Count 1 more for all receivers sound the same - Page 18

ahh, i didnt catch the preouts being a requirement...

the cheapest receiver with audyssey and preouts that I am aware of. would be last years onkyo 709 and 809. both can be found (if you catch the sale at the right time) for under $500.

You might find Audyssey 2EQ in a receiver that cheap but as 2EQ doesn't EQ the bass at all (which is where you really need it most) it's more or less pointless IMO. MultEQ isn't much better. XT is not bad, but the one to shoot for is XT32. The cheapest entry into XT32 is the Onkyo 818, which also has preouts. It has been on sale for as little as $770 recently - if you searched around you might find a real bargain, or wait for the next Sales.

 

Differences between the various flavours of Audyssey can be found here:

 

h)2.   What is the difference between the various versions of MultEQ?

As usual....there is far more to be learned about humans in this thread than audio.

Yes, I agree, and that has been my struggle. XT32 would be the only way to go if I wanted to go the route of room correction, but I can't justify spending that kind of money just to get 5.1 from over the air tv broadcasts. For movies I'm happy with what I have.

So I do nothing... that's not working out to well either.

That's the truth!

very impressive list of features for only $229.00. If only I wasn't so emotionally attached to my other equipment.

My main preamp is a Marantz 1070 that I paid about $300 for back in the Mid 70's. doesn't have any of the features of today's equipment. My how things have changed.

That's a refurb.

You still get a year warranty and I got a Denon 3311 from them and it is still going strong to this day. Highly recommended. The unit I got was refurbished but looked and worked just like new.

I agree with this 100% and you said basically the same thing I did. Nice post and true. This is what you are going to get in here. He apparently did not read well enough where multiple times you stated you may or may not hear a difference. He also missed your entire point. But you're not an engineer or "qualified" to make assessments like this. More insults followed with smiley faces.

You are configuring a receiver for a DBT different than you would configure the receiver in your home. Just like when you run room correction that receiver is going to sound different than it did out of the box.

You will notice he only quotes things that can easily be debated but when you speak things he cannot argue with he leaves them be, I wonder why that is?

Not only did I own a Yamaha receiver from a few years ago where I experienced the same thing, I went to Best Buy Friday night and checked out their speakers. I wanted to see just how good the Andrew Jones built Pioneer speakers sounded and compare them to the Klipsch speakers (which are about 5 times more expensive). When the employee had to turn up the receiver, it was a few years old Yamaha that was hidden behind a panel. He turned up the volume and then played the AJ Pioneers and they sounded really good, a steal for their price. I then asked to hear the Klipsch and he used to switchbox and the Adele song sounded horrible! The Pioneers sounded really good and well balanced while the Klipsch sounded shrill. My girlfriend and even the employee said the Pioneers sounded so much better than the Klipsch but the employee has those same speakers hooked up to a Onkyo at home and he said they never sounded that bad, even out of the box. The same results were heard with the cheaper Klipsch speakers that were sitting next to them because I was concerned maybe the Klipsch were damaged, they sounded even worse through the second pair. How scientific do you need to get when no science is going to improve a good speaker/receiver match? You can likely do a repeat of the demo I just did and hear for yourself. The Klipsch sounded worse than $20.00 no name computer speakers I owned quite a while ago, just horrible. Running them in direct mode sounded even worse.
Edited by Ricsim78 - 2/17/13 at 12:20pm

Yes, it does indeed seem that way. Seems to be a common theme but like you, I will not let it bother me. As I said, I am not going into a debate with someone that acts like that.
Good points, something I noticed you mentioned a few times and largely ignored by him and others. I like the way he assumes my profession or my background, even without knowing me at all. It is a weird phenomena and I find it strange myself. But if all receivers sounded the same, it would be a phenomena that did not exist.

