Processor Blind Listening Test - Page 6

Perhaps. But, how reliable is that 'real world experience?' Just because it is real world, psychics for one, doesn't make it reliable, factual, or anything more than wishful thinking.
All those reports are from biased observations, no? Of course they are. Hence, they are unreliable at best.

Of course it will. We all believe and you said so, even though nothing has been demonstrated. Who needs science?

Speaking of DBT and Tom Nousaine, SteveH did you ever get together with Tom N. for that amp test?

Wasn't this suppose to happen a year ago :hehehe:

Yes! And my car does 0-100mph much faster when im pushing the break really hard. I know this and no science is needed!

See?

Thank you. You made my point. There is no science in this thread, it is simply someone's (Steve's and friends) observations. Nothing has been proven or disproven. My statement above as as valid as Steve's. Observations...no science.

\\May here seem to be taking this as gospel that receivers are as good as pre/pros. Steve didn't assess that and his data doesn't support it. I undersrtand few here have science degrees or understand study design, scientific method, etc., so it is up to some of us to point out was is valid and what isn't.

so what's the latest score on that? did someone finally pass a dbt?

how could you say that?

Are you telling me I didn't hear what I heard? Are you suggesting science needs to be applied to get rid of the placebo effect?

You are factually wrong!

how dare you challenge the believers? Who needs science when we can rely on personal believes?

:0

didn't someone get offended when his "personal believes" that pre/pro sounds better than avrs got questioned: the other party merely asked for any evidence and the person threw a wrench into the hen house.

Be very careful to ask the believers to support their believes with facts, or science. They get mad easily at that, it seems.

The ABX box has not been turned on in several months. I have an understanding on what is going on so I have lost much of the motivation to spend additional time and money to do more experiments. While I do enjoy the topic, I'd rather be going to my Kid's sporting events or going to our 2nd home in Mazatlan.
I've stated what my results are in other long winded posts. Those posts came from my actual work as opposed to misposting the work of others.

Did you have to sneak over the border Steve?

I am only asking for an opinion here from those who have heard both-considering DAC's and analog prestage only-Harmon Kardon 635 (used only as a prepro) vs. Lexicon MC8 (or 12)? Both are current and have a pretty big price difference. I know Jeff has the MC12 and I believe Sanjay has heard both. Shawn has the MC12 and distinguished a difference between the MC1 and the MC12. Thoughts? I at one time had the 635 and now have the MC8 but I used the 635 in a different system and used the internal amps.

I can tell you that relative to my previous processor (Meridian 565). I never liked the they way the Meridian sounded in terms of surround effects and ambiance (lacking). The 565 always seemed to output a narrow soundstage. I chose the Lexicon over the Meridian G-68 processor as I was concerned about the narrow soundstage. Substituting the Lexicon much improved this (post processing) and I am very happy with it sonically. My only complaint is it may be a tad aggressive on bright soundtracks. So, occasionally I need to engage 'THX' post processing to make things right.

Thanks Jeff.

Good to hear from you Chu. I'm plotting my next trip to "goof off" as we speak. The only "sneaking" is from my wife as I want to go with the guys

Of course I have a home theater in the condo. I do plan on doing some ABX experiments on Tequila (while listening to music). After a few drinks, it all tastes and sounds the same! "HEHEHE"

I have, but in two completely different systems; so any comparison would be meaningless. For example: the MC-12 did sound quieter, which I'm tempted to attribute to its dual differential DACs, but could just as easily have been due to the amps and/or speakers in that system.

Sanjay

Thanks, same for me. Different systems or using the internal amps make a comparision difficult. Subjectively, the MC8 I have sounds better, but that could be because I spent more money

Don't worry Steve, I'm not going to give you a bad time for not believing
in what I tried to explain to you about ABX and amplifier sonics, that long
thread now in the archives. Was it a year or two ago, I now forgot.

You took the time to get your own ABX and if you did the proper setup
and test, your conclusion will be the same as the other industry scientists who
all come to the same conclusion. But, most newbