or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Reciever vs. Seperates
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Reciever vs. Seperates - Page 7  

post #181 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

Making an extraordinary claim that all amps sound the same requires extraordinary evidence and the testing of a handful of amplifiers isn't extraordinary proof.

So that you don't go around with the wrong impression, we don't say all amplifiers sound the same because they don't. What we say is that modern Hifi solid state amplifiers sound the same when compared using properly administered bias controlled listening tests.

 

+1. Another unsupported, and incorrect, claim in that post.

post #182 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post


I agree. I have heard differences between amps at moderate volume. 99% of the time they sound basically the same, but there are a few passages where I heard a minor detail more clearly with one amp as opposed to another.

So tell us about your time-synched, level-matched, quick-switched when you wanted it, bias controlled test. What sort of a switchbox did you use, for example? How many trials?
Quote:
People read about Richard Clark amp tests and conclude that he proved all amps sounded the same. It's not true. His tests were intended to show that there aren't huge differences between amps and he was trying to disprove claims made by manufacturers. His intention was never to show all amps sound exactly the same.

Are you pretending that Richard Clark is the only guy who ever did blind audio equipment tests?

What about these?

Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?" Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)
Greenhill, L. L. and Clark, D. L., "Equipment Profile", Audio, (April 1985)
Masters, I. G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp. 78-84 (January 1987)
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "The Audibility of Distortion", Stereo Review, pp.72-78 (January 1989)
Meyer, E. Brad, "The Amp-Speaker Interface (Tube vs. solid-state)", Stereo Review, pp.53-56 (June 1991)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Wired Wisdom: The Great Chicago Cable Caper", Sound and Vision, Vol. 11 No. 3 (1995)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Flying Blind: The Case Against Long Term Testing", Audio, pp. 26-30, Vol. 81 No. 3 (March 1997)
Nousaine, Thomas, "Can You Trust Your Ears?", Stereo Review, pp. 53-55, Vol. 62 No. 8 (August 1997)
Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?", Stereo Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988)
Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the Difference?", Stereo Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990)
Shanefield, Daniel, "The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double-Blind Tests", High Fidelity, March 1980, pp. 57-61
Spiegel, D., "A Defense of Switchbox Testing", Boston Audio Society Speaker, Vol. 7 no. 9 (June 1979)
Toole, Floyd E., "Listening Tests - Turning Opinion Into Fact", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 6, June 1982, pp. 431-445.
Toole, Floyd E., "The Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality & Listener Performance", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 Jan/Feb)
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Tests, and Other Interesting Things", 97th AES Convention (San Francisco, Nov. 10-13, 1994), [3893 (H-5], 20 pages.

Just to name a few!
post #183 of 334
IMO people hear a difference in separates versus a good AVR is because they play it louder do to more power loud in most cases is perceived as better.
They tend to run their mains (LARGE) full range there again requires more power than if crossed over to a sub and let it do the job better.
The speakers they choose are low sensitivity and low impedance although a few Flagship AVR's can still handle that although some model speakers will require massive amps to get the job done and at some point those same speakers will just stop getting louder no matter how many watts you throw at them ( Maggies).
Sometimes the visual appeal of seeing the equipment tends to bias the individual on sound along with brand and model recognition.
I still want someone to show me the magical circuit in these units that opens up the sound and improves the singers voices along with adding deeper bass and I have looked at a lot of schematics and circuit design in the last 40+ years.
post #184 of 334
I've had a number of dedicated prepros and I've also used a number of AVRs as prepros with external amps. I have to say when run in Direct or Pure the differences are minimal if non existent. I'm currently using a Denon 4311 as a prepro and I think it sounds excellent. As oztech asked I would also like to know what is "the magical circuit in these units that opens up the sound". I've asked many times if anyone could honestly tell the difference between the Onkyo 5009 AVR (as a prepro) and the 5509. If one believes a dedicated prepro will always sound better try comparing these two to prove ones theory wink.gif.

Bill
post #185 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post

I agree. I have heard differences between amps at moderate volume. 99% of the time they sound basically the same, but there are a few passages where I heard a minor detail more clearly with one amp as opposed to another.

People read about Richard Clark amp tests and conclude that he proved all amps sounded the same. It's not true. His tests were intended to show that there aren't huge differences between amps and he was trying to disprove claims made by manufacturers. His intention was never to show all amps sound exactly the same.

