or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › 2 Channel Audio › Harmon Kardon 3490 vs Onkyo 8050
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Harmon Kardon 3490 vs Onkyo 8050

post #1 of 127
Thread Starter 
hey folks,thinking of upgrading my home 2 channel setup.as of now i have a Technics SA EX140 receiver i bought new back in the mid 90's with a Technics 5 disc cd player.speakers are Cerwin Vega LS-8's.this system has performed flawlessly over the years with no problems.i dont want to go the AVR route because surround isnt that important for me anyways.ive always been a HK fan,and the 3490 has the optical digital input that i want for my LG lcd.these 2 receivers have basically the same features for approximately the same price,so im at a crossroads as to which one to purchase.im not into the networking thing,so that doesnt matter to me neither.has anyone had any experience with either?i have read many reviews and there pretty well the same for both.any help or info would be appreciated.thanks.
post #2 of 127
The HK 3490 is a fantastic 2-channel receiver with plenty of power and the onboard DAC is a huge plus for iTunes and computer-based audio. However, an AVR might not be a bad way to go since you will get bass management. Neither the 8050 or the 3490 offer this feature.
post #3 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigcam406 View Post

hey folks,thinking of upgrading my home 2 channel setup.as of now i have a Technics SA EX140 receiver i bought new back in the mid 90's with a Technics 5 disc cd player.speakers are Cerwin Vega LS-8's.this system has performed flawlessly over the years with no problems.i dont want to go the AVR route because surround isnt that important for me anyways.ive always been a HK fan,and the 3490 has the optical digital input that i want for my LG lcd.these 2 receivers have basically the same features for approximately the same price,so im at a crossroads as to which one to purchase.im not into the networking thing,so that doesnt matter to me neither.has anyone had any experience with either?i have read many reviews and there pretty well the same for both.any help or info would be appreciated.thanks.

AVRs as a rule do a wonderful job in 2.0 and 2.1 channel systems. It seems counter intuitive that they generally represent a better value.

Besides the good bass management, as a rule AVRs come with automated system optimization facilities such as Audyssey, YPAO, or MCACC.
post #4 of 127
Having gone through this same process late last year and listening to my set up for a few months now I would definitely go with something that has bass management. I'm running a Marantz SR4023. My living room layout is not very friendly. I started a thread similar to yours and did not heed some advice from Arny and few others. Do some research on past threads
post #5 of 127
Thread Starter 
i have done alot of searching,from various threads,reviews,articles etc.from my point of view,and its only mine,it just seems the home audio market is overloaded with these AVR's.i have read so many reviews on certain products,and i understand why people love them so much.but i dont need all the bells and whistles for a 2 channel audio.i looked at the previously mentioned Marantz,and while its a great receiver,it doesnt have a digital input that im looking for.anyways,thanks for the replies,i do appreciate your opinions.
post #6 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigcam406 View Post

i have done alot of searching,from various threads,reviews,articles etc.from my point of view,and its only mine,it just seems the home audio market is overloaded with these AVR's.i have read so many reviews on certain products,and i understand why people love them so much.but i dont need all the bells and whistles for a 2 channel audio.i looked at the previously mentioned Marantz,and while its a great receiver,it doesnt have a digital input that im looking for.anyways,thanks for the replies,i do appreciate your opinions.

The features I mentioned such as good bass management, and automated system optimization facilities such as Audyssey, YPAO, or MCACC aren't bells-and-whistles to a serious audiophile. They may seem scary to a traditionalist.

