or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Count 1 more for all receivers sound the same
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Count 1 more for all receivers sound the same - Page 12

post #331 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Those are all inaccurate paraphrases, and not actual quotes. I repudiate them all.
Yeah? 11 pages of your, "I know best, everyone else does not know what they are doing unless they share my view" attitude and look at your own writing, go back 5-6 pages then come back here! When someone is so sure of themselves like you claim to be, they usually do not switch opinions so much or try and pull out the credential card.

I hope people DO think all amps and receivers sound the same! That will just make some buy cheaper receivers and I will have more availability when I go to purchase the next one! A Denon 1613 is in NO way going to outperform or keep up with my Pioneer SC-65. Not in this lifetime. My test even bypassed the internal DAC of the receiver which likely would have increased the sound difference. I liked how people immediately tried the "well, every speaker has a different tolerance" argument, I purposely left out some information because I knew someone would bring that up. Like I said, no matter what I did, unless I say they all sound the same or unless I do an ABX test my methods would be wrong.

How did my girlfriend (who knows nothing about receivers except they play music) pick the correct one 3 out of 3 times? (the excuse: I telepathically gave her the answer - snicker). How come all 3 people heard a difference in the Pioneer vs Denon? (Excuses: Different speakers have different tolerances (fail I did that already), your testing methods are wrong (easy excuses but I guess anything short of an ABX test and nothing is conclusive.) Excuses excuses.
post #332 of 540
Thought you were done with this thread? Guess people really do like drama smile.gif
post #333 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by runnin' View Post

Ah, but there's the rub. If your findings happen to disagree with certain posters, then you simply are not allowed to convey them. You are wrong, and you need to find your errors, while Arnie repudiates and continues to play silly games. I think it has something to do with having a type A personality and too much time on one's hands.
+1

Because you know you can change your opinion repeatedly and contradict yourself every few pages, yet if you say something that is not in agreement look out! In between the attempts at big words and the hyperbole I just see a lot of facts skewed together for convenience that just make no sense whatsoever.
Edited by Ricsim78 - 2/11/13 at 4:07pm
post #334 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

Thought you were done with this thread? Guess people really do like drama smile.gif
Well, I am just fine thanks for the concern. biggrin.gif This isn't drama, it's called a forum with some that think they know it all. In other words, typical forum.
Edited by Ricsim78 - 2/11/13 at 4:08pm
post #335 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

Thought you were done with this thread? Guess people really do like drama smile.gif
I know I do! smile.gif It's often very funny, if unintentionally so.
post #336 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

 

Yeah - it's amps that sound the same as each other.

 

Half the war won.

post #337 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Those are all inaccurate paraphrases, and not actual quotes. I repudiate them all.
Yeah? 11 pages of your, "I know best, everyone else does not know what they are doing unless they share my view" .

Looks pretty passive aggressive to me.

If you look around I regularly post my agreement with other people's points. Of course there is this little technicality. They have to know what they are talking about.

What you don't seem to realize is that there is one and only one set of laws of physics. You don't get to make them up as you go along. They don't change as you cross time zones or international borders. They aren't different in red states and blue states.

Some of us know them, and some of us don't.

I've cited a goodly number of authorities that support what I say. Ever hear of peer-reviewed scientific journals?
post #338 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

Thought you were done with this thread? Guess people really do like drama smile.gif

Yup, its like post 326 doesn't exist. I think there was one like it before that, but given that he already blew it off twice, why bother finding it?

Think we should tell him about the post delete function so he won't be troubled by his posts calling him a liar? ;-)
post #339 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

A Denon 1613 is in NO way going to outperform or keep up with my Pioneer SC-65.

If I'm positive receiver A will outperform receiver B in a sighted test, it almost always does wink.gif.
post #340 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by runnin' View Post


Ah, but there's the rub. If your findings happen to disagree with certain posters, then you simply are not allowed to convey them.

Yup. I own all of AVS and I have it programmed to not accept politically incorrect posts. Oh, that's wrong. I don't own AVS and politically incorrect posts appear here all the time.