It's very arrogant when people hear a very small subset of amplifiers and can't hear a difference with their ears and conclude, based on that, that all amps sound the same. And if you question them, they say it's all in your head. If you point out a test that shows that people could hear a difference, they nit pick the test and say the test wasn't done correctly because of some technicality that common sense would dictate has no effect on the result or the level of proof required is completely unreasonable. Making an extraordinary claim that all amps sound the same requires extraordinary evidence and the testing of a handful of amplifiers isn't extraordinary proof.

I'm not aware of ANYONE that makes the claim that you're assuaging: "if I don't hear a difference than no one does".

That is completely absurd and another internet strawman argument.

What IS contended by many is that in controlled test after controlled test we find that humans are unable to distinguish one properly operating solid state amplifier from another so long as they are operating within their limits.

As for Richard Clark...please cite a reference for his "intentions" as I have always (apparently, naively so) believed his intentions were to prove there were NO sonic differences between properly operating SS amplifiers...so much so that he put up thousands of dollars for anyone who could discern between two in an ABX. It would seem to me that he would have been out millions of dollars if people could reliably discern even SMALL differences between amps. No one ever could or did, that I'm aware.

But of course that's all completely immaterial here anyway.

James
post #186 of 334
I have owned many separates. I now own all avrs, with built in amps. There is a difference in prepros and avrs sound quality. A good prepro and amp sound better to my ears, and everyone I know.YMMV.
post #187 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmo C View Post

I have owned many separates. I now own all avrs, with built in amps. There is a difference in prepros and avrs sound quality. A good prepro and amp sound better to my ears, and everyone I know.YMMV.

 

Yes, people usually do hear differences. When they know which unit is playing, they often hear differences for example. They also hear differences when the units haven't been level-matched to +/- 0.5dB. And they hear differences when they can't instantaneously switch between one unit and another. These are real differences they are hearing. Problem is, the differences aren't between one amp and another - they are differences caused by their flawed 'test' procedures. When you remove the flaws in their test procedure, guess what?  They can't differentiate any more...

 

If you open up my Onkyo 5509 prepro and the Onkyo 5009 AVR, other than the absence of amps, they appear to be identical. So what would make you think that one would sound any different to the other anyway?  Bringing preamps into the discussion is muddying the waters really, because, by definition almost, preamps are designed to change the signal thanks to their DSPs, room correction etc etc. It's amplifiers that don't have a 'sound' of their own.

 

Thinking about it another way - am amp should be designed to take the input signal and output it identically other than in amplitude. If the amp was somehow changing the signal on the way through, it would either be not a very good amp, or broken - wouldn't it?

post #188 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

I've had a number of dedicated prepros and I've also used a number of AVRs as prepros with external amps. I have to say when run in Direct or Pure the differences are minimal if non existent. I'm currently using a Denon 4311 as a prepro and I think it sounds excellent. As oztech asked I would also like to know what is "the magical circuit in these units that opens up the sound". I've asked many times if anyone could honestly tell the difference between the Onkyo 5009 AVR (as a prepro) and the 5509. If one believes a dedicated prepro will always sound better try comparing these two to prove ones theory wink.gif.

Bill

 

I agree entirely, Bill. The reason I bought the Onkyo 5509 prepro was because the alternative 5009 AVR didn't have Audyssey Pro capability, which I require. The later model AVR - the 5010, does have Pro capability. So if I was buying today, I would buy the AVR, not the prepro, even though I would only use it as a prepro. The reason: the AVR is cheaper than the prepro, does exactly the same job and I would be getting 9 decent amplifiers for free. Not that I need any more amps but heck, if they are free... at worst they'd make a good backup to my external amps.

post #189 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yes, people usually do hear differences. When they know which unit is playing, they often hear differences for example. They also hear differences when the units haven't been level-matched to +/- 0.5dB. And they hear differences when they can't instantaneously switch between one unit and another. These are real differences they are hearing. Problem is, the differences aren't between one amp and another - they are differences caused by their flawed 'test' procedures. When you remove the flaws in their test procedure, guess what?  They can't differentiate any more...

If you open up my Onkyo 5509 prepro and the Onkyo 5009 AVR, other than the absence of amps, they appear to be identical. So what would make you think that one would sound any different to the other anyway?  Bringing preamps into the discussion is muddying the waters really, because, by definition almost, preamps are designed to change the signal thanks to their DSPs, room correction etc etc. It's amplifiers that don't have a 'sound' of their own.

Thinking about it another way - am amp should be designed to take the input signal and output it identically other than in amplitude. If the amp was somehow changing the signal on the way through, it would either be not a very good amp, or broken - wouldn't it?