Struggling to find a 2 channel receiver with digital inputs makes no sense when as you point out, the market is overloaded with good AVRs that have them.
post #7 of 127
I have the HK3490 and this receiver is outstanding. I had it connected to my Samsung 51 " Plasma Tv via optical fiber with Comcast and a Sony BP580 blu-ray player with very good results. I had many Floor standing speaker connected with the latest speakers being Polk RTiA5's. What's really good about the HK3490 is the good clean power this receiver puts out. I also have a Yamaha RX-V673 with bass managment and YPAO and that's all great if your connecting a 3.1 or more speaker system but you don't need all that crap for good 2 channel music or even 2.1 channel. I play alot of Music video DVD's and music on CD's and all of it sounds much better on the HK3490 receiver then on the Yamaha RX-V673. I had the Polk's Bi-wired and they were simply awesome sounding with the HK3490. In my paticular room i didn't even need a sub with them when connected to the HK3490. The HK3490 has the simple old school seperate Bass and treble adjustment's and these work fine in tuning the sound from your speakers. It doesn't get much easier then that. Of coarse the HK3490 is not as good as the latest AV receivers if your into 3.1,5.1,6.1 or 7.1 surround sound or watching movies. That is where a receiver like my Yamaha RX-V673 shines and is now why i am using it in my living room. I watch alot of movie's as well as listen to music so the HK3490 just wasn't giving me the surround sound seperation that i was looking for. It was a hard decision to give up my HK3490 for the Yamaha RX-V673 in place of it but i had to do it because of the 5.1 speaker set up i went with. Don't get me wrong. The music sounds good with the Yamaha RX-V673 connected, It simply just doesn't sound as good as when i had the HK3490 receiver connected. You can run 4 tower speakers at the same time in the same room or choose another room with the 2nd set of speakers with the HK3490. It has plenty of power to do so. I think the Harman / Kardon has superior amps for listening to 2 channel music or 2.1 then a AV receiver.
post #8 of 127
Thread Starter 
thanks for the replies.i mostly listen to music or watch concert dvds,so clean sound is what im after.from what ive read on the 3490's specs,it'll suit my needs perfectly.
post #9 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKSKYDANCER View Post

I have the HK3490 and this receiver is outstanding. I had it connected to my Samsung 51 " Plasma Tv via optical fiber with Comcast and a Sony BP580 blu-ray player with very good results. I had many Floor standing speaker connected with the latest speakers being Polk RTiA5's. What's really good about the HK3490 is the good clean power this receiver puts out. I also have a Yamaha RX-V673 with bass managment and YPAO and that's all great if your connecting a 3.1 or more speaker system but you don't need all that crap for good 2 channel music or even 2.1 channel.

Your characterization of important features that can dramatically improve sound quality as "crap" suggests a serious lack of understanding of their benefits.

It is also incorrect to believe that a certain specific receiver has some unique extraordinary level of sonic purity.
Quote:
I play alot of Music video DVD's and music on CD's and all of it sounds much better on the HK3490 receiver then on the Yamaha RX-V673.

Given the misunderstandings that we see about more modern technology, it is easy to see how prejudice can be an explanation for those perceptions of superiority.
Quote:
I had the Polk's Bi-wired

It is well known that bi-wiring generally has no audible benefits for which a technical explanation can exist.
Quote:
The HK3490 has the simple old school separate Bass and treble adjustment's and these work fine in tuning the sound from your speakers. It doesn't get much easier then that.

Using only simple bass and treble controls as the sole means for tuning system sound is very old-school and is now obsolete. Even when bass and treble controls were all that audiophiles were provided with, audio professionals were using far more comprehensive tools to obtain better sound quality. What modern AVRs provide is tools that are more consistent with the best that is currently available, not "crap".
Quote:
Of coarse the HK3490 is not as good as the latest AV receivers if your into 3.1,5.1,6.1 or 7.1 surround sound or watching movies.

From a technical standpoint and also in the opinion of many more adaptable and open-minded audiophiles, the latest AVRs are usually the better choice for even just 2.0 and 2.1 playback of both movies and music.

I have before me a service manual for the 3490 including detailed schematic and also the results of the Audioholics technical tests of it. It seems to be a fine, if somewhat dated product.
post #10 of 127
Thread Starter 
all due respect and i respect everyones opinion,i didnt post my question to cause any arguments,as we all have different views on these things.today,i did a listening comparison at a store that a had a HK 3490,and a Yamaha RX673,same speakers (Polk towers,dont know what model),same cd,and there was a noticeable difference in the clarity of the cd.i asked the salesperson to try different modes on the avr,and it still didnt sound as good as the HK.but,getting back to my original question,what about the Onkyo?anyone have experience with that model?
post #11 of 127
The Onkyo has networking and the USB port (for hard disk or jump drive). It doesn't offer any improvement regarding SQ.
post #12 of 127
Arnyk, Your characterization that Bass management,YPAO and Audyssey in a AVR receiver will dramatically improve sound quality over a good 2 channel receiver with simple bass and treble controls is a bigger serious lack of understanding of their benifits. I have a HK3490 receiver and Yamaha RX-V673 AVR receiver side by side in the same room with the same speakers for true side by side comparision. The HK3490 produces noticeably better sounding music then the Yamaha AVR receiver in 2 channel playback. Ear's don't lie! The bass management and YPAO did absolutely nothing in helping the Yamaha AVR receiver in sounding better or even come close to the HK3490. What are you basing your Quote on? Reading service manuals? looking at test results from Audioholic technical test? reading content online? Do you even own a HK3490 so you can give a honest opnion on this receiver? Your quote that a AVR receiver with the new modern technology will dramatically improve sound quality over a good 2 channel receiver with bass and treble controls is simply not true and at best "MISLEADING". I do have great understanding of these so called (as you refer to) important features on the new modern AVR receivers and i rely on them greatly when setting up my 5.1 system. This is where the AVR receiver has a clear advantage because this is what it was designed to do.
Quote:
QUOTE]Your characterization of important features that can dramatically improve sound quality as "crap" suggests a serious lack of understanding of their benefits