We should start a thread about forums where mentioning DBTs is specifically prohibited, or the ones where there is no such official statement but in fact that's how they work. There are at least a few.
post #341 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk

Those are all inaccurate paraphrases, and not actual quotes. I repudiate them all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by runnin' View Post

You can't prove it Arnie. We need actual scientific proof, my good man. You know, facts, quotes, witnesses and electronic data to prove what you say is true. I'm waiting. I mean you've made over 30 posts today alone, and the day is young! Surely in all the posts you make daily there is proof!

Before you start any new threads, Arnie, there is this little matter. You have absolutely no proof here, you simply repudiate, and expect people to trust you without seeing any supporting data or quotes. You need to provide the hard science or else everything you post is just more mindless chatter from a guy with far too much time on his hands.
post #342 of 540
This thread is FUBAR. People on the same side want science and don't want science Huh? eek.gif
post #343 of 540
I have been trying to enjoy some TV programming while following this thread. I am quickly deciding that quality audio equipment is a waste for TV. A simple Bose WAVE radio would be overkill. IF ABX testing is done with TV shows there is no doubt that ALL audio equipment has the same crappy sound.

WAAAAY TOO MANY COMMERCIALS ---- VOCALS ARE MUFFLED ON PROGRAM YET COMMERCIALS ARE LOUD AND CLEAR ---- OPENING CREDITS ROLLING ACROSS SCREEN 13 MINUTES AFTER START OF PROGRAM (I know this is not audio, just a pain in the area that hemorrhoids reside).
post #344 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

This thread is FUBAR. People on the same side want science and don't want science Huh? eek.gif

And TV is TARFU. eek.gif
post #345 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Section 107 View Post

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm having a little trouble figuring out what exactly your test proved.

You say that you "do not care about test data, DBT, etc." and in fact, your test uses none of the standards or protocol set forth throughout this thread (i.e., blind testing, level matched to a specified tolerance, etc). Without all that, you haven't addressed the points made by the people who disagree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Section 107 View Post

I know you said it doesn't matter what you do, but might it be better to do the same test "people" talk about and then let the results show who failed?

I see this issue come up fairly often. A person performs their own tests, reporting their positive results. But in their described testing, they've disregarded a key aspect or aspects of the protocol necessary to ensure a valid test result, which had been described to them in some detail. Then when their results are dismissed because of those testing shortcomings, they respond with, "no matter what kind of test I do, you guys would find some reason to dismiss it!"

It's like they don't fully comprehend the recommended testing procedures or their importance so their only conclusion is to think that these are just poor excuses used to dismiss their "proof". fascinating.
post #346 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

How did my girlfriend (who knows nothing about receivers except they play music) pick the correct one 3 out of 3 times? (the excuse: I telepathically gave her the answer - snicker). How come all 3 people heard a difference in the Pioneer vs Denon? (Excuses: Different speakers have different tolerances (fail I did that already), your testing methods are wrong (easy excuses but I guess anything short of an ABX test and nothing is conclusive.) Excuses excuses.

The idea of a double blind test is well accepted in many, many fields of science but, it's very difficult to do properly because, among other things, you have to understand all the variables in play and try to eliminate them. Since this is the Audio Visual Science forum, it seems very reasonable to point out the flaws in the way you've gathered your data and your interpretation of it. Setting up a proper double blind test for something as complicated as audio equipment is difficult and very few people have the equipment to do it.

As a side note, your vitriol for anyone advocating science or pointing out the flaws in your reasoning makes it very clear that, at this point, someone like arnyk could suggest that the sky is blue and you'd be adamantly in disagreement.
post #347 of 540
The results of mine are only bad because YOU do not agree with them. Just as I believe a ABX tests is useless.

I keep hearing little stabs in all of your arguments, my test is based on reality. ABX tests are artificial and more of a guessing game and audio memory game.

If all amps sounded the same, which is the title of the thread, with the test I did they would have sounded the exact same. They did not. You can tell me over and over again my testing methods are wrong, but you fail to tell me how all 3 of us heard an immediate difference. You are mentioning my method and in your imaginary little worlds it is not "right", yet you fail to explain to me how we all heard a difference. I am still waiting for that.

Saying I imagined it and such is just heresay and stupid (not to mention, assuming) You talk about "valid test parameters" when you seem to try and come up with easy answers to dismiss my results. I think the naysayers are trying to act like there is no other way and obviously there is.