Largely in denial? Is that why DBT never happen to pop up in reviews of products or product websites? Let me tell you why; they tell you nothing of the product, strengths, weaknesses, etc.. I think he is not the one in denial. You need qualifications to speak common sense? Or be an engineer? Wow this forum would be pretty empty. Does being an engineer allow you to assume who and what people are? Does it make your psychic too? Considering how what you say changes every few pages and you do most of what you accuse others of, it does not surprise me one bit. ;-) Funny, all over the place people hear differences, just because you do not does not others do not. I have not only quoted a good argument, a time where a DBT failed to detect distortion. You of course passed this off but it leads me to believe that there is something up with these types of tests. Distortion, especially at the pitch it happened at, should be very audible to a person of even moderate hearing. So if an extensive, scientific, or as you put, "a good clean DBT" should have detected such an anomaly quite easily. If you are missing distortion, what else are you missing? I am sure the test they used was more extensive than most ABX tests that have ever been done. I have yet to find an ABX test that was so extensive and I have looked. You also have largely ignored the argument that I brought up and now RS143 brought up; once you EQ something, you are changing the sound signature. Room correction puts an EQ, and does many other things. Since just about everyone uses room correction and even those who don't, 8/10 or more use EQ of some sort. EQ = ability to raise or lower frequencies to either boost or cut the output at certain points. As soon as you use EQ, the whole "they sound the same" is thrown right out the window. I will give you this one and it would be a solid argument for people who feel they sound the same. I would enjoy such a thing myself. Read RS143 post #501 better, he said you MAY hear a difference but do not be surprised if some expensive equipment does not sound better than even an inexpensive AVR. He also said watch for snake oil. Seems to me you are too busy trying to be correct and be smarter but you miss important "facts" either out of reading only parts of the whole post or out of convenience. ;-) He, nor anyone here, cannot show you what they hear. No graph or "science experiment" will do that. But let's go back to an article I quoted. Another anomaly is not everything shows up in frequency analysis or on graphs. There is many posts you can find that state that low-end Yamaha and Klipsch are a horrible match together. How can you reference receiver/speaker interaction? Go to a local Best Buy, ask them if they are using a Yamaha receiver, and do a listen to even their best Klipsch model and see if you like what you hear. How much proof do you need other than that? I also personally owned a Yamaha and tried it with my pair of Klipsch and they sounded horrible together. With YPAO or without, it was fatiguing and made you want to shut it off after a while. Do you own a 3-4 year old low-end Yamaha receiver and Klipsch speakers? If not then you do not have much say so on the matter, now do you? If you do where is your scientific evidence? Would a DBT have told me they are a bad match or make them sound better after I completed it? Oh and neither of us will do your own research for you. ;-)

Anyone can do this and try and shutdown a difference of opinion. Even if you truly do know more or "better", you have to be open minded.
Edited by Ricsim78 - 2/17/13 at 8:56pm

 

 

Reviewers would be kinda out of a job if they admitted that all modern SS amps working properly and not clipping sound the same wouldn't they?  It's much better for them to say "I can hear a darker space between notes with Amp A than Amp B".  And product websites are hardly going to say "Here's a few tests that show our $10,000 amp doesn’t sound any different to this $700 amp" are they? 

 

 

 

Of course they do!  The question is, what is the cause of the differences they hear?  Is it because they are listening at different SPLs?  Or using different speakers? Or in a different room?  Or with a different source? Or is the amp?  All the objective, science-based tests show it isn't the amp.

 

 

 

One article versus literally thousands of DBT tests?  One?  Can you find, say, 50 or 100 that back you up?

 

 

 

What makes you sure of that?

 

 

 

What would not show up in the FR analysis or on graphs? Could you list these things please?

 

 

Do you not think that a store isn’t perhaps the best place to evaluate components? Given that we would all agree, I am sure, that the most influential 'component' wrt to SQ is the room, do you think a store's facilities are the best place to evaluate amps and speakers? 

I think you just told us why they don't use DBT's, in your own words, they tell you nothing, as in there are no consistently discernible differences within certain parameters.

People hear differences because the mind is a powerful thing. Read that Yamaha's are bright enough times and you're going to believe it. I've had virtually every brand in every price point through my system and what was "bright" was my room or speaker placement, not the equipment.

You're right in one sense, doing DBT's with different gear and speakers would pose an interesting problem, not because of the electronics but because of the dispersion pattern, power bands and other factors of the speakers relative to the listening position.

@Kbarnes: I have already told you my view on things, you can argue your views over and over but you will not change my mind. I disagree with your comment that it is all in your mind, if you can hear it, it is there. There are many occasions where ABX tests were passed, in other words have a 95% positive result. But look at the bar, 95% has to be right or you fail an ABX test! But how come people have guessed correctly even in extreme situations like DBT?

