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

Reciever vs. Seperates - Page 10  

post #271 of 334
Ahhh...yes....the age old question...seperates vs AVR. I know for a good long while, there was a thread here that extolled the virtues of using pro-amps with a cheap AVR as the pre-pro (which isn't a bad way to go either).

Lots of this stems from stereo only days. I know one of my setero only set ups had monoblack Conrad Johnson Amps driving two big Maggies. Sounded really good, too. That was a time when there was no serious multi-channel systems out there. And, the steps had to go through to get decent sound were affected by a whole lot....cartidge, turntable, quality of the vinyl pressing, cleanliness of the vinyl, turntable and cartridge mounting, pre-amp, amp, etc, etc, etc.

Today, there are a whole lot of audio sins that can be forgiven by including a good DSP chip set and accompanying correction software that come with AVRs.

There's also the point that amplification has become a whole lot more efficient.

Most of the pieces from the high quality manufacturers (i.e. Pioneer, Denon, Marantz, Yamaha, etc) sound good. Generally speaking, the more you spend, the more compute power you get, the more absolute power you get, the more switching that's available, the better the software is, etc.

I'm currently running a Denon 4311 driving 7.2 channels using Audyssey XT32. My room, my HT, even the DVD-As/SACDs (hi-rez music that is far superior than my old analog set ups) I listen to have never sounded better.

That said, feel free to experiment. Buy some pro amps and hook them up. See what you think (I did a few years ago...I have Crown pro amps in some boxes). I have an Emotiva amp sitting in my "toys" closset awaiting duty if I ever see fit. So far, no need.
post #272 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by eljaycanuck View Post

Interesting article. Interesting, too, that it was written by an admitted "subjectivist": Why I'm a Subjectivist

I have no problem with someone saying they subjectively prefer A over B. And if a $10,000 power cord or interconnect makes your music sparkle and shine, more power to you.

But when someone claims that there is an objective difference between A and B, proof is required.

And when someone asserts that a subwoofer draws 75% of an AVR's power, proof is required.

 

Well said. Why on earth someone posts an article by an admitted subjectivist as some kind of evidence that DBTs are flawed is beyond me. DBTs have been a mainstay of scientific method for decades, in all sorts of industries.

post #273 of 334
The only thing I find sounds DIFFERENT amongst receivers and seperates is the Room Correction systems used. YPAO sucks, MCACC sucks, XT32 is good and ARC I find best. Everything else down to the DACS, materials, etc, all sound exactly the same to me.
post #274 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by coli View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

You don't understand what a DBT is. The idea is to see if anyone can hear differences. If you can't hear a difference between A and B, then clearly you can't prefer A to B or vice-versa.

You can only hear differences using complex music, not some synthetic test. Those tests are invalid.

But if you use complex music, then preference comes to play.

Therefor A/B test is not valid. You need objective measurements, problem is, we don't know what to measure.

 

You just don't understand DBTs, judging by your comments. Google it - there are hundreds of good articles which explain how DBTs work, in all manner of industries not just audio. Every headache pill you ever took was tested first using DBTs. Every can of beans you have eaten was tested at some stage by DBTs. 

 

And in an audio DBT, why do you think they don't use 'complex music'?

post #275 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

You don't understand what a DBT is. The idea is to see if anyone can hear differences. If you can't hear a difference between A and B, then clearly you can't prefer A to B or vice-versa.

DBT testing may be like the pea under the shell game. Odds are against the listeners. Read this link.

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue56/abx.htm

 

Mud - in the second paragraph the author reveals that she doesn't understand how ABX tests work.

 

In the third paragraph she reveals that she has never heard of auditory memory and why it totally invalidates the type of test she describes as superior. She also reveals in that paragraph that what she is interested in is discovering preferences, which is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making about DBT tests.

 

Why would anyone give any credibility to such an article?  You just posted it for giggles, right?

post #276 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

You just don't understand DBTs, judging by your comments. Google it - there are hundreds of good articles which explain how DBTs work, in all manner of industries not just audio. Every headache pill you ever took was tested first using DBTs. Every can of beans you have eaten was tested at some stage by DBTs. 

And in an audio DBT, why do you think they don't use 'complex music'?

Don't tell him DBT's are done by listening to music. It would spoil everything.
post #277 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by coli View Post

double blind test doesn't work. Certain kinds of distortion actually are preferable by a lot people. A recent personal example is the Rythmik F15, it's so accurate that synthetic bass now sounds synthetic, versus say a boom. In a double blind test, I would have preferred the boom.

Or using double blind test to pick healthy food, most people would just pick the sweetest food smile.gif

Ummm, we're talking about solid state amplifiers, not subwoofers and certainly not sweet food. The comparison is hopelessly nonlinear.