Scientists in the early ages likely knew more about the stars than most graduates, they simply did not know what they were and thought the stars were lanterns held by deities. Science is great and all but it changes when new thought patterns and findings occur. You can sit here all day and preach to me about ABX tests and say, "your wrong, we are right." But I am also waiting for your 100% concrete proof I am wrong. Read your buddy Arny's posts and you will see he must not be very scientific either because he fails to stick to one theme.

Prove to me I am wrong without telling me I am, I can say the sky is purple, it does not make it so.

Next?
post #348 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

I did a little test to see if they truly DO sound the same.

I do not care about test data, DBT, etc. What is the final decision on if something sounds good to you or not? Your hearing and your ears. Tests are fun and all and interesting, but to blindly follow the (in my opinion, lack of) results is folly. The thing that set me off about this thread is when you do not agree with people like Arny, automatically you know nothing about audio or whatever little stab they want to take.

Ok, I go and buy a receiver and what will I do?

A) Hook it up, set it up, run the calibration, tweak it, use it, tweak it more, then enjoy it.
B) Do DBT and automatically conclude it sounds the same as every every receiver I bought before it.

I will let you guess which one we would ALL be doing. I have done little experiments here for the sake of this thread, so over the course of the last few days I have setup I think everyone (well, everyone that has common sense) would agree is a very fair test. I have 4 Kef Q100 speakers, a Denon 1613, and my Pioneer Elite SC-65. I put the Denon and Pioneer right next to each other. I set 2 Kefs right next to each other, one hooked into the Pioneer, the other into the Denon on both sides. Same speakers. I setup my Sound card to output 4 channel sound, one outputting into the Denon, the other into the Pioneer. The receivers are sitting right next to each other. I set each speaker so it is at 75 DB. I did not use a subwoofer for this demo.

I can run both receivers at the same time, or mute 1 while the other is playing. The sound is set to a volume not loud, but matched just about perfectly. So let's go over the parameters of this test.
  • Same speakers both receivers set right next to each other (2 identical speakers setup side to side on the left and right side) The speaker output order (from left to right) Denon, Pioneer, Denon, Pioneer. Measured 6.5 feet separation
  • All speakers set to 75 db with a Radioshack meter
  • Same output device (my computer with Auzentech Prelude soundcard setup to output to both receivers the same signal (quality)
  • Volume matched (The Denon had to be cranked up more to get to the same volume)
  • Ability to quickly mute one receiver so audio memory is no issue.
  • Me, girlfriend, and my friend Jason participated in this (so no one can say it's JUST me)
  • The volume level was set at comfortable levels, no where near reference
  • Same speakers, same sound source, same speaker wire (14 ga. RCA), same RCA to miniplug adapter for the soundcard output. Obviously level matched as the sound just is mirrored in all 4 speakers.
  • No EQ, room correction, MP3 Restorer, or any audio enhancements engaged (we did turn on the MP3 enhancers later just to see which one did better)
  • I have no personal bias towards either brand, I love Denon/Marantz just as much as Pioneer and they remain my favorite companies for receivers. Girlfriend has no bias, my friend has owned a Pioneer Elite and a ton of vintage receivers and amps but he also likes Denon.

We played some Dream Theater, The Knife, Genesis, Metallica, Rush, Van Halen, and quite a few other songs. Quickly muting one and then doing the same on the other. We tried direct mode, stereo mode.

We all agreed they sounded NOTHING alike. I repeat, nothing

Denon 1613: Laid back, not as dynamic, not as good separation of instruments
Pioneer Elite SC-65: Crisper, more forward, more airy, more revealing. More unforgiving of bad quality MP3 samples.

We then played Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (Blu-ray) through both. It was harder to tell the difference with a movie, but we all agreed on the following.

Denon 1613: More laid back, slightly muddier
Pioneer Elite: SC-65: More forward, more dynamic, more airy. Battle scenes seemed to be more immersive..

Now to be fair, they both sounded awesome but the Pioneer walks all over the Denon in overall sound quality. And there is a huge, immediate difference.

So "ABX test pushers" and naysayers, explain to me the results of this tests. Do not just say, "your testing method is flawed" because this is more useful than a double blind test. Muting one receiver to listen to the other immediately takes away "random guessing" and audio memory (or lack thereof).