There is so many things your side of the argument is hypocritical about. In a DBT test, you are in a strange facility with speakers setup totally different than they would be in your home. One of the arguments I have heard is, "You cannot A/B receivers because moving a speaker even slightly changes the sound you hear." So how does what I hear in a DBT relate to what I am hearing at home? It doesn't because the room you take the ABX test is way different, not to mention the receiver is bypassed and set different. When you make an argument and use points like this to try and prove your point, you have to take into account your side of the argument is even more extreme because if I change my receiver, at least it will be hooked into the same room and speakers. I will also be using the receiver as intended and what most people do, even experts: Apply room correction. Do an ABX test without bypassing the DSP and using room correction first, level match them (with a voltmeter), and then see if someone can tell the difference. Come on, I dare you to do it! I bet people would easily pass.

You also are stressed because you are not in your living room; you are in a place you have never been before (or in rare cases, had been to but likely 1-2 times if ever). You are also among strangers; your claim is that you must not know the people conducting the tests because it may give away "gimmes". How does that, "not matter"? It does, I have a couple of shy friends and something like this would be nerve-racking for them.

How can Arny do a ABX test on his receivers? Who conducted these tests for him? I find that story hard to swallow and even if it were true, I bet he knew the people conducting the test for him. I bet most of the "rules" that are shoved down our throats are bypassed,
Edited by RS143 - 2/18/13 at 10:43am

Actually, I never knew that Yamaha receivers were bright before I bought the one I had, after my experience with the Yamaha and Klipsch combo I read many instances where people were saying they are a horrible match. I do not always go by what others say, but please do not think I am "looking" for components to sound bad or "bright". I would love to write, "I bought a cheap Yamaha receiver that was simply amazing sounding and hung in there with my much more expensive receivers." I would simply be lying if I said that, as even the nearly equally priced Denon sounded and worked way better than the Yamaha ever did. Out of the box, with room correction on or off, and in everyday use the Denon is simply a better unit. They sound nothing alike, out of the box even you cannot mistake them. The Denon is richer and more laid back, qualities that showed well through the Klipsch speakers. The Yamaha sounds more bright and more forward, qualities that proved to be a horrible match with the Klipsch. The test at the Best Buy I did and RS143 did is basically what I heard in my own home, but it is not as good of an indication as it would be if I brought them home.

But as you indicated and a popular counter argument with those who say they sound the same is, "Well, you did not have the speakers in the same place so they will sound different". A speaker a few inches moved over will sound hardly different and at least would be in the same room in question. In an ABX or DBT the receiver would be in a totally different environment.
Good point, but a review tells me more than a ABX test ever would. Have you ever used these tests you flaunt to choose a receiver or amp? If so, can you reference the test you took and verify you were a participant? You see, I can do the same thing and use your own argument against you. The point is why bring up DBT? You are not trying to see if a Carver amp sounds better than a Emotiva, you are buying a receiver and with your mindset you are buying one with the though they all sound the same. So you are not even bothering with sound quality, so how do ABX and DBT in total relate to this thread?
Do you use the same SPL, room, speakers, source, amp in a DBT? When you take a DBT are you able to recreate your room with the exact same materials, shape, and size (including every nail and joist) and the exact same furniture? What if I change receivers (like I have done quite often) and yes then I am using the same SPL, speakers, room, sources, but the amp is obviously different. Maybe that is why it sounds nothing like the receiver I had before, or the one before that, and so on...in this case it is the only variable, everything else stayed the exact same.
Yes, Google "ABX tests with positive results" and you will find more than the number you listed. If people are able to pass tests like this, as rigorous as they are, there must be differences that even show up in such an artificial environment. These same differences would show up even more if they equipment is used as intended and it is in your own home.
Experience, positive ABX (and other DBT) results, my ears, my brain, my open mind. Lots of reading. I have yet to find a equal or more thorough ABX test conducted for as long or with as many participants. I did not look hard but if there is a more thorough ABX test can you please show me the link?
Perceived sound quality, how a speaker or receiver sounds to me when I hear it, common sense, practicality, open minded thought pattern. Inability to take what people say and change my mind because they think they have a solid argument yet there is many holes. There has also been cases that audio phenomena were heard but unable to be "seen" on frequency analysis. I will let you Google that one, it is rare but has happened.
Not exactly but why did the AJ Pioneers sound good in that same setting? Since they use a A/B switchbox and the speakers are in the exact same place, it should have sounded good with the 4x more expensive Klipsch than it did with the Pioneer speakers. It's funny because I went to Best Buy yesterday and they happened to use the SAME Yamaha RXV373 I used to own and I heard the same thing as RS143, the Klipsch sounded horrible through the Yamaha! In fact, it sounded like the same I heard with my Klipsch, just in a bigger room. I can tell you this, with that setup I bet many are passing over the Klipsch for the cheaper Pioneers with that demo.

Also to add on to that, is the room a DBT is conducted in any better? Even if it is acoustically treated, it will also tell you nothing how Product A or Product B sounds in your own home.
Edited by Ricsim78 - 2/18/13 at 10:29am

You are totally missing the point of the DBT test.  The test isn’t meant to relate to what you hear at home. It is meant to isolate the audible differences, if any, between the units under test. You could do the test at your home if you like - it won't make any difference to the results because in either case, the room, the speakers etc etc are all constants. The only variable is the units under test.

 

 

A review is a sample of 1. You were complaining not long ago that the ABX tests were flawed because the sample sizes were too small. But now a sample size of 1 is good enough?

 

I have not used an ABX test to choose an amp. There's no point - all modern SS amps working to spec sound the same as each other, so what woud be the point of me ABX testing them - am I suddenly going to get a different result to the thousands already done? If I read that in 1,000 tests involving tossing a coin 500 times, the result is always 250 heads and 250 tails, plus or minus 3%, what would be the point of repeating that test myself?

 

 

 

 

You miss the point of the DBT like RS143. The ABX test is irrelevant to the room it takes place in - the room and speakers etc are constants - the only thing changed is the unit under test - the amp. You could do the test at home if you wanted - the result wouldn’t be changed. If unit A sounds different to unit B, it will sound different wherever (assuming the room isn't so bad that it totally masks any differences of course). That's another reason to do the tests in controlled conditions - if your room at home is untreated, has bare walls, reflective ceilings, is a bad shape etc etc, then testing for audible differences in amps would be pointless anyway - the main differences are the room and the speakers. That is where you should be looking for big differences in SQ, not amps.

 

 

 

You seem to be conflating 'differences in SQ' and 'differences in SQ due to amps'. Of course there will be differences in SQ between one room and another and one set of speakers and another. That is obvious. I am not saying you cannot hear any differences, ever, in any circumstances. Of course you can. But not because of the amps.

 

 

 

Ears and brain are too unreliable unfortunately, for all the reasons already given in this thread. You just cannot rely on them to evaluate differences in SQ between amps. I have already posted a link to 50 different tests.

 

 

 

Do you think audio and acoustics are some sort of 'magic' to which the rules of physics and science do not apply? A speaker sounds the way it does because of well established laws of science. It vibrates the air in a room in a particular way, interacting with the room as it does it, and the results can easily be measured. The SQ will be revealed by these measurements to a very large extent. Have a read of this article by a renowned speaker designer: Interview With Loudspeaker Designer John Dunlavy.

I understand the point of an ABX test, I think everyone here does. But ricsim78 is absolutely right. I saw the "amateur test" he did and one argument you brought up was, "well the speakers were in different places" Being in the same room you intend to do your listening to DOES make it more indicative of what you would hear at home than in a DBT environment. In a DBT, the component would be the only constant, the environment, speakers, speaker wire, almost everything would be different or in a different location than it would be in your home. Everything else WOULD be a variable. I am sorry I do not think I get you on this matter.

IMHO, a DBT/ABX seems to be useful in determining if A sounds like B. Whether or not it will sound good in your room is a whole different story (Kind of like THX certified gear). But just because it doesn't help the consumer in deciding what to get doesn't mean it's a useless test.

If it were than do you consider all other products that were tested with a DBT to be useless? Not every patient is part of the same population the pharmaceutical company used for its DBT but it does make me feel comfortable knowing that population didn't have that many side effects

Hang on... you were saying that the most important thing is what the equipment sounds like in your own home. But here you are saying that all you need is to listen in a store and that is all the proof you need? 

 

Which is it?

 

I can see you don't quite get it yet. The point of the ABX test is not to help you decide if you will like Unit A when you get it home, or to help you decide how it will interact with your speakers or your room etc. The sole purpose is to tell you if Unit A sounds different to Unit B. That's it.

 

Why does that matter?  Well, if you can't hear a difference between A and B, then clearly A can't sound better than B or vice-versa. And if A costs $10,000 and B costs $700, then that is also pretty useful information. If the test proves that A and B sound the same, then they will also sound the same when you get them home. If they don't, then it is other factors that are causing the difference - eg the room or the speakers.

My point was a general one and not specific to your experiences.
Unless you remove variables as in controlled testing, I can't see how you can reach an objective conclusion. Just the act of changing a component can sometimes lead to a perceived differences when none exist. The human element is the toughest to quantify in this mess we call audio.

Moving a speaker a few inches can actually make more difference than Yamaha vs Denon should, when operating within their limitations.

However, if you measure signal in vs signal out of receiver A vs receiver B, you'll often find there is nothing audible to differentiate, so how does one all of a sudden become "bright"? That's why the only real way to answer that is as I said.... eliminate the variables to isolate the reason.

I've read more reviews than I care to to even estimate over the years and other than some speaker reviews, they're pretty much "fill in the blanks" cookie cutter stuff, and when you get down to the lowest common denominator the differences they perceive are slight at best, and measurements tend to support that. Another anomily is how frequently they tend to echo or support manufacturer sales jargon, and how many of them do that.

I don't "flaunt" these tests so much as saying they're the most objective way to reach non-subjective evaluations.

I definitely have considered results of various tests to influence my purchase decisions, not specific to brands, rather to help determine value/performance points. Over the last ten years or so my focus has been on room/speaker interaction & EQ because that's where I've found the most tangible results.

If the receivers were level matched (which they definitely are not) and they used the same speakers, then a good test could be done in a store, right? Well, minus the fact that you will certainly see the receivers being tested, that is.

That's an unusual store that will go to the extent of level matching for a comparison of avrs or amps (or speakers).

 

No I don't think so. The single most important component in an audio system, and the one that has the most influence on the SQ, is the room, agreed?  With the speakers a close second. I have yet to see a store environment that even comes close to a good, well-treated, well-designed, properly set up room. Even the 'high end' demo rooms I have been in have all been far from ideal.

 

Second, to level match the units requires someone to stick a voltmeter across the output terminals and measure and adjust for an accuracy of at least 0.5dB and preferably 0.1dB. Can you imagine many stores going to this trouble?

 

And of course, as you say, if the test is sighted then it is also not valid.

 

Finally, the store will have a salesperson and his or her job is to sell you something - the more expensive the better - so he or she could very easily influence the outcome of the test by subconsciously biasing you towards the unit they want to sell you.

 

A good way (but not the only way) to spot when a salesperson is trying to influence your choice is when they tell you in advance what to listen for. Eg, they will say something like "Now, on this unit, hear how much more defined the treble is and how it results in better imaging....". If they ever say anything like that, walk away - you have just been biased. Another favourite ploy is for them to say something like "The real audiophile listeners here all prefer this unit, because <insert any reason you like>..." . This is just a way of trying to make you think your own ears are substandard and to subconsciously bias you into thinking "well if the experts think this, then it must be so - I will listen out for that in the test....".

 

So unusual that in decades of being into this hobby, I have never once encountered it. Almost all the demo rooms I have been in have been poor from an acoustic POV. A demo I had of some very expensive speakers a couple of years ago started with the salesman 'setting the levels' of the channels of an equally expensive AVR. He did this by playing the test tones and adjusting them by ear until he said "yes, that sounds about right". This store hadn't even invested in a 30 dollar SPL meter, let alone anything more sophisticated.

 

But the really big problem with in-store demos is that there is a salesperson. His or her job is to sell you something, preferably something expensive. Regardless of whatever they say about "looking for the long term customer, the repeat business, not a quick sale" they are ALL looking for sales. No sales = no job for a salesman.  I have been in sales professionally and I have trained sales people. The aim is to get them to influence your choice but in a way that made you think the final decision was yours not theirs. But if they are worth their salt, it is always theirs. I know of dozens of ways to subsconsciously bias you and to influence you, no matter how impervious you may believe you are to a sales pitch (everyone believes that BTW - if it were true, no salesman would ever sell anything!). I enjoy being on the receiving end when I go into a store which has good sales people :)

Yes, but if you level matched the amps and listened in the same room, same speakers, etc., then you should not hear any difference between them, right? This does not mean the way they sound in that room is the way they will sound in your room - but they would both sound equally bad if the room you listened to them in was acoustically poor, right?

As it was said, the salesman will attempt to influence you (and will be successful if he is not a terrible salesman), which will invalidate the test anyway...not sure where I was going with this, must be my old age setting in.

Yes, the rooms will be a constant even if they are equally bad. If they are really bad, then the distortions they create would mask any small differences that there might have been between the units under test anyway, so the test would still be invalid. The test needs to be carried out under properly controlled conditions. If, for example, the noise floor in the stoor was 70dB, that would make it impossible to conduct a useful test, even if the other circumstances were favourable.

Interesting quote...

 

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-1/60030#post_23004385