No 2 receivers produce the same sound. YES a specific receiver can produce better sound and clearity then another due to the fact it has superior amps and circuitry or sound modes
Quote:
It is also incorrect to believe that a certain specific receiver has some unique extraordinary level of sonic purity.


There is no merit to this Quote, this is simply just your opinion. Modern technolgy has it's place. It's just not helping here.
Quote:
Given the misunderstandings that we see about more modern technology, it is easy to see how prejudice can be an explanation for those perceptions of superiority.


I called Polk audio on what they thought about Bi-wiring there speakers. There response was " yes" Bi-wire speakers if all possible, let your ears be the judge. I say who cares if there is or is not a technical explanation that exist. My experience with this is out of the 3 different speakers i bi-wired i clearly hear a difference in the Polk RTiA5 but did not in the Energy or Klipsch that i tried.
Quote:
It is well known that bi-wiring generally has no audible benefits for which a technical explanation can exist.

Tell Harman / Kardon or any other manufacture that produces high power 2 channel receivers this! Even my NEW Yamaha RX-V673 AVR receiver has bass and treble controls. This is not obsolete by any means. Again, the so called tools you refer to on modern AVR receivers absolutely do nothing in improving sound quality over a 2 channel receiver in 2 channel playback.
Quote:
Using only simple bass and treble controls as the sole means for tuning system sound is very old-school and is now obsolete. Even when bass and treble controls were all that audiophiles were provided with, audio professionals were using far more comprehensive tools to obtain better sound quality. What modern AVRs provide is tools that are more consistent with the best that is currently available, not "crap".


Who cares about a technical standpoint. The best tool a person has in judging sound quality is there ears! You can read all the service manuals, online content,spec sheets or Audioholics technical test you want. This does not proof a modern AVR receiver will dramatically improve sound quality over a good 2 channel receiver in 2.0 playback.
Quote:
From a technical standpoint and also in the opinion of many more adaptable and open-minded audiophiles, the latest AVRs are usually the better choice for even just 2.0 and 2.1 playback of both movies and music.

This HK3490 is not a dated product and it does what it's designed to do better then a modern technology AVR receiver. That is to play 2 channel music with clean outstanding sound.
Quote:
I have before me a service manual for the 3490 including detailed schematic and also the results of the Audioholics technical tests of it. It seems to be a fine, if somewhat dated product
.


Bottom line:
Bigcam406 did the smart thing and that was to go compare a AVR new modern receiver to the HK3490 side by side to see which was one sounds better. You can read his post above for his results. It speak for itself.

Sorry Bigcam406, I know you didn't post this thread to start any arguments but i needed to respond to this charactor ARNYK that seems to think he knows more then most and decided to tear apart my opinion. Trust me the HK3490 is a excellent receiver if 2 channel palyback is what you are looking for. It produces good clean sound with ease of use for a receiver in this price range.
Edited by RKSKYDANCER - 1/22/13 at 8:18pm
post #13 of 127
Thread Starter 
no need to apologize.i figured i'd go compare the 2 myself to answer my own question.and i wasnt surprised.im not knocking avr's,i think the technology is great for that purpose.but for just a 2 channel audio system that is used for music,i personally see no reason for myself purchasing one when these features arnt needed,and the sound quality is compromised.
post #14 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKSKYDANCER View Post

Arnyk, Your characterization that Bass management,YPAO and Audyssey in a AVR receiver will dramatically improve sound quality over a good 2 channel receiver with simple bass and treble controls is a bigger serious lack of understanding of their benifits.

Yes, I said that.
Quote:
I have a HK3490 receiver and Yamaha RX-V673 AVR receiver side by side in the same room with the same speakers for true side by side comparision.

Until you fully exploit the benefits of the RX-V673's advantages and do a rapidly-switched, level-matched, double blind comparison, all you are doing is reporting your biases.
Quote:
The HK3490 produces noticeably better sounding music then the Yamaha AVR receiver in 2 channel playback.