This is a true, fair, real world test. Here are some other observations:
  • Due to the fact we used Analog output on the sound card, we bypassed the DAC of the receivers. Using the DAC of the receiver would have likely made them sound even more different.
  • The "MP3 Restorer" function of the Pioneer is way better than the Denon version.
  • If they truly sounded the same, we would have heard the same thing when we switched to the Denon as opposed to the Pioneer. The difference was huge.
  • The Pioneer does have D3 amps, but if they all sound the same then there should be no discernible difference. Considering people claim in ABX tests people had trouble telling a tube amp from a solid state amp, this should not be an issue.

As I said, receivers do not sound the same and this is proof enough for me. If you want to go by "audio guessing" (like ABX tests) that is on you but as I said, I live and hear in the real world. So does everyone else here. Industry standard tests have nothing to do with what you hear.

Edit: I plan to repeat this test with my friend's Denon 3313 so no one can say it's a low cost Denon vs expensive Pioneer. It was not just the overall sound quality, it was the sound signature which was totally different.

I will be one of the first to agree that all receivers do not sound the same. I do not believe the amps are responsible for the difference.

When you performed your comparison of receivers you used an analog input. Does either or both of those receivers route analog input to an ADC? If so, then I am not certain that you bypassed all DSP in the AVR.
Someone with more knowledge can tell me if I am correct or talking out my arse.
post #349 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmsdms View Post

The idea of a double blind test is well accepted in many, many fields of science but, it's very difficult to do properly because, among other things, you have to understand all the variables in play and try to eliminate them. Since this is the Audio Visual Science forum, it seems very reasonable to point out the flaws in the way you've gathered your data and your interpretation of it. Setting up a proper double blind test for something as complicated as audio equipment is difficult and very few people have the equipment to do it.

As a side note, your vitriol for anyone advocating science or pointing out the flaws in your reasoning makes it very clear that, at this point, someone like arnyk could suggest that the sky is blue and you'd be adamantly in disagreement.

Yeah, well here's the thing. Who's doing the listening in these double blind tests? What is their hearing experience? Do they have perfect hearing? Can they accurately hear what's being played or do they have some variation of tone deafness? It's easy to claim science is the answer, but it's more complicated than that.

As for your remark on Arnie, I notice you have 42 posts. Give it some time.
post #350 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post


I see this issue come up fairly often. A person performs their own tests, reporting their positive results. But in their described testing, they've disregarded a key aspect or aspects of the protocol necessary to ensure a valid test result, which had been described to them in some detail. Then when their results are dismissed because of those testing shortcomings, they respond with, "no matter what kind of test I do, you guys would find some reason to dismiss it!"

It's like they don't fully comprehend the recommended testing procedures or their importance so their only conclusion is to think that these are just poor excuses used to dismiss their "proof". fascinating.

Well that certainly seems to be the case here.

I admit to being puzzled at why someone would develop a competing "test," after arguing so vociferously against the results of the original. I'm no scientist, but it seems to me that if the results are in question, the very first thing I would do would be to perform the same test and see if I got the same result. If I didn't, then I'd question the test and start the argument.

Absent the time, inclination or ability to test and verify the outcome, I certainly would never bother trying to invent my own test, particularly one that clearly does not respond to the conditions put to me with respect to controlling bias.

If the statement "Item X sounds different from item Y," provokes the response "You can only tell that if you listen under these certain conditions," and the follow-up is then to ignore those conditions and repeat "item X sounds different from item Y," we've accomplished nothing. Let alone "proved" anything. As my father would say, "First, why don't you answer the question I asked you?"

Fascinating, indeed. I'm beginning to think the people who brought up religion may have a point.
post #351 of 540
Quote:
The idea of a double blind test is well accepted in many, many fields of science but, it's very difficult to do properly because, among other things, you have to understand all the variables in play and try to eliminate them. Since this is the Audio Visual Science forum, it seems very reasonable to point out the flaws in the way you've gathered your data and your interpretation of it. Setting up a proper double blind test for something as complicated as audio equipment is difficult and very few people have the equipment to do it.

