to be immaterial after half a second, I'm just a touch less motivated to spend thousands of dollars on chasing the difference I may or may not actually be able to detect in my playback system when I have other things I'd rather spend money on. (I'd have another half dozen guitars - assuming I couldn't afford to dip seriously into the market for the "real things" from before '65 or so, as well as at least two or three different amps each at powers of say 5, 15, 25 and 50 watts to play them through so that I could always be uncontrollably grinning at the different kinds of synergies that different pairings yield in different settings. Alas, no silver spoon . . .

I got the 1613 new for $329 over the holidays at Amazon.

I am interested if anyone can post research that talks about the prejudicial effect of conscious realization that one is being tested to spot differences between different stimuli (audio, video, etc.) in an environment that is different from normal, casual, long-term listening sessions (not rapid, random, short-term switcharoos in a DBT). Are the findings of studies in such scenarios debatable at all, if the test conditions are not similar to the subject's usual listening habits/environments, etc.?

I've tried to do tests to determine if I could hear differences between different bitrate MP3s, lossless audio, etc., and I am not sure I could trust my findings, considering I was consciously trying to judge something versus enjoying something, and it messes with my sensory acumen, because I am myself biased to believe higher bit rate MP3s and lossless or uncompressed audio should be better than trashed up low bit rate compressed audio. The uncertainty of knowing if what I am listening to a compressed or uncompressed audio starts to mess with the actual sensory processes of my brain if I were listening to any of these sources over a long term. I would definitely be able to "hear" that the uncompressed audio (DVD-A, SACD, FLAC) or even 384 kbps MP3s sound better than 128kbps MP3 or AAC. What is the effect of realization that you are in a test that would make you question your ability to determine the quality of what you are listening to, and does this realization make you discard valid registered differences because your mind is questioning the possibility that what you have heard might not actually correspond to what is a higher fidelity audio?

This is like the "observer effect" of quantum mechanics theory that says that the fact that we are observing a quantum particle would change the measurement of its characteristics.
Edited by raaj - 2/7/13 at 11:55am

Lack of science understanding perhaps shouldn't be all that surprising, consider an estimated 46% of the USA population believes humans magically appeared in current form, sometime within the last 10,000 years, lol. (Gallup 2012)

Yeah, it should be, until it overflows from an internal belief system into "This is what YOUR kids should be learning in school". But that will be the end of my commentary on this particular topic, as it is way off to one side of the actual subject.

 

What would be your explanation for the findings published in the article Arny linked to, here:

 

http://webpages.charter.net/fryguy/Amp_Sound.pdf

All I can say is Arny, you may be an engineer for 40 years or so but you sound younger than me. You can say all you can about me and try acting like I do not know anything about audio or science but if you were science, I would want nothing to do with you.

I love how when people have a difference of opinion people here go on the offensive and suddenly claim no one knows anything and throw out insults like grade school kids. If, "knowing what I am doing" is acting like some of the people who clog up this forum, I would rather, "not know anything." There is friendly debate and there is whatever this is. I see typical hard-headed internet wannabe know it all types and people who confuse opinions with facts. People are questioning what I know about audio when truly the people in question are off the the naysayers with your less-than-impressive counter arguments. The fact Arny had to multi-quote me multiple times to try and shoot me down is actually funny because for a man who claims to be an audio genius, the counter argument is missing. In the place is quoting and cradle rocking. Pathetic stuff.

When people have to insult or throw out comments like, "you know nothing" it just shows me that you cannot come up with anything else and still cannot do anything but act like opinions are fact. Say I do not know what I am talking about all you want, until you can prove I am wrong or give me less pathetic responses I will not even waste my time.

No OPAMP sounds the same, in fact you can bypass an OPAMP in a DAC but with any OPAMP, there is sound signature. No receiver or DAC sounds the same, sorry. I would even say receivers would sound less different than DACS because I made one and owned several and they all sounded very, very different. Change an OPAMP (or bypass it completely) and the sonic signature changes. If you cannot hear differences in OPAMPS, you have very bad ears or you are hanging out with Arny too much.