I remain unconvinced that you did a proper comparison.
Quote:
Ear's don't lie!

This isn't about lying, its about finding out a global truth that is worth posting in a large public forum such as AVS.
Quote:
The bass management and YPAO did absolutely nothing in helping the Yamaha AVR receiver in sounding better or even come close to the HK3490.

For all I know at this point, neither feature was involved in your comparison. You haven't said anything about what you actually did, which speakers, what room, what music, etc. And those are just the serious flaws in your reporting of the sighted and therefore inherently flawed comparison that you did do!

Quote:
What are you basing your Quote on?

General audio knowledge, study of available reference materials, and over 50 years of experience as an engineer and audiophile.
Quote:
Reading service manuals? looking at test results from Audioholic technical test? reading content online?

All of those. Plus a big chunk of experience that you seem to lack, and that is the ability of sighted, unmatched, slow-switched comparisons to tell people exactly what they want to hear.
Quote:
Do you even own a HK3490 so you can give a honest opinion on this receiver?

You seem to think that the HK3490 is the one receivers of thousands that magically changes music from mere recordings well-reproduced by a sonically accurate amplifier into a magical experience.
Quote:
Your quote that a AVR receiver with the new modern technology will dramatically improve sound quality over a good 2 channel receiver with bass and treble controls is simply not true and at best "MISLEADING".

Yup, I said that and I stick by it. I'd be a fool to think that some simple bass and treble controls can adapt an AVR to the rest of a system as well as Audessy and it all of the power that it brings to the table.
Quote:
I do have great understanding of these so called (as you refer to) important features on the new modern AVR receivers and i rely on them greatly when setting up my 5.1 system. This is where the AVR receiver has a clear advantage because this is what it was designed to do.

They why do you appear to be so thoroughly stuck in denial?
Quote:
Quote:
QUOTE]Your characterization of important features that can dramatically improve sound quality as "crap" suggests a serious lack of understanding of their benefits

OK, even after having the issues explained to you, you appear to still be stuck in denial.
Quote:
No 2 receivers produce the same sound.

I can make it happen at will. If this were the real world and not an online audio forum I could set up a proper level-matched, quick-switched, double blind comparison and leave you either totally convinced or blubbering like a little child! ;-)
Quote:
YES a specific receiver can produce better sound and clearity then another due to the fact it has superior amps and circuitry or sound modes

That would an assertion that is generally easy to disprove. I've done my homework and I know what happens. Tell us about how you have done your homework with relevant level-matched, quick-switched, double blind comparisons!
Quote:
It is also incorrect to believe that a certain specific receiver has some unique extraordinary level of sonic purity.

I'll stick to that, based on decades of theoretical and practical experience. Have you been secretly doing amplifier DBTs that you are still keeping secret? Have you decades of experience designing, bulding, and testing amplifier that you are still keeping secret?
Quote:
There is no merit to this Quote, this is simply just your opinion.

No, it is a highly informed opinion that is well-supported by the experiences of many others such as Ethan Wiener, David Clark, Tom Nousaine, Earl Geddes, etc., etc. Are you secretly an AES Fellow? Are you secretly the author of dozens of articles and even influential books about audio. How many 100,000's of prepackaged high quality audio systems costing more than $1,000 have you designed and then seen sold?
Quote:
Modern technolgy has it's place. It's just not helping here.

So far you have said nothing that makes your opinion in this matter have any general applicability at all.
Quote:
Quote:
Given the misunderstandings that we see about more modern technology, it is easy to see how prejudice can be an explanation for those perceptions of superiority.

I called Polk audio on what they thought about Bi-wiring there speakers. There response was " yes" Bi-wire speakers if all possible, let your ears be the judge. I say who cares if there is or is not a technical explanation that exist. My experience with this is out of the 3 different speakers i bi-wired i clearly hear a difference in the Polk RTiA5 but did not in the Energy or Klipsch that i tried.
Quote:
It is well known that bi-wiring generally has no audible benefits for which a technical explanation can exist.

I don't care what some nameless customer support person at Polk says in this matter. They have speakers to sell and customer to cater to. I care about what science says in the matter!
Quote:
Tell Harman / Kardon or any other manufacture that produces high power 2 channel receivers this!

Harman Kardon is part of Harman International whose top research people believe that all good amplifiers sound the same and that biwiring is black magic.
Quote:
Even my NEW Yamaha RX-V673 AVR receiver has bass and treble controls. This is not obsolete by any means. Again, the so called tools you refer to on modern AVR receivers absolutely do nothing in improving sound quality over a 2 channel receiver in 2 channel playback.