This is why ABX tests are useless in this context; we do not have the equipment and when you use a receiver in your home, you are not going through all of that just to say, "I like this way this sounds." There is equipment that can "hear" way better than we do, yet we only can hear so much, some can hear better than others. Can that equipment tell you that you will like the way something sounds? DBT are flawed because by the time you set everything to the parameters, you are negating most of the things that would make audio perception (comparison) happen to begin with. It is too controlled and brings it to the point where I am sure you would have trouble hearing differences. It is tipped towards the skeptic, therefore it is not even science. And it is not even the information you would want to know to begin with!
Quote:
As a side note, your vitriol for anyone advocating science or pointing out the flaws in your reasoning makes it very clear that, at this point, someone like arnyk could suggest that the sky is blue and you'd be adamantly in disagreement.

Should I reply to this by saying, "Well, your logic is flawed because some people are color blind. The only way we would truly know if it was blue..." biggrin.gif Vision and audio are two different themes, lets stick to this one.
Edited by Ricsim78 - 2/11/13 at 7:20pm
post #352 of 540
ABX tests don’t measure what really matters to us. ABX tests tell us whether we can hear a difference between Amp A and Amp B. What we really want to know, however, is whether Amp A is as good as Amp B. Therefore, relying on them to make purchase decisions is naive.

Kudos to Kbarnes too, he also changed his opinion to now all "AMPS" sound the same. I thought a receiver was basically an amp and Preamp in one box? When you speak of science, you can talk big words and question methods used for conclusions, something the biggest supporters of DBT and such are missing is sticking to one theme and proving me (and others who agree they sound the different) that we are wrong. Not with ABX tests results, not with "unless your test is basically an ABX test, it does not count!" Which is pretty much the theme here, except your science is also missing because science is not absolute.

I did the best of my ability to control my test results, level match the receivers, account for variables, and even shut down what would have been an easy "gimmie" (the speaker setup). My test method is not perfect, but how is a ABX test either? I apologize for not having $25,000.00 worth of equipment to tell differences in sound. I guess I will stick to what hears sound, MY EARS.
Edited by Ricsim78 - 2/11/13 at 7:18pm
post #353 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

If all amps sounded the same, which is the title of the thread, with the test I did they would have sounded the exact same. They did not. You can tell me over and over again my testing methods are wrong, but you fail to tell me how all 3 of us heard an immediate difference. You are mentioning my method and in your imaginary little worlds it is not "right", yet you fail to explain to me how we all heard a difference. I am still waiting for that.

I don't doubt that you heard a difference. And, I don't doubt that if you had dragged 1000 people through your living room, 99% of them would have heard a difference. Because, well, there *was* a difference. Without isolating every variable, you weren't testing amp A and amp B. You were testing a combination of variables and it's impossible to conclude that the electronics in amp A and amp B are the difference you heard.

If you want to do a better test, I would recommend finding one of the many tests where the results concluded that all amps sound the same and then *exactly* reproduce that test so you can either 1) Point out the bias in the test 2) Refute the results 3) Confirm the results. I would really love for #2 to happen because it would be awesome to have real, scientific, reproducible evidence that some amps sound better than others. That would also mean that there is an amp that is quite literally The Best and I'd happily drop the cash to own it.
post #354 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by runnin' View Post

Yeah, well here's the thing. Who's doing the listening in these double blind tests? What is their hearing experience? Do they have perfect hearing? Can they accurately hear what's being played or do they have some variation of tone deafness? It's easy to claim science is the answer, but it's more complicated than that.

As for your remark on Arnie, I notice you have 42 posts. Give it some time.

IMO there are some faults in ABX testing. 1. There is some mental pressure (stress) for participants as there is for most any testing. 2. I have not found mention of in room FR measurements. Supporter of the ABX method accept that not identifying differences by ear is acceptable. The reverse is true when one claims that their ears hear differences. They are lashed for failure to show charts to prove that their ears are not lying. OTOH, what I consider a fault is likely just my subjective opinion.

Now to answer your response. These tests have been performed for years with probably thousands of participants. Do you really think most participants are hearing impaired to the extent you mention? One would have to be practically deaf to be unable to distinguish a Harley exhaust from a Honda whereas slight sound variances may be impossible to hear. Many music professionals have taken these tests. Read this link for a questionable finding in one of these tests--http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=2

PS I am not stalking you.smile.gif
post #355 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmsdms View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

If all amps sounded the same, which is the title of the thread, with the test I did they would have sounded the exact same. They did not. You can tell me over and over again my testing methods are wrong, but you fail to tell me how all 3 of us heard an immediate difference. You are mentioning my method and in your imaginary little worlds it is not "right", yet you fail to explain to me how we all heard a difference. I am still waiting for that.