I don't know if the two Onkyos would sound different, maybe ,maybe not, those that buy em' should judge for "themselves". I've always had an issue with telling other people what they do and don't hear. I also have no idea why anyone would, but I'm sure there is a reason, regardless of what it may be.I for one think only an uninformed person would buy an avr thinking it sounds like everything else. They should audition and then decide, if they're too lazy for that then they can just settle for "opinion" or "science", Best Regards
post #190 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by urapnes1 View Post


Okay, my only question is why do we see the high-end AVRs incorporating copper cladding/shielding?

Do we?

Here is the guts of Denon's High End AVR-X4000 about $1300



Here is the guts of Denon's cheapo-cheapo d AVRe200 about $249



Where is the claimed difference in shielding?

Here is the $2000 Anthem MRX 700:



Same question.
Quote:
It seems non-existent on the low and mid tier offerings.

It seems non-existent across the board!

The above was not cherry - picked.

I guess I should leave actually proving your point with pictures up to you! I tried, but no cigar!
Quote:
Marketing gimmick? Or is it because noise / interference is still an issue? How possible would it be for a mfg to simply put a fixed non-defeat able filter in the dsp that is specific for noise. It could be that this filter does not function as well as a true shield would but they have to keep to a set price point so they address it through software. Such ideas exist for digital cameras to reduce high ISO noise. There is no proof one way or the other, but it is possible.

If there was a big different in noise, then it would show up on spec sheets.

For the $2000 Anthem:

"S/N Ratio at full power output, IEC-A filter 101 dB"

For the $250 AVR e200

"S/N: 98 dB (IHF–A weighted, DIRECT mode)"

Barely 3 dB difference, and that's with a 10:1 difference in price! Based on other analysis I'd attribute that to a slightly better DAC or perhaps just the difference in rating methods.

Again, I guess I need to leave proving your claims to you, because I'm coming up dry here.
Edited by arnyk - 9/30/13 at 11:27am
post #191 of 334
A 3db difference is in fact a 50% reduction in noise. It's a massive difference.
post #192 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmo C View Post

They should audition and then decide, if they're too lazy for that then they can just settle for "opinion" or "science", Best Regards

Not everyone will be able to reasonably distinguish between evidence and claim, logic and ill-logic, etc., to help them ascertain the likely truth of these matters. For those who can, they will also gain the side benefit of maximizing their time efficiency in building or improving their systems.

For those who cannot, they must rely upon the collective experiences of their relatively random auditioning processes. It will be hit and miss as to how accurate, useful and budget-wise their choices will turn out by following this method, but for some, that's the best they can expect to achieve, I suppose. Only so many can be helped. But at least it's fair. The ultimate responsibility for the path chosen will be their own, right or wrong. Such is life.
post #193 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by coli View Post

A 3db difference is in fact a 50% reduction in noise. It's a massive difference.

 

In one the signal is 101dB different to the noise. In the other it is 98dB difference. When you drop the level of a sound by 98dB, what do you think happens?  My guess would be: inaudibility.

post #194 of 334
smile.gif Going from 0 Vrms noise to 1 fVrms noise at the output of an AVR can be considered an infinite increase in noise, but inaudible either way...
post #195 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by coli View Post

A 3db difference is in fact a 50% reduction in noise. It's a massive difference.

Not at all. While it is a halving of power it is not a 50% reduction - that takes 6 dB.. It takes 10 dB to create the perception of twice as loud. Most of us have AVRs with 0.5 dB steps. crank yours up or down 6 clicks and while it is audible it is not earth-shaking. Since this noise is 100 dB down it is usually not heard in either case. We can clearly see that there is no difference in shielding, so it has to be coming from some place else. I've looked at the schematics and service manuals of dozens of AVRs, and the usual answer is a difference in the quality of the DAC.
post #196 of 334
arnyk it seems it included me in your post about shielding which I never responded to for the reason each mfg does what it thinks or needs to do according to its engineers whether we can actually hear it is another story.
Bottom line the consummer should buy what they want but to make claims on an open forum be prepared to back them up and I was guilty in the past I try and do more research now plus I get to put the money towards things in my system that actually do sound better and make it easier to operate.
My next purchase will probably be an SC-77 since I want to move away from class AB amps since they all act like space heaters although not near as bad as my old class A tube amps of years ago.
post #197 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztech View Post

arnyk it seems it included me in your post about shielding which I never responded to for the reason each mfg does what it thinks or needs to do according to its engineers whether we can actually hear it is another story.
.