If indeed there is "preferable distortion" is discernible in a SS amplifier, than it would be readily identifiable in an ABX against another.

this is how we determine if indeed differences are identifiable.



James
Edited by mastermaybe - 10/1/13 at 11:04am
post #278 of 334
The lack of understanding in this thread is astounding....
post #279 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVMAN1991 View Post

The only thing I find sounds DIFFERENT amongst receivers and seperates is the Room Correction systems used. YPAO sucks, MCACC sucks, XT32 is good and ARC I find best. Everything else down to the DACS, materials, etc, all sound exactly the same to me.
I find the differences not to be that great certainly not night and day or at least in the systems I have installed .
I heard DIRAC at a demo and was very impressed.
post #280 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Mud - in the second paragraph the author reveals that she doesn't understand how ABX tests work.

In the third paragraph she reveals that she has never heard of auditory memory and why it totally invalidates the type of test she describes as superior. She also reveals in that paragraph that what she is interested in is discovering preferences, which is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making about DBT tests.

Why would anyone give any credibility to such an article?  You just posted it for giggles, right?

Did we read the same articles? I can't validate what you say. Are you reading blindly?
First 2 paragraphs:

ABX testing has been extremely controversial since it was introduced decades ago. It is my hope to put this testing protocol in its final resting place by combining its sad history coupled the difference between how humans perceive sound and how ABX testing actually is applied.

The "X" in the ABX is either A or B, randomly selected, the listener needs to identify whether that "X" is "A" or "B". Unfortunately human beings do not have the ability to compare three sonic events sequentially. One must keep a sonic memory of sample "A" they just listened to so they can compare it to the sample "B" and then listen to "X" and try to decide if it sounds more like "A" or "B". It is the introduction of this third sound that makes it impossible for human beings since we can compare two different sounds as long as we don't wait too long however our sonic memory cannot juggle three no matter how many times one is allowed to go back and forth. Thus ABX tests usually get null results, and cause listening fatigue.
post #281 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

You just don't understand DBTs, judging by your comments. Google it - there are hundreds of good articles which explain how DBTs work, in all manner of industries not just audio. Every headache pill you ever took was tested first using DBTs. Every can of beans you have eaten was tested at some stage by DBTs. 

And in an audio DBT, why do you think they don't use 'complex music'?

Don't tell him DBT's are done by listening to music. It would spoil everything.

 

ROTFLMAO!!!  Yeah - the very idea - using music in the test!  As if.... 

post #282 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Mud - in the second paragraph the author reveals that she doesn't understand how ABX tests work.

In the third paragraph she reveals that she has never heard of auditory memory and why it totally invalidates the type of test she describes as superior. She also reveals in that paragraph that what she is interested in is discovering preferences, which is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making about DBT tests.

Why would anyone give any credibility to such an article?  You just posted it for giggles, right?

Did we read the same articles? I can't validate what you say. Are you reading blindly?
First 2 paragraphs:

ABX testing has been extremely controversial since it was introduced decades ago. It is my hope to put this testing protocol in its final resting place by combining its sad history coupled the difference between how humans perceive sound and how ABX testing actually is applied.

The "X" in the ABX is either A or B, randomly selected, the listener needs to identify whether that "X" is "A" or "B". Unfortunately human beings do not have the ability to compare three sonic events sequentially. One must keep a sonic memory of sample "A" they just listened to so they can compare it to the sample "B" and then listen to "X" and try to decide if it sounds more like "A" or "B". It is the introduction of this third sound that makes it impossible for human beings since we can compare two different sounds as long as we don't wait too long however our sonic memory cannot juggle three no matter how many times one is allowed to go back and forth. Thus ABX tests usually get null results, and cause listening fatigue.

 

Yes, paragraphs 2 and 3 show she has no idea what she is talking about.  You quoted paragraphs 1 and 2.  Look at 2 and 3. If you don't see why she is totally ignorant, well....

 

She also contradicts herself immediately. In paragraph two she says auditory memory invalidates an ABX test, thus showing she has no idea...

 

Then in paragraph 3, she proposes a test which relies entirely on auditory memory - over a 5 minute span.

 

Unfortunately for your pitch, you quoted an article written by an idiot.

post #283 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bo130 View Post

The lack of understanding in this thread is astounding....

 

You can say that again!  (Not literally :))

post #284 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by bo130 View Post

The lack of understanding in this thread is astounding....
I want to tell you guys something on this thread did you know that if you hook up a subwoofer to an AVR it takes away 75% of the power of the AVR. I BET NONE OF YOU GUYS KNEW THAT IN THIS THREAD. LOL
post #285 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by wadia 9 View Post

I want to tell you guys something on this thread did you know that if you hook up a subwoofer to an AVR it takes away 75% of the power of the AVR. I BET NONE OF YOU GUYS KNEW THAT IN THIS THREAD. LOL

How do you figure?? 😏
97% of the subwoofers sold for home theaters have their own built-in amplifier..
The only connection between the AVR and subwoofer is the AVR's Sub Line Out...