I never said that bass and treble controls are obsolete. What I said is that they are not to be compared with the far more adaptable and comprehensive facilities such as Audyssey and YPAO.
Quote:
Quote:
Using only simple bass and treble controls as the sole means for tuning system sound is very old-school and is now obsolete. Even when bass and treble controls were all that audiophiles were provided with, audio professionals were using far more comprehensive tools to obtain better sound quality. What modern AVRs provide is tools that are more consistent with the best that is currently available, not "crap".

Who cares about a technical standpoint.

Thank you for admitting that you've got a serious problem with getting yourself up to speed with modern technology.
Quote:
The best tool a person has in judging sound quality is there ears!

I'm sure that you will believe that to your dying day. I'm also sure that most audiophiles and technical experts will not throw away their calibrated microphones and acoustic measurement facilities on your say-so! ;-)

Have a nice day!
post #15 of 127
Quote:
im not knocking avr's,i think the technology is great for that purpose.but for just a 2 channel audio system that is used for music,i personally see no reason for myself purchasing one when these features arnt needed,and the sound quality is compromised.
But the sound quality isn't compromised. If anything, those extra features you think you don't need provide the opportunity to achieve even better sound quality than a traditional two-channel amp can give you.

Of course, if you go into a comparison thinking that the two-channel system is going to sound better, then that is what you are going to hear. But you are only fooling yourself.
post #16 of 127
"Ear's don't lie!"

I should make that my new signature! biggrin.gif
post #17 of 127
Thread Starter 
"sigh" i spent almost an hour with a well informed sales rep(and he knew his stuff),wasnt a pimpled face high school kid who works part time,and we discussed my needs, the pro's and cons of avr's and 2 channel receivers.he first used the cd on the Yamaha and we spent approx 30 mins going over all the different modes,settings etc,and while it did sound nice in 2 channel mode,when compared to the HK,there was a difference in sound quality.same speakers,same cd.even he commented on the difference,subtle,but there was a difference.as far as im concerned,for MY needs,the HK does the job.2 pairs of ears didnt lie.:)i didnt expect my simple question to cause so much stir in such a well respected forum.my apologies.
post #18 of 127
Quote:
"sigh" i spent almost an hour with a well informed sales rep(and he knew his stuff),wasnt a pimpled face high school kid who works part time,and we discussed my needs, the pro's and cons of avr's and 2 channel receivers.he first used the cd on the Yamaha and we spent approx 30 mins going over all the different modes,settings etc,and while it did sound nice in 2 channel mode,when compared to the HK,there was a difference in sound quality.same speakers,same cd.even he commented on the difference,subtle,but there was a difference.as far as im concerned,for MY needs,the HK does the job.2 pairs of ears didnt lie.:)i didnt expect my simple question to cause so much stir in such a well respected forum.my apologies.
Good heavens you don't have to apologize. We all live for these pissing matches!

Do you want us to tell you how you got skunked?
post #19 of 127
Thread Starter 
skunked? i dont think so,as i havnt purchased anything as of yet.
post #20 of 127
I'd recommend you ignore the naysayers and go with the HK3490. When people have to resort to baiting you, they've moved past helpful to overbearing.

I have an HK3490 in one of my secondary systems, and it works just fine. I'm using it as a 2.1 setup with an active sub that has variable crossover, gain, and phase controls, so bass management is a nonissue, and I can produce the FuzzMeasure Pro data to prove it.

If you're not using a sub, then it's even simpler. You wouldn't use bass management if you had it.

Audyssey and other auto-calibration methods can be of benefit, and they can also take something simple and hopelessly mess it up. I've heard some systems that were vastly improved this way, some that didn't change much at all, and some that were both subjectively and measurably worse afterward. Someone will invoke "user error," but rest assured that if two or three competent people try it on the same system in the same room out of a firm belief that they can get it right even if their counterparts cannot and it still fails, then it's time to accept that sometimes it makes things worse. I had one of these auto-cal systems insist that my mains were small and my surrounds were large and that I had no center. rolleyes.gif

At the same time, I still believe calibration can be useful when it's needed to correct a problem or tune a system in a particular application (and when it works as intended), but most of the time it's superfluous and sometimes harmful. Talk about the placebo effect. When folks run one of these auto-cal routines, they believe it sounds better because they ran the routine. Well, it probably sounds different, but not necessarily better. I don't know many folks who'd take the time to measure the response afterward; they just believe...