That was a clerical error which I just fixed. Sorry for any inconvenience that it caused.
post #198 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Not at all. While it is a halving of power it is not a 50% reduction - that takes 6 dB.. It takes 10 dB to create the perception of twice as loud. Most of us have AVRs with 0.5 dB steps. crank yours up or down 6 clicks and while it is audible it is not earth-shaking. Since this noise is 100 dB down it is usually not heard in either case. We can clearly see that there is no difference in shielding, so it has to be coming from some place else. I've looked at the schematics and service manuals of dozens of AVRs, and the usual answer is a difference in the quality of the DAC.

As usual Arny is bang on ;-)

Dr. Rich has a great analysis of the roles DACs play in the AVRs and found that the volume control implementation was the main source of any issues, including analog signals in pure direct/direct mode. Check out: AVR - Audio Video Receiver - Build Quality You want a reason why DACs might sound different here you go.

Cheers.
post #199 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmo C View Post

I don't know if the two Onkyos would sound different, maybe ,maybe not, those that buy em' should judge for "themselves". I've always had an issue with telling other people what they do and don't hear. I also have no idea why anyone would, but I'm sure there is a reason, regardless of what it may be.I for one think only an uninformed person would buy an avr thinking it sounds like everything else. They should audition and then decide, if they're too lazy for that then they can just settle for "opinion" or "science", Best Regards

The reason is very simple. We believe people should be well informed in building effective audio systems. Common beliefs, supported by the industry and media, tend to distract people from the truth. We think people should know the truth. If they want to ignore it, as you probably do, then you do so with knowledge not from ignorance.
post #200 of 334
In the digital domain the signal is preserved perfectly and there is no room for debate, or talking about things like shielding. You either get 100% of the signal or you get a measurable loss.

This is why I wish we had more digital amps, which seem to have died out after being popular for a brief time. It was the general consensus they consumed less power, were cheaper and sounded just as good as traditional amps costing 3-4x more.

I truly believe full digital signal processing is the way of the future, with the bulk of it in dedicated SoC or pc's. Only at the last possible stage should a DAC be needed to convert to analog to drive a speaker, and that's only because sound waves are analog. But this threatens the way of life of traditional AV companies and would require a huge paradigm shift.

As for the debate at hand, it will never end. The simple fact is its impossible to separate the amount you spend from the perceived performance, this goes for nearly any consumer goods segment, and thus people will always debate value vs performance.
post #201 of 334
.
Edited by coli - 9/30/13 at 1:53pm
post #202 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defcon View Post

As for the debate at hand, it will never end. The simple fact is its impossible to separate the amount you spend from the perceived performance, this goes for nearly any consumer goods segment, and thus people will always debate value vs performance.

Simple, double blind test
post #203 of 334
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The 'level of proof' is simply whether people, when listening blind, are able to distinguish A from B with greater frequency than random chance. Why do you say that is "unreasonable?"


You seem to know which amplifiers were tested. As it is only a "handful" it  won’t take you long to list them. Thanks.

Your post, if you will forgive me, seems to be just a lot of unsupported handwaving and groundless assertions, not backed up by any sort of objective evidence to support what you say. Do you believe that that will cut much ice in a debate about a branch of science: electronic engineering and/or acoustics?




What baffles me are people who say all amps sound the same based on reading some graphs and charts on paper. You have a male and a female singer. both are hitting their notes precisely. Do they sound the same? Do you get the same feeling from a song when you hear it from a male's voice vs. the females?

The above can be compared to Tube amp vs solid state. Yet many members of still claim solid state sounds the same as a tube and AVR sounds the same as a tube and a solid state etc.

Another example just along the lines of solid state seperates and a AVR can be compared with 2 male vocals, both are hitting their notes precisely, but one has a husky voice and the other a feminine voice.

The voicing through amps are done by wires and xo and power supply etc. Both put out sound and the same level of output, yes and both are at the same FR, your gonna tell us its gonna sound the same to all ears?
????
Edited by NAIM101 - 9/30/13 at 4:00pm
post #204 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defcon View Post

In the digital domain the signal is preserved perfectly and there is no room for debate, or talking about things like shielding. You either get 100% of the signal or you get a measurable loss.

This is why I wish we had more digital amps, which seem to have died out after being popular for a brief time. It was the general consensus they consumed less power, were cheaper and sounded just as good as traditional amps costing 3-4x more.

I truly believe full digital signal processing is the way of the future, with the bulk of it in dedicated SoC or pc's. Only at the last possible stage should a DAC be needed to convert to analog to drive a speaker, and that's only because sound waves are analog. But this threatens the way of life of traditional AV companies and would require a huge paradigm shift.