Just my $0.05.... 👍😉
post #286 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wadia 9 View Post

I want to tell you guys something on this thread did you know that if you hook up a subwoofer to an AVR it takes away 75% of the power of the AVR. I BET NONE OF YOU GUYS KNEW THAT IN THIS THREAD. LOL

How do you figure?? 😏
97% of the subwoofers sold for home theaters have their own built-in amplifier..
The only connection between the AVR and subwoofer is the AVR's Sub Line Out...

Just my $0.05.... 👍😉

 

It's a wind-up. Don't bite...

post #287 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Code View Post

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wadia 9 View Post

I want to tell you guys something on this thread did you know that if you hook up a subwoofer to an AVR it takes away 75% of the power of the AVR. I BET NONE OF YOU GUYS KNEW THAT IN THIS THREAD. LOL


How do you figure?? 😏

97% of the subwoofers sold for home theaters have their own built-in amplifier..

The only connection between the AVR and subwoofer is the AVR's Sub Line Out...


Just my $0.05.... 👍😉

It's a wind-up. Don't bite...

mcode, this goes back to the OP's assertion in his post 108....and OP keeps punting the questions from those who would like him to expand on it....
post #288 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

mcode, this goes back to the OP's assertion in his post 108....and OP keeps punting the questions from those who would like him to expand on it....
Just think by the time you end up hooking all your sources to your AVR YOU WON'T HAVE BUT ABOUT 5% percent of the power left from the AVR!
post #289 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

Did we read the same articles? I can't validate what you say. Are you reading blindly?
First 2 paragraphs:

ABX testing has been extremely controversial since it was introduced decades ago. It is my hope to put this testing protocol in its final resting place by combining its sad history coupled the difference between how humans perceive sound and how ABX testing actually is applied.

The "X" in the ABX is either A or B, randomly selected, the listener needs to identify whether that "X" is "A" or "B". Unfortunately human beings do not have the ability to compare three sonic events sequentially. One must keep a sonic memory of sample "A" they just listened to so they can compare it to the sample "B" and then listen to "X" and try to decide if it sounds more like "A" or "B". It is the introduction of this third sound that makes it impossible for human beings since we can compare two different sounds as long as we don't wait too long however our sonic memory cannot juggle three no matter how many times one is allowed to go back and forth. Thus ABX tests usually get null results, and cause listening fatigue.

Mud,

If you believe what this person wrote especially the highlighted part then when one says "the processor I heard a year ago sounds better (or worse) than the one I just listened to" has no validity. In other words the article you quoted indicates that one does not have the ability to "keep a sonic memory" in the short term. So how can anyone say one processor sounds any better or worse than the other? Especially if a significant period of time has passed between listening to specific components you are comparing. You have said many times that you prefer the SQ of Emotiva's prepros to many AVR/prepros that you have heard. But if there is a long period of time between hearing each one then how can you retain the auditory memory to know which sounds better or worse?

Bill
post #290 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by wadia 9 View Post

Just think by the time you end up hooking all your sources to your AVR YOU WON'T HAVE BUT ABOUT 5% percent of the power left from the AVR!

Would you mind explaining what power draw multiple sources (CD, DVD, Bluray players etc.) have on an AVR (when just connected to the AVR, not playing). If I recall correctly a source (such as I listed) sends the signal to the AVR not the other way around. Also unless one is using multiple zones there is only one source playing at a time. With the only draw on the AVR being it's amp output which is dependent on the volume used.

Bill
post #291 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

Mud,

If you believe what this person wrote especially the highlighted part then when one says "the processor I heard a year ago sounds better (or worse) than the one I just listened to" has no validity. In other words the article you quoted indicates that one does not have the ability to "keep a sonic memory" in the short term. So how can anyone say one processor sounds any better or worse than the other? Especially if a significant period of time has passed between listening to specific components you are comparing. You have said many times that you prefer the SQ of Emotiva's prepros to many AVR/prepros that you have heard. But if there is a long period of time between hearing each one then how can you retain the auditory memory to know which sounds better or worse?

Bill

our sonic memory cannot juggle three no matter how many times one is allowed to go back and forth

You are trying to twist the words like Keith. "our sonic memory cannot juggle three no matter how many times one is allowed to go back and forth" . Trying to juggle three sounds is the magic that makes one wonder about ABX testing. Lots of simple things become more complex when performed out of the realm of everyday performance.
post #292 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac View Post

Would you mind explaining what power draw any source (CD, DVD, Bluray players etc.) have on an AVR. If I recall correctly a source (such as I listed) send the signal to the AVR not the other way around. Also unless one is using multiple zones there is only one source playing at a time. Which the only draw on the AVR is it's amp output which is dependent the volume used.

Bill

So if a subwoofer (which is target device) draws 75% of the AVR power when connected, then what you're saying is that the more source devices I plug into the AVR the more power it will have? Sweet! My AVR has at least 20 different inputs. I can only imagine how much power it will have if I fill up all those inputs. wink.gif I'm going to run to the local thrift store and find as many cheap CD, tape and DVD players I can find.

Thanks Bill. I've been trying to figure out how to get more power out of my AVR.
post #293 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

DBT testing may be like the pea under the shell game. Odds are against the listeners. Read this link.

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue56/abx.htm

Ah, the infamous T.G.

She's built quite a track record of posting entertainment. Or, you be the judge. Just for starters.

Also discussed a few time before on AVS because of her rather "unique" take on audio-related subjects. For example, this post on down..
post #294 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Mud - in the second paragraph the author reveals that she doesn't understand how ABX tests work.

In the third paragraph she reveals that she has never heard of auditory memory and why it totally invalidates the type of test she describes as superior. She also reveals in that paragraph that what she is interested in is discovering preferences, which is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making about DBT tests.

Why would anyone give any credibility to such an article?  You just posted it for giggles, right?

Did we read the same articles? I can't validate what you say. Are you reading blindly?
First 2 paragraphs:

ABX testing has been extremely controversial since it was introduced decades ago. It is my hope to put this testing protocol in its final resting place by combining its sad history coupled the difference between how humans perceive sound and how ABX testing actually is applied.

The "X" in the ABX is either A or B, randomly selected, the listener needs to identify whether that "X" is "A" or "B". Unfortunately human beings do not have the ability to compare three sonic events sequentially. One must keep a sonic memory of sample "A" they just listened to so they can compare it to the sample "B" and then listen to "X" and try to decide if it sounds more like "A" or "B". It is the introduction of this third sound that makes it impossible for human beings since we can compare two different sounds as long as we don't wait too long however our sonic memory cannot juggle three no matter how many times one is allowed to go back and forth. Thus ABX tests usually get null results, and cause listening fatigue.

Right, the above paragraph is typical of people who have only read what someone wrote about ABX, and never did one for themselves.

The following is a true statement:

"The "X" in the ABX is either A or B, randomly selected, the listener needs to identify whether that "X" is "A" or "B"."

The rest is false.

Truth is, if a person can tell the difference between A and B, then all they need to do is compare X with A or X with B but not necessarily both.. Say you compare X with A. X will either sound the same or different as A. If X sounds the same as A, then gosh, X must be A! If X sounds different from A then X must be B.

You also have a way to check on your work. If you identify X by comparing with A, then you should obtain the same identity for that X when you compare it with B.

Note that in all of these comparisons, there needed to be sonic memory for only one sound since every comparison involves just two sounds, one of which is playing and one of which just played. You can compare A with X and X with A to avoid having to remember A or B or ever X all of the time.

There is helpful redundancy built into ABX. You have two different ways to determine if X is A or B as pointed out above. If you forget how A sounds different from B, you can always compare them and refresh your sonic memory. And so on.

The other thihg that ABX critics either don't know or want to forget is that you can use ABX tests to determine the thresholds of hearing of all sorts. I've done this and I usually do a little better than the published results.

The trick to getting positive results with ABX (if there is one) is testing things that are actually scientifically known to sound different.
post #295 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

He doesn't care whether people take him seriously or not. He is trolling.

this joker just bounces from thread to thread, making falsified claims. if we ignore him (do not feed the troll) he'll dwindle away. I know it's sometimes hard to do especially to those who have the knowledge.
post #296 of 334
Hey Arnyk. Did you happen to review any of the receivers that I recently posted for you?
post #297 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by NAIM101 View Post

I figure since most of the regular members here that have not been here long insist on AVR and seperates sounding the same, they themselves got their AVR theory from the older members. So I thougt I just get straight to the source.


Higher quality parts = better sound

I wouldn't exactly say that's completely true. I guess a fine example would be the Benchmark DAC I versus the Objective2 amp (although this is headphones) or the Schiit Audio M&M combo which almost sound exactly the same, with only minute differences between them.

post #298 of 334
Thread Starter 
Finally a member who has heard some DACs and seperates. Good start. Would you say other than the 3-4 amps/dac you have listed all seperates sound the same through your headphones?
post #299 of 334
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by airgas1998 View Post

this joker just bounces from thread to thread, making falsified claims. if we ignore him (do not feed the troll) he'll dwindle away. I know it's sometimes hard to do especially to those who have the knowledge.

Thank you.
post #300 of 334
Since you're here, please explain how a subwoofer draws 75% of an AVR's power. Thanks.
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