or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › What are the benchmarks for Objectivists?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What are the benchmarks for Objectivists? - Page 2  

post #31 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ
Absolute nonsense. You don't have any idea, do you??? Perhaps that site, how stuff works may inform you better???
Try to investigate the issue before you make such unfounded comments. Do some research in acoustic journals, audio journals and see if anyone using DBt protocol in acoustics/audio???
The hi-end is clueless, don't take your ideas from them and make absolute statements.
so you are saying what published in journals have become the norm?


Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ
Actually, the audio industry in th eknow do this already. Obviously you have not investigated this either before commenting from the hip. Doesn't bode well for you.
yes but not all as mentioned in my statement. you have not read carefully. with those test, you can do it, i can do it but does not mean one can do it properly and draw meaningful conclusions. same for anybody.

any product you know marketing with " research done with blind tests" and here are your perfect source, amp, speakers, cables, plugs etc


whoaru99 do you select your equip after you have done these tests?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ
Irrelevant how he selects his components until he makes a testable claim for them, don't you think???
ok you are answering for whoaru99. is whoaru99 your another screen name? what are testable claim? dbt is included as testable claim or not? if you believe so much in blind tests why not do some before you select any of your equipment? it is doubtlful if you do carry out what you believe in.
post #32 of 438
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpu8088
so you are saying what published in journals have become the norm?




yes but not all as mentioned in my statement. you have not read carefully. with those test, you can do it, i can do it but does not mean one can do it properly and draw meaningful conclusions. same for anybody.

any product you know marketing with " research done with blind tests" and here are your perfect source, amp, speakers, cables, plugs etc


whoaru99 do you select your equip after you have done these tests?



ok you are answering for whoaru99. is whoaru99 your another screen name? what are testable claim? dbt is included as testable claim or not? if you believe so much in blind tests why not do some before you select any of your equipment? it is doubtlful if you do carry out what you believe in.
OK guys, we don't need this to be an argument.

My thing is, all of this discussion of controlled testing and so forth is truly interesting. It really is. I just wonder what the relevance is, at the consumer level, where personal preference is the major deciding factor in this?

If we were producing a product as a manufacturer, we should be sure that these differences are approached from a more scientific manner, one to assure that we aren't investing in some esoteric component part that isn't absolutely necessary, and to assure ourselves of the best measurements possible.

We aren't.
post #33 of 438
[quote=schticker]OK guys, we don't need this to be an argument.

My thing is, all of this discussion of controlled testing and so forth is truly interesting. It really is. I just wonder what the relevance is, at the consumer level, where personal preference is the major deciding factor in this?


Glad you brought this up. But, let me ask, would you try a homeopathic potion when shown not to do anything because it was under research conditions only? Would you go out and buy it anyhow to experiment yourself?

Same in audio, and, getting exposed to what has been researched, what are the downfalls of sighted listening, it should be clear in a hurry what one should really consider when looking, comparing and purchasing.

If we were producing a product as a manufacturer, we should be sure that these differences are approached from a more scientific manner, one to assure that we aren't investing in some esoteric component part that isn't absolutely necessary, and to assure ourselves of the best measurements possible.

We aren't.


No, but when someone tells you one thing and the ones in the know at the research level tell you something else, whom will you listen to when comparing and shopping? I try to consult Consumers Report on as many products as I can find that I would be using myself. You think another opinion telling me totally different story will have much weight for me?
post #34 of 438
Thread Starter 
[quote=CharlesJ]
Quote:
Originally Posted by schticker
OK guys, we don't need this to be an argument.

My thing is, all of this discussion of controlled testing and so forth is truly interesting. It really is. I just wonder what the relevance is, at the consumer level, where personal preference is the major deciding factor in this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by schticker

Glad you brought this up. But, let me ask, would you try a homeopathic potion when shown not to do anything because it was under research conditions only? Would you go out and buy it anyhow to experiment yourself?

Same in audio, and, getting exposed to what has been researched, what are the downfalls of sighted listening, it should be clear in a hurry what one should really consider when looking, comparing and purchasing.

If we were producing a product as a manufacturer, we should be sure that these differences are approached from a more scientific manner, one to assure that we aren't investing in some esoteric component part that isn't absolutely necessary, and to assure ourselves of the best measurements possible.

We aren't.


No, but when someone tells you one thing and the ones in the know at the research level tell you something else, whom will you listen to when comparing and shopping? I try to consult Consumers Report on as many products as I can find that I would be using myself. You think another opinion telling me totally different story will have much weight for me?
Potions and internal medicines are a different issue, because without fail there will be a (negative) effect that is beyond the control of the "patient."

With audio, so much of this is perception-based, that it is truly in the ear of the beholder, within reason.

Don't misunderstand - I firmly believe in empirical measurements. But, ultimately it must be the individual's comfort level and perceived value that is relevant.

Oh BTW - A good way to lose an argument is to put Consumer Reports on your side. They aren't wrong on what they measure, but they are notably incorrect when they attempt to draw conclusions from those measurments. A good example is about three years ago, when they wrote that we should select speakers INDIVIDUALLY, without regard for timbre match. Select a center because "it sounds the best", without regard for whether it matches the fronts, etc. It is things like this and the recent "test" that espoused the virtues of a Kenmore vacuum over a Dyson. :rolleyes:
post #35 of 438
I don't believe Charles is speaking about empirical measurements but doing personal investigations where efforts have been made to ensure level matching during unsighted comparisons.
post #36 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ
You are partly right. Some components are audibly different and it will assuredly show up in the numbers and certainly in a DBT. But, most modern components are well designed, not mystery there, and are transparent.
CharlesJ,
I am curious as what equipment you and Chu Gai have in order to make a statement that most modern equipment are transparent. Do you mean they should all sound the same (or nearly the same?) because some scientist claimed that in a journal?

I have three audio systems, two for HT and one for dedicated 2 channel audio system. All three produce different sonics when played in 2 channel mode.

Only my dedicated 2 channel system consisting of Marantz CDP, TAD-150 preamp, Cayin TA-30 amp and Quad 22L speakers (add PLC, powercords, cabling into the mix) is able to throw a spacious and deep soundstage with accurate imaging, venue information and micro dynamics. And I guarantee you the microdyamics is not only due to the speakers. The same Quads when hooked up to my HT receivers just do not sound the same and are incapable of producting micro detail.

Microdynamics? You don't need golden ears to hear microdynamics - it's just there.
post #37 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by machani
I have three audio systems, two for HT and one for dedicated 2 channel audio system. All three produce different sonics when played in 2 channel mode.
Are the three systems in different rooms, with different speaker positions in the room and with different speakers? If so, then they would indeed sound different.

Quote:
Only my dedicated 2 channel system...is able to throw a spacious and deep soundstage with accurate imaging, venue information and micro dynamics. And I guarantee you the microdyamics is not only due to the speakers. The same Quads when hooked up to my HT receivers just do not sound the same and are incapable of producting micro detail.
What are the impedences of each of your sets of speakers? Their sensitivities, the volume levels you played them at and the power rating of each amplifier? Are the receivers rated to drive low-impedence loads?

All of these factors will impact sound quality and are measurable. And, no, you don't need to be a Golden Ear to hear it.
post #38 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by swtoby2
Are the three systems in different rooms, with different speaker positions in the room and with different speakers? If so, then they would indeed sound different.

What are the impedences of each of your sets of speakers? Their sensitivities, the volume levels you played them at and the power rating of each amplifier? Are the receivers rated to drive low-impedence loads?

All of these factors will impact sound quality and are measurable. And, no, you don't need to be a Golden Ear to hear it.
Sigh! My "main" HT system is in the living room, the receiver on the same rack as my 2 channel components. Switching speaker cabling between HT receiver and 2 channel on my Quads is easy.

My quads are 6ohm nominal impedence and can be played using 4ohms or 8ohms amplifiers.

Anyway at any volume, the difference between the sound from my HT receiver and my 2 channel system on the same speakers is like chalk and cheese, especially when considering things like soundstage, transparency, noise floor, detail, dynamics, high frequency extension and micro-detail. They are simply different animals.

Repeat any volume.
post #39 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by machani
Sigh! My "main" HT system is in the living room, the receiver on the same rack as my 2 channel components. Switching speaker cabling between HT receiver and 2 channel on my Quads is easy.

My quads are 6ohm nominal impedence and can be played using 4ohms or 8ohms amplifiers.

Anyway at any volume, the difference between the sound from my HT receiver and my 2 channel system on the same speakers is like chalk and cheese, especially when considering things like soundstage, transparency, noise floor, detail, dynamics, high frequency extension and micro-detail. They are simply different animals.

Repeat any volume.
So the specs on your amps are identical? Same power, load tolerances, etc.? Then did you do your auditioning with the amps level matched to within 0.1db and it was double-blind? Otherwise, like it or not, your results are meaningless.

The point is that there are audible differences between components depending on circumstances and these differences are measurable. DBTs are necessary to identify what these differences are by eliminating user biases.
post #40 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by machani
Sigh! My "main" HT system is in the living room, the receiver on the same rack as my 2 channel components. Switching speaker cabling between HT receiver and 2 channel on my Quads is easy.

My quads are 6ohm nominal impedence and can be played using 4ohms or 8ohms amplifiers.

Anyway at any volume, the difference between the sound from my HT receiver and my 2 channel system on the same speakers is like chalk and cheese, especially when considering things like soundstage, transparency, noise floor, detail, dynamics, high frequency extension and micro-detail. They are simply different animals.

Repeat any volume.

Of course this was an unbiased comparison? Levels matched to .1 dB spl? Statistically significant outcome?
I seriously doubt it.
Why would an amp has soundstage changes? Transparency? Dynamics? Micro detail, what in the world is that, a new audiophile adjective?
post #41 of 438
[quote=machani]CharlesJ,
I am curious as what equipment you and Chu Gai have in order to make a statement that most modern equipment are transparent. Do you mean they should all sound the same (or nearly the same?) because some scientist claimed that in a journal?


In essence, if it was so claimed in a journal, it must have been based on EVIDENCE, no?
But, in reality, DBT after DBT, analysis of components by circuit design, shows what is and is not audible. Rather simple.

BUT, one must have bias controls in place, or your results are unreliable. And, I highly suspect, you have not controlled for bias, level matched, right? If that is the case, your outcomes are not relevant for anyone outside of yourself, singular reality only.

David Rich and Peter Aczel, 'Topological Analysis of Consumer Audio Electronics: Another Approach to Show that Modern Audio Electronics are Acoustically Transparent,' 99 AES Convention, 1995, Print #4053.

Tom Nousaine, ' The Great Debate: Is Anyone Winning?' Proceedings of the AES, 8th International Conference, 1990.

Masters, Ian G. 'Audiolab Test: Six Power Amplifiers,' Audio Scene Canada, May 1977, pg 44-50.

Masters, Ian G. ' Audiolab Test: Amplifiers and Speaker Cables,' Audio Scene Canada, Jun 1981, pg 24-27.

Masters, Ian G. 'Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?' Stereo Review, Jan 1987, pg 78-84.

Baxandall, Peter J. 'Audible Amplifier Distortion is not a Mystery, Wireless World, Nov 1977, pg 63-66.



I have three audio systems, two for HT and one for dedicated 2 channel audio system.

Great :D

All three produce different sonics when played in 2 channel mode.

Well, perhaps some of the components are euphonic? The test protocol was prone to unreliable results. Clipping? High output impedance on an amp compared to one with low output impedance? Any number of possibilities but your protocol is the primary suspect.
post #42 of 438
Hey folks, on a lighter vein, its time for the...

Official Objectivist Audio FAQ

Q: Will any two amplifiers of different model or brand but with same rated power, impedence and sensitivity specs produce identical sonics?
A: But of course! What is an amp but a black box? Just don't trust your ears. Trust only DBTs, because they are not flawed like human hearing abilities!

Q: Do Class A, Class AB, Class C, SET and Push-Pull amplification designs make audible difference?
A: No no. those are just hyperbole conjured up by marketing pukes who want to empty our wallets.

Q: Vacuum tube verus transistor?
A: Hell the difference between second and third order harmonics were never proven to be discernable to the human ear in a DBT.

Q: What about distortion (THD) and Dynamic Range?
A: Differences less than 10% and 10dB could not be proven to be audible in a DBT!

Q: And those who spend their time and money tweaking their systems or upgrading their components?
A: They are fools, because it was proven in a scientific journal that all modern amplifiers are transparent.

Q: Do cables make audible differences?
A: Are you kidding? Lets not forget that all those who want upgrade their cables are being sold snake oil by dishonest vendors - because nothing beats 12awg zipcord. Period!

Q: What about high purity silver versus OFC conductors, or coxial versus shielded twisted pair designs for interconnects?
A: Don't make me laugh! You can make unshielded interconnects out of LAMPCORD and $0.49 RCA plugs and they cannot be beaten by a $2000 IC in a DBT.

Q: Emotional impact?
A: Don't be fooled by this. DBTs have proven that emotional connection to music is not real.

Q: Micro dynamics?
A: Have you been smoking something? All micro dynamics are due to "placebo effect".

Q: Thanks for the enlightenment!
Q: Now you can go home happy to your $49 CDP, $149 amp, $499 speakers and $19 cables , with a thumb up you know what, content with the knowledge that you have the best system in the world.
post #43 of 438
[b][quote=schticker][quote=CharlesJ]

Potions and internal medicines are a different issue, because without fail there will be a (negative) effect that is beyond the control of the "patient."

With audio, so much of this is perception-based, that it is truly in the ear of the beholder, within reason.


Same rules apply as in medicine, psychology research, anything where the human is the testing probe, testing meter to judge, in this case audible differences. Without bias controls, you are in the same boat as drug testing, no matter how you try to avoid it. This is what audio research has demonstrated now for a very long time. It is not my idea, but people with a lot more savvy and knowledge in science.

In audio, since that is what we are discussing, yes, we do perceive and yes, we can hear but they are two different issues. What we perceive is the point of the discussions here. Human bias is in the equation all the time. Other senses are influencing perception of sound. This confuses the brain even more. Researchers know this and have known for a long time.
That is why there are testing protocols to get reliable information. Bias is controlled for, other senses influence is controlled for and we judge by sound alone. After all, it is sound we are judging, not color of the component, the name brand on the component, the price tag of the component, or other external influences in our past that would favor one component over the other.



Oh BTW - A good way to lose an argument is to put Consumer Reports on your side. They aren't wrong on what they measure, but they are notably incorrect when they attempt to draw conclusions from those measurments.

Well, they are not wrong, they do listen, but I was also including their overall research and testing of consumer products. At least you are not implying being bought off :D

. It is things like this and the recent "test" that espoused the virtues of a Kenmore vacuum over a Dyson. :rolleyes:


Now why would that Dyson perform better??? Did they not test them properly? Perhaps you have a bias to one? They don't.
post #44 of 438
In my case it is a $200 CDP, $300 amp, $350 speakers (with a possible upgrade to $1000-$1500 speakers in the future, speakers being the one component that really make a big audible difference),$50 cables/interconnects, $50 power conditioner.
Otherwise I agree with all of the above answers.
post #45 of 438
Quote:
It is things like this and the recent "test" that espoused the virtues of a Kenmore vacuum over a Dyson.
It would seem that the Kenmore, which is made in asia, sucks better than the Dyson, which used to be made in the UK. This is not surprising given that the majority of massage parlors employ asians. Perhaps now that Dyson has moved manufacturing overseas they too, will learn how to suck properly.
post #46 of 438
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai
It would seem that the Kenmore, which is made in asia, sucks better than the Dyson, which used to be made in the UK. This is not surprising given that the majority of massage parlors employ asians. Perhaps now that Dyson has moved manufacturing overseas they too, will learn how to suck properly.
Japanese speakers suck properly, so you may be on to something... :D

As to the "bias of one vaccuum over another" - puleeze. I could care less. Nonetheless, these tests are short-term, initial quality tests that IF in the off chance it isn't wrong initially, surely do not hold relevance a few years later. Consumer Reports is the lazy way out of making a decision for yourself, and usually those decisions run counter to what a true expert with electonics, cars, appliances, etc, would tell you. Way too superficial.
post #47 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by schticker
Consumer Reports is the lazy way out of making a decision for yourself, and usually those decisions run counter to what a true expert with electonics, cars, appliances, etc, would tell you. Way too superficial.

I suppose then you buy all the vacuum cleaners and test them yourself? Sample the population of users for history of repairs? Do this with dish soap? Washing machines? Cars? Or, just don't care and buy what you feel is the better product?
It is a resource to use, not indication of being lazy, bu the way. Learning form others is another tool, instead of reinventing everything.
But, I suppose one can reinvent everything for themselves. I am sure that is allowed and the makers are happy to help out.
post #48 of 438
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ
I suppose then you buy all the vacuum cleaners and test them yourself? Sample the population of users for history of repairs? Do this with dish soap? Washing machines? Cars? Or, just don't care and buy what you feel is the better product?
It is a resource to use, not indication of being lazy, bu the way. Learning form others is another tool, instead of reinventing everything.
But, I suppose one can reinvent everything for themselves. I am sure that is allowed and the makers are happy to help out.
Use CR for your buying decisons and revel in the mediocrity of your purchases.
post #49 of 438
Own a Dyson do ya? ;)
post #50 of 438
Remember when the experts at Motor Trend named the Chevy Vega 'Car of the Year'?
post #51 of 438
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai
Remember when the experts at Motor Trend named the Chevy Vega 'Car of the Year'?
I think any magazine has too many bases to cover, and has a very hard time being objective when they have to make manufacturers happy, while reviewing things adjudged to be in the price range of its target market. These publications realize their demographics.

Does that mean they only review dumpy stuff? Of course not, but I do find it interesting that their findings tend to run counter to what almost any subject expert would say. Repeatedly.

I do own a Dyson, but I actually took note of someone else posting a reference to that "test". Should I have to purchase another vaccuum, I will be sure to look and see which brand lost the shootout at CR, and purchase it.
post #52 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by schticker
Use CR for your buying decisons and revel in the mediocrity of your purchases.

Actually, I revel on the fact that the bs was not part of my purchasing decision but the objective nature of CR's reviews and brand repair history was.
You can revel on anything your hart desires, or what the marketeers were successful with.
Did you also get one of those air purifiers so widely advertised by Sharper image, ionic breeze, no fans and now even a catalytic converter to take out all that poisonous ozone. So, now they admit selling a product before that spewed all that smog. LOL.
It is still worthless.
post #53 of 438
No one is saying you should take CR's reviews to heart and buy their top rated. It's a reference point with respect to the reviews and to the information they provide on things like frequency of repair and what not.
post #54 of 438
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai
No one is saying you should take CR's reviews to heart and buy their top rated. It's a reference point with respect to the reviews and to the information they provide on things like frequency of repair and what not.
It is a good starting place for n00bs. I will say though that your best bet is to explore all models "tested", and embark upon your own research. In other words, use their lists, not their findings as a starting point.
post #55 of 438
Call me what you will, but I take stock in CR information.

Does it guide my every purchase? Certainly not. However, it has influenced quite a number of my purchasing decisions (including a vacuum cleaner) and I am quite satisfied with the results.

As I usually say, "best" is very subjective. Best what?

Best built? Best warranty? Best customer service? Best technical performance? Best bang-for-the-buck? Best overall? etc.

The comment about mediocrity of purchases based on CR recommendations rings of style/form over substance/function, IMO.
post #56 of 438
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoaru99
Call me what you will, but I take stock in CR information.

Does it guide my every purchase? Certainly not. However, it has influenced quite a number of my purchasing decisions (including a vacuum cleaner) and I am quite satisfied with the results.

As I usually say, "best" is very subjective. Best what?

Best built? Best warranty? Best customer service? Best technical performance? Best bang-for-the-buck? Best overall? etc.

The comment about mediocrity of purchases based on CR recommendations rings of style/form over substance/function, IMO.
You're right, it was a coarse comment that really reflects more poorly on CR than the people that follow it hook, line, and sinker.

I know that they are a good starting point, but it is distressing how once something gets on there, some folks put on the blinders to anything else.
post #57 of 438
My two cents:

Only I can decide if something sounds different, better, or worse to me. No one on this planet can tell me or convince me of what I hear or don't hear. Same goes for all of you and everyone else. :)

Why are some people so unwilling to believe that one person can hear a difference between amp A and amp B? How can one person argue what the other hears? How does this effect anything in either one of their lives? :)

I can hear differences between a Denon receiver, a Marantz receiver, and a Rotel integrated amp. Does that make me superhuman and/or a cause for some complete stranger to attack me on the internet? Hell no! Yet those attackers are out there. Idiots. My advice is always: YOU listen. YOU decide. Period.

Some people call the background color of this forum "blue" while others call it "purple". Who is right?
post #58 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiophiliac
My advice is always: YOU listen. YOU decide. Period.
well said

the difference lies in listening to fundamental notes and micro acoustics.

some are happy to spend $$$ to get what they want while others think of different theories to rationalize their upgrade desire

and welcome to avs where amp is amp, cable is cable. and different screen names but same person
post #59 of 438
Hey if someone cannot hear a difference between a $1000 system and a $100000 system (exaggerated hypothetical), I envy them because they just saved themselves $99,000! :)

But no one has the place to criticize or question the choice of the person who bought the $200,000 system because it sounded a tad better than the $100,000 system.

My biggest point is that no one can tell you what you can and cant hear. Period. And even moreso, no one can tell you what you think sounds good or bad or better or worse. Period.

Thanks for the warm welcome. :) So the amp is an amp and cable is cable people are the ones I see at Walmart buying electronics? I always wondered what on earth those people were thinking. bwahaha
post #60 of 438
"When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers, you know something about it; ...when you cannot ... your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.

Lord Kelvin"

teach me why some music condense my mood into sorrow while some music makes me happy and cheerful

btw who is lord kelvin?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › What are the benchmarks for Objectivists?