I don't doubt that you heard a difference. And, I don't doubt that if you had dragged 1000 people through your living room, 99% of them would have heard a difference. Because, well, there *was* a difference. Without isolating every variable, you weren't testing amp A and amp B. You were testing a combination of variables and it's impossible to conclude that the electronics in amp A and amp B are the difference you heard.

If you want to do a better test, I would recommend finding one of the many tests where the results concluded that all amps sound the same and then *exactly* reproduce that test so you can either 1) Point out the bias in the test 2) Refute the results 3) Confirm the results. I would really love for #2 to happen because it would be awesome to have real, scientific, reproducible evidence that some amps sound better than others. That would also mean that there is an amp that is quite literally The Best and I'd happily drop the cash to own it.

Gee, I just tuned into these last thread posts and looked at the title, which says all receivers sound the same, not amps. Big difference. That each receiver's dsp will be different isn't an earthshaking concept, but rather that the relatively similar amps are the issue in different sound is another. Use the right terminology, it really helps. Science and all that.
post #356 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Gee, I just tuned into these last thread posts and looked at the title, which says all receivers sound the same, not amps. Big difference. That each receiver's dsp will be different isn't an earthshaking concept, but rather that the relatively similar amps are the issue in different sound is another. Use the right terminology, it really helps. Science and all that.

After 12 pages, the thread has bounced between the idea of all receivers sound the same and all amps sound the same. I don't know if anyone has argued that all receivers sound the same when they have their respective feature sets turned on but, in a Pure Direct sort of mode with the same analog input, they should sound the same.
post #357 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Gee, I just tuned into these last thread posts and looked at the title, which says all receivers sound the same, not amps. Big difference. That each receiver's dsp will be different isn't an earthshaking concept, but rather that the relatively similar amps are the issue in different sound is another. Use the right terminology, it really helps. Science and all that.

LOL the problem is, both Kbarnes and Arny have one thing in common, what they says changes. The thread title is far gone, read a page back and you will see to where "receivers" and "amps" are different.
post #358 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

LOL the problem is, both Kbarnes and Arny have one thing in common, what they says changes. The thread title is far gone, read a page back and you will see to where "receivers" and "amps" are different.

Just let it go man lol. Other areas of this forum to enjoy!
post #359 of 540
dmsms for one, I have NO problem with you because unlike some, you have not tried to act like I have no idea what I am doing. You can disagree and we can discuss it, it is just the quality of the counter argument is all over the place.

The thing is, if they sounded similar enough, NO ONE would be able to pick a winner or hear differences. It would sound the same using receiver A (Pioneer) vs receiver B (Denon). The sound signature is totally different and easily audible.

As I said, ABX tests are flawed and they bypass the one thing we care about most. They do not show if AMP A performs as well as AMP B, they show differences in perceivable sound quality (in an ARTIFICIAL SETTING). The problem is, by the time you bypass everything, of course they are going to sound the same or nearly the same. But if you play two receivers out of a box, or two receivers tweaked, the sound will be nothing alike. Who is going to DBT a receiver at home? If you do, you have too much time on your hands and what would you even be doing it for?

My Denon 1613 is an entry level model. I had an Onkyo 709 which is basically a high-midrange model. The Denon is much warmer, but not as good at movies. Everything else sounds better on the Denon but the Onkyo seems to have a lot more power reserves for intense scenes in movies. In music, there was a night and day difference. The Onkyo was more forward (seemed to bias the front 3 speakers more).

ABX test: Level matching, using expensive equipment, participants vary, receiver differences negated
Real life: Setup receiver, do room correction, tweak, listen, tweak more, use it.
My test: More realistic and using equipment most use.

You can argue the method, you cannot argue the issues of your argument without opinion.
post #360 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

Just let it go man lol. Other areas of this forum to enjoy!
I can say the same for you. As you said, I like drama biggrin.gif I have been enjoying other parts but SOMEONE has to advocate the ones who say they are different. I am outnumbered but fortunately not outgunned; at least my argument runs deeper than "your test methods are flawed" because at least my argument does not change.

I like being the minority and facing those who view things differently, it makes me better with other things smile.gif
Edited by Ricsim78 - 2/11/13 at 7:54pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Count 1 more for all receivers sound the same