Enough foolishness in this thread, I thought we could have a friendly talk and use this forum like its intention. Instead, insults and opinions confused with facts in abundance. You can claim I do not know about science, or audio, yet you have failed to prove me wrong. Also, you can quote me over and over again, you have still failed to prove me wrong and if anything, shown me that some people around here are misinformed or read and believe nonsense.
Edited by Ricsim78 - 2/7/13 at 9:50pm

Haha. read the last page and oh look...they all sounded different and there is a list of the sound signature differences. Ignorance is bliss! If you are going to give me articles, give me ones that show closer to 100% proof that people will not be able to guess equipment and especially an article that lists the differences in the sound signature at the very end!

It shows me that around 50% of people seemed to get it right, about 50% wrong. Now if 5-10% got it right we could talk further but maybe around 50% have bad hearing or bad audio memory, maybe they were just annoyed by how Arny is and wanted to get out of there? The tests seem pretty split to me, showing me that maybe some are incapable of perceiving differences. I would figure some correctly or incorrectly guessed, but it seems too split to me to be a conclusive test. I do not care what ABX tests tell me and I unable to follow them blindly like yourself. Also, you are fooling yourself because do you not think that authors of such articles are also opinionated?

I could level match my Pioneer SC-65 to my Denon or my Sansui but how would that be a fair test or indicative of performance? I would be crippling my Pioneer to match the less powerful Denon. Out of the box, they all sound different, way different. After running room correction on the Pioneer and Denon (of course the Sansui does not have room correction) they sound even more different. Running them in direct mode brings them closer in sound quality (with the Sansui sounding superior). The Sansui sounds best with my Klipsch but the Pioneer sounds best with any other speaker I have laying around and my Kef Q series 5.0 with SVS sub. The Denon sounds great but the sound signature of all 3 are NOTHING alike. I asked my girlfriend today to guess which one is the Sansui with the Klipsch and she correctly picked out the Sansui compared to the Pioneer. I had the Pioneer hooked up first and she picked it out correctly without looking. Then when I pretended to switch to the Sansui, she said, "You didn't change them, it sounds the same." Then I really did change out the Sansui and she immediately said it sounded better and it was the "Sansai" (she thought that is what it was called).

If I am imagining things, she must be too. She also participated in the receiver shoot out we had at my house and her and my friends all heard differences too. I guess we are all delusional and do not know what we are doing, even when my friend is an audio engineer and my other friends are also into audio. The way I see it, I have told you I have pieces on hand to test, I have used, modified, and even made a DAC (can you say the same?). I have a sound card collection, included a modified Sound Blaster Titanium with a Wolfson OPAMP, an upgraded capacitor, and custom shielding (all done by me) . Yet, I do not know what I am doing.....but I see weak counter arguments that are indecisive (even Arny is saying some MAY sound different) and links to tests that seem largely inconclusive and split pretty even. And if 30 people jump off a cliff, will you join them? A true comparison is setting receivers to their potential, not "level matching" them because if they all sound the same, there should be no reason to do that in the first place. Receiver A would be ever slightly louder than Receiver B in that scenario, yet would sound identical in fantasy land. Receivers HAVE different DACS, DSP, room correction, etc. You will not always be using them in direct mode or bypassing things so it's a bogus test. In the real world, where I live, no receiver will sound the same unless it has very similar equipment (like the Denon 2112 vs 2312 might sound pretty similar). No receiver is going to be level matched (all speakers are usually matched at 75dB but a more powerful receiver will be louder at any given volume). In tests where you are bypassing things, I am sure they would be less perceivable but in real world listening, you can easily tell the difference unless you are deaf or mistaken. Therefore, ABX tests are useless because they are not real world tests, they are a falsely setup, controlled setup (which is needed for science mind you) but they have no indication of real use comparison. I never use direct mode, for example.

There is no way a Onkyo 607 is going to sound nearly as good as my Pioneer. There is no way a Yamaha is going to sound the same as my Pioneer, or a Denon, or a Marantz, or a HK, Nad, Outlaw Audio, etc etc etc. They are comprised of too many components that are way different and that in itself should tell you it's not going to sound the same. It is called common sense and knowledge that audio components are comprised of many parts. Unless every part is matched, you will have differences in the real world. Around 50% is a high number of people that correctly guessed and you are linking debates, not "correct arguments that prove me wrong" which you are failing to produce.

Next?
Edited by Ricsim78 - 2/7/13 at 11:07pm

Usually this is referred to as "guessing" or "picking at random".