In your case as in my case with my 2.1 set up, KISS applies. Keep it simple. Get the HK4390, plug in your gear and enjoy.
post #21 of 127
Thread Starter 
first of all,thanks for the reply..when i went and did the comparison,i brought my own cd(The Wall-Pink Floyd),and we played the same song(Mother) when we did the sound comparisons.i have read lots on the new avr's self tuning capabilities,and ive read that it doesnt always work properly.i have my own preferences,and i dont think a self calculating electronic device will feed that need when it comes to how i want to hear something.numerous threads ive read stated that after calculating the sound for a room,the owner usually goes back and manually changes it to how he or she likes to hear it.mind you,everyone is different,and tastes differ,but for MY liking and wants,a simple 2 channel audio receiver cuts it.hence, is why i asked a simple question in the first place.unfortunately,only a few responses helped,yours included.im a firm believer in the KISS method,and i also am a big believer in just because its new,doesnt mean its better.
post #22 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Quote:
"sigh" i spent almost an hour with a well informed sales rep(and he knew his stuff),wasnt a pimpled face high school kid who works part time,and we discussed my needs, the pro's and cons of avr's and 2 channel receivers.he first used the cd on the Yamaha and we spent approx 30 mins going over all the different modes,settings etc,and while it did sound nice in 2 channel mode,when compared to the HK,there was a difference in sound quality.same speakers,same cd.even he commented on the difference,subtle,but there was a difference.as far as im concerned,for MY needs,the HK does the job.2 pairs of ears didnt lie.:)i didnt expect my simple question to cause so much stir in such a well respected forum.my apologies.
Good heavens you don't have to apologize. We all live for these pissing matches!

Do you want us to tell you how you got skunked?

I think he told us - a good salesman and a sighted evaluation. Guaranteed to convince a true believer every time! ;-)
post #23 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

"Ear's don't lie!"

I should make that my new signature! biggrin.gif

Trouble is, it is a lie. Of course the problem isn't the ears, the problem is the brain that the ears are attached to. And what they do isn't really lying, because lying implies knowing the truth and saying something else. In fact the brain usually is just suffering from a lack of reliable information, so it makes up the information we want and tells it to us.
post #24 of 127
Quote:
In fact the brain usually is just suffering from a lack of reliable information, so it makes up the information we want and tells it to us.
Uh, no. The real problem is that the brain has lots of information, but most of that information doesn't come from the ears. And all the other information trumps whatever signals your ears are sending to your brain.

If your eyes say that two amps are different, and your ears say they're the same, the eyes have it.
post #25 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Quote:
In fact the brain usually is just suffering from a lack of reliable information, so it makes up the information we want and tells it to us.
Uh, no.

Ah, yes. You have to follow the logic. ;-)

I will explain it all below.
Quote:
The real problem is that the brain has lots of information, but most of that information doesn't come from the ears. And all the other information trumps whatever signals your ears are sending to your brain.

IOW, the brain is suffering from a lack of reliable information. The information itself may be generally reliable but it is not reliable information about sound quality of the equipment being listened to.
Quote:
If your eyes say that two amps are different, and your ears say they're the same, the eyes have it.

Exactly!
post #26 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Trouble is, it is a lie. Of course the problem isn't the ears, the problem is the brain that the ears are attached to. And what they do isn't really lying, because lying implies knowing the truth and saying something else. In fact the brain usually is just suffering from a lack of reliable information, so it makes up the information we want and tells it to us.

You really, really need to work on your sarcasm/irony detector. It's completely broken. This isn't the first time I've made an obviously tongue-in-cheek comment, only to get an completely unecessary reply from you.
post #27 of 127
Quote:
You really, really need to work on your sarcasm/irony detector. It's completely broken. This isn't the first time I've made an obviously tongue-in-cheek comment, only to get an completely unecessary reply from you.
You really, really need to learn that irony doesn't work on the Web. smile.gif
post #28 of 127
I thought the extra apostrophe in the quote would be a dead giveaway! biggrin.gif
post #29 of 127
Thread Starter 
boy,am i ever regretting asking a simple question:rolleyes:
post #30 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigcam406 View Post

boy,am i ever regretting asking a simple question:rolleyes:

I'm seriously regretting trying to help you because you argue from prejudice audiophile myth against every decent suggestion I make. Your mind appears to have been made up 100% before you made the OP. :-(
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 2 Channel Audio
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › 2 Channel Audio › Harmon Kardon 3490 vs Onkyo 8050