Count 1 more for all receivers sound the same - Page 8

I guess you are are unaware of the fact that frequency response is not the only SQ related parameter in amplifier design or you would not have asked the question above.

News flash: Frequency response is not the only SQ related parameter in amplifier. Presumably each of those vendors had some other issue to address.

The question is very strange - it is something like "Why did the chicken cross the road?"

It takes a lot of technical naivete to put rooms and speakers into the same comparison as good amplifiers. Rooms and speakers generally have frequency response variations of many dB while amp's variations are only fractions of a dB.

It is this kind of lack of being properly informed about audio basics that leads to statements like the following:

"But it just hard for me to grasp the idea that all sufficiently built amps have no sonic difference."

Again, a very technically naive statement - none of this discussion is about tubed amps.

I keep telling people who are so poorly informed that this is not about what I think, it is about what one observes if one makes careful observations.

The good news is that what you think is not of the essence.

One of your problems is that you appear to be very poorly informed.

ABX tests are an industry standard kind of listening test that is widely used for developing audio products and has been used widely for about 40 years. That you do not know this is an indication that you are not keeping up with modern audio technology.

However, ABX tests are not the be-all and end all of listening tests. If you were actually just keeping up with even just the documents cited in this thread you would know that other kinds of blind listening tests are also used, such as a test mentioned in an industry standard that I have cited being ITU recommendation BS 1116-1. You obviously never read it, or perhaps it was written at a grade level that is beyond your reading comprehension.

That argument is not uncommon, but you have to realize that it is self-defeating. If ABX tests aren't realistic, then neither are just about any other kind of listening test. They all change the nature of the listening experience from the unfettered experience of enjoyment and pleasure to an experience that is composed of analysis and dissection of the sound.

Since the full potential of a modern AVR includes equalizers and automated frequency response and timing adjustment facilities such as Audyssey, MCACC and YPAO and that the reason for the existence of these facilities is making audible changes, then your statement has to be true.

You see, you again appear to be arguing with yourself!

False claim. ABX tests and other comparable kinds of DBTs have been the audio industry standard for about 35 years. Being unaware of this dates you.

Nothing is a very strong word. In a situation like this it appears to be childish hyperbole.

People speak here of doing that quite frequently.

You seem to have missed the point that listening at different levels is a very obvious audible difference. Why would one compare audio gear when each piece being compared is running at a different level?

You seem to have made a giant stumbling block out of something that seems quite obvious and simple. This seems to indicate a giant lack of practical understanding about how we hear things and why.

This sort of naive statement suggests a complete lack of understanding of how to run a test and statistical analysis.

One of the essence of science is skepticism. Another statement that any well-informed person will dismiss as coming from a very naive background.

Another naive statement that does not recognize that in general ABX and other listening tests are performed using the same speakers and headphones as people use for listening, including widely-respeded and high end products.

Running in direct mode is a distraction. First off, a lot of people seem to be saying they do it. On the other hand there's no problem with running with the DSP in the signal path as long as it is not adjusted to create an obvious audible difference such as enabling an equalizer that has non-flat settings.

It has already been established that you are not the source of all knowlege to say the least.


Opinion stated as fact. Which Sansui receiver of the dozens of models made is not stated. Obviously a Red Herring.

I have no problem with comparing receivers with the DAC and DSP in the signal path. it appears that you are back-tracking because in earlier posts you said that every part and every power amp affects sound quality. Plenty of those are in the audio path when the receiver is in direct mode. If you don't know that, this is just another example of your confusion about how audio gear works.

I fully understand that.

It is quite clear that you are very poorly informed about audio technology. You appear to be an unstable person who keeps changing his story. You make up arguments and then your argue with yourself. You appear to incapable of reading technical articles written at an normal adult level and properly summarizing what you have read. Some of your posts are full of insults to others while you rant and rave about presumed insults to yourself that are merely description of your apparently confused mental state. Your understanding of audio does not appear to include recognition of major developments of the past 40 years.

Just another example of the futility of trying to have an intelligent conversation with this person.

Well, you've got a sub which says good things about you. ;-)

I don't have any specific recommendations, except it appears that the top of the line Audyssey system is Audyssey Multieq XT 32. Maybe someone will chime in if there is additional alphabet soup you need to be aware of.

Remember me? I'm the guy who thinks that good receivers tend to sound pretty much alike so how could I get very specific about recommendations? ;-)