Level matching just means having the amps play within a fraction of a decibel of each other. If you asked someone to pick between amp A at volume X and amp A at volume X + 3dB, which do you think they are likely to pick?

That's entirely possible and, in fact, likely. One of the key aspects of a double blind test is that the person conducting the test doesn't have enough information to influence the test. If the person conducting the test has a preference or knowledge of what he considers to be correct, it can greatly influence the test. In poker, this is usually referred to as a "tell". The conductor may not realize he's giving a tell and, especially in the case where the subject is very familiar with the conductor, the subject may not realize they are receiving and reacting to a tell.

Come on now, you guys are getting truly pathetic. How could my GF (who truly knows nothing about this kind of stuff) pick the Sansui in a blind test? She did not see it and I even tried fooling her. I know what level matching means, thanks for informing me what I already stated (remember, most speakers are set at 75dB for home use and what most room correction systems try to go for). My GF cannot even say the name right yet she picked out the correct receiver 3 out of 3 times. Both receivers were on and she was asked to leave the room so I could see if she could guess. I did this actually because of the debate here. My GF was right all 3 times and picked the right amp without seeing which one was working. And she truly does know 'nothing" about this stuff.

The ABX tests are inconclusive and your arguments are getting more and more vague. How can I give her a tell when she was asked to not look and turn around and just listen? The excuses are getting poorer by you guys..wow. No disrespect to you but as far as this argument goes, you need some better materials. Instead of teaching me the definitions of things, can you prove me wrong? It sounds more like the naysayers are in denial. First I knew nothing and now I am being taught definitions yet still not proven wrong.

Next?
Edited by Ricsim78 - 2/7/13 at 11:48pm

The AVS block member option is your friend, eliminates being subjected to constant preaching of DBT, all everything sounds the same, etc.

Good point Todd68, nah they can try and fight me all day long. Their logic is very flawed and like I said, denial seems to be their friend but proof is not.

You accuse Arny of acting as if he knew it all. At the same time, you emphatically state that you know what you are hearing is a fact, with no scope for psychoacoustic influences. A healthy amount of skepticism is always good. Just maybe you (and I) don't know everything, and can learn a thing or two from others who question our beliefs. Let us moderate the discussion to eliminate personal attacks. FYI, I am more in your camp regarding the subject of this thread, but I realize audio perception can be highly manipulated by a lot of things.

Just to clarify something... did the Sansui come out as the worse sounding receiver of the bunch? Was your GF aware of how you feel towards the perceived quality of Sansui? A better way of conducting the test would have been a third person making the changes, and asking your GF to guess which receiver it was - without you around. This could minimize the possibility of a "tell" as described a couple of posts above.

Ricsim,

The personal attacks and insults are not directed at you personally. If it makes you feel better look at the 2CH, Audio Theory and CD players forums here: pretty much of what's said here has been said repeatedly already, the same fights go on and on and it's much worse over there at times (and there is a bunch of them, not just one). There's a current DAC thread and a previous very long USB DAC thread for starters.

On the ad nauseum 'everything sounds the same' debate and DBTs:

There is much audiophile myth and snake-oil for sure but there is also much misuse or over-interpretation, intentionally or through ignorance of DBTs in these quarters. I will say something about DBTs as someone coming from a research background, having written a thesis and having published in peer-reviewed journals. I cannot help noticing that TVs built to spec don't look the same and nobody disputes this without ever having any DBTs but in audio built to spec everything must sound the same.

DBTs are designed to compare products against each other in a particular controlled way and just that, they do not prove any fundamental principles in physics nor establish any theory. Trials can be poorly conducted and flawed. DBTs published in lay magazines are just that and do not reach the high rigorous standards required in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Therefore magazine articles should not be cited as proof of anything. Unfortunately many on AVS pay far too much attention to them.

In many scientific disciplines journals have various ranking in fame and reputation and papers published in lower ranked journals do not necessarily carry the same weight or influence as those in higher ranked ones. Society journals published only by members of the same society often are of lesser standing in general.

While scientific vigour and objectivity should be pursued, extrapolation from one study to all, from the specific to the general and citing old (and not very well conducted) trials (esp. when not published in a peer reviewed journal) to prove a point as the absolute truth is often a flawed approach and frankly far from vigour at the highest level. Reputable peer-reviewed scientific papers on studies and trials usually end with a discussion of the limitations and words of caution about interpretation and applications in the Discussion section at the end. If the authors are modest enough to acknowledge this why should the reader take it differently?

For example trials proving efficacy of a beta-blocker drug does not prove in any way that all beta-blockers developed in the future will also be efficacious. Likewise, in audio trials using DACs A, B and C, all with linear phase filters cannot prove that DAC D with minimal phase filter, or a delta-sigma oversampling DAC will or must also sound the same. Why don't all you defenders of the truth go and tell Oppo 83SE/93/105 owners that the 32-bit Sabre DAC sound just the same as any other DAC that has ever existed and see what their reaction is?

Put simply, if a piece of equipment has not been tested in a DBT then you simply cannot say it sounds the same or different from the rest. That's the same reason why each new drug developed after spending millions still needs to go through trials including DBT before being eligible for submission for approval.

A quick reminder on trial methodology and statistics:
1. Subject selection is a major concern. The aim is to be as representative of the general population or the bigger population group with certain characteristics as possible. Usually subjects are divided into different groups by their characteristics, age, sex, and other attributes. There are methods to compute or match these variables when doing stats to try to weed out confounding variables. In an audio trial, do all the subjects have the same hearing or musical acuteness? Some people can't distinguish one pitch from another let alone more subtle differences in sound.

2. If a trial involves different groups of subjects, each doing different tests, has different end-points, then the statistics is often very complex. You just don't do the simple student's t-test on each pair and find what turns up as significant.

3. To have a statistically significant result, the probability due to chance should be less than 0.05, an accepted arbitrary threshold number. It only means just that, it doesn't establish anything absolute and irrefutable.

4. A statistically non-significant result from a number of people only means that, it is so under the trial conditions and could be due to chance alone more than 1 in 20. The result may reach statistical significance if you have a larger group of cohort. This is purely a statistical phenomenon. No one can claim this trial with a statistically non-significant result is definitive proof indefinitely, or when you repeat it with more people. So if you only have 1o people or tries when throwing a dice, 6/10 will not be significant but if you have 1000, 600/1000 may well be.

This is why major trials are conducted in many places even in different countries (the so-called multi-centred trials) to increase the number of subjects to have a better chance of reaching statistical significance. The number required can be calculated. The smaller the difference or effect the more people are needed to start with. If you have too few it is doomed to have negative results. A few hundreds or thousands is not unusal in large clinical trials.

5. Even published papers attract criticisms and debate and in rare situations can be later retracted due to one reason or another. So nothing that gets published is absolute and the final word on the subject.

Until you have solid data and statistics to back it up with a high degree of confidence you cannot make any authoritative claims. One trial alone does not carry much weight. It will be impossible to test every single piece of audio equipment in DBTs. So just bear in mind the limitations of DBTs. Ask yourself critically if the DBT you read about is peer-reviewed, well-conducted and have the appropriate statistics done and the power to show a significant result. That's all I will say and I will not engage in any silly argument.

Thank you for the well written and informative post.

 

There are so many errors in your post that I just don't have the time or inclination to go through them all. You have made your mind up - so be it. I will leave you to it.

 

Just one thing - do you really not understand that a a 50-50 score is just random chance and actually proves there is no difference?  Or are you just kidding there?

 

TVs that measure the same will look the same - in fact if they are calibrated and then measured they MUST look the same or the calibration has failed. You are missing the most important point - all amplifiers that measure the same (which is pretty much all of them these days, among the major brands) will sound the same. All TVs that measure the same will look the same.

Except that TVs and monitors have limited spectrums they can reproduce, varying from one model to another. This limits how accurate they can be despite calibration. I agree about amplifiers.

 

Fair point, Theresa. But the analogy isn’t a good one IMO anyway, and your point backs that up. I am not saying all amps sound the same, period - what I am saying is that all properly-designed amps working in spec sound the same. If the TV is limited by its design or componentry such that it cannot achieve a reference picture, that is analogous to saying there are indeed some badly-designed amps that will sound different to the type of amps we are generally discussing in these threads. If you measure two amps and all their critical parameters are identical, then the sound will be identical. If you measure two TVs and their critical parameters are NOT identical then of course they will NOT look the same. No way does the TV issue invalidate double blind tests for amps.