As for the debate at hand, it will never end. The simple fact is its impossible to separate the amount you spend from the perceived performance, this goes for nearly any consumer goods segment, and thus people will always debate value vs performance.
This and other reasons are why I am moving to Pioneer and their D3 amps.
post #205 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defcon View Post

In the digital domain the signal is preserved perfectly and there is no room for debate, or talking about things like shielding. You either get 100% of the signal or you get a measurable loss.

This is why I wish we had more digital amps, which seem to have died out after being popular for a brief time. It was the general consensus they consumed less power, were cheaper and sounded just as good as traditional amps costing 3-4x more.

I truly believe full digital signal processing is the way of the future, with the bulk of it in dedicated SoC or pc's. Only at the last possible stage should a DAC be needed to convert to analog to drive a speaker, and that's only because sound waves are analog. But this threatens the way of life of traditional AV companies and would require a huge paradigm shift.

As for the debate at hand, it will never end. The simple fact is its impossible to separate the amount you spend from the perceived performance, this goes for nearly any consumer goods segment, and thus people will always debate value vs performance.
I don't think you always get 100% bit for bit when burning a CD so why do you assume otherwise? Why do some CD players (Parasound CD1?) do multiple passes and verify correct data reading in a buffer?
post #206 of 334
Thread Starter 
What baffles me are people who say all amps sound the same based on reading some graphs and charts on paper. You have a male and a female singer. both are hitting their notes precisely. Do they sound the same? Do you get the same feeling from a song when you hear it from a male's voice vs. the females?

The above can be compared to Tube amp vs solid state. Yet many members of still claim solid state sounds the same as a tube and AVR sounds the same as a tube and a solid state etc.

Another example just along the lines of solid state seperates and a AVR can be compared with 2 male vocals, both are hitting their notes precisely, but one has a husky voice and the other a feminine voice.

The voicing through amps are done by wires and xo and power supply etc. Both put out sound and the same level of output, yes and both are at the same FR, your gonna tell us its gonna sound the same to all ears?
????
post #207 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztech View Post

This and other reasons are why I am moving to Pioneer and their D3 amps.
As far as I know class D is a switching amp, not digital. Now if like NAD and some others that do the D/A at the final stage to the speakers then that is a different animal, I would guess.
post #208 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by NAIM101 View Post

What baffles me are people who say all amps sound the same based on reading some graphs and charts on paper. You have a male and a female singer. both are hitting their notes precisely. Do they sound the same? Do you get the same feeling from a song when you hear it from a male's voice vs. the females?

The above can be compared to Tube amp vs solid state. Yet many members of still claim solid state sounds the same as a tube and AVR sounds the same as a tube and a solid state etc.

Another example just along the lines of solid state seperates and a AVR can be compared with 2 male vocals, both are hitting their notes precisely, but one has a husky voice and the other a feminine voice.

The voicing through amps are done by wires and xo and power supply etc. Both put out sound and the same level of output, yes and both are at the same FR, your gonna tell us its gonna sound the same to all ears?
????

You've had your fun. Kindly move on.
post #209 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by NAIM101 View Post

What baffles me are people who say all amps sound the same based on reading some graphs and charts on paper. You have a male and a female singer. both are hitting their notes precisely. Do they sound the same? Do you get the same feeling from a song when you hear it from a male's voice vs. the females?

The above can be compared to Tube amp vs solid state. Yet many members of still claim solid state sounds the same as a tube and AVR sounds the same as a tube and a solid state etc.

Another example just along the lines of solid state seperates and a AVR can be compared with 2 male vocals, both are hitting their notes precisely, but one has a husky voice and the other a feminine voice.

The voicing through amps are done by wires and xo and power supply etc. Both put out sound and the same level of output, yes and both are at the same FR, your gonna tell us its gonna sound the same to all ears?
????

OK, is this above post a who's on first skit biggrin.gif? No offense man but do you have a clue of what you are talking about. Please show me any posts where a knowledgeable AVS member said they thought SS amps sound the same as a tube amp. While you are at it please indicate what amp (as in external an amp) has a crossover. I know you are just posting with a "worm on the hook" but be serious. C'mon man wink.gif.

Bill
post #210 of 334
Thread Starter 
A McIntosh amp and a Tube amp will never sound the same. Just as a AVR with a weak clocking to begin with, carried onto the $10 pre-amp amplifying the missed information carried over to the amp that is overheated through a power supply which is feeding the dirtiest power possible will never sound as clean as seperates in terms of soundstage,detail retrieval, and bass.


More importantly, you will never get the source to play as it ws intended through a AVR.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Reciever vs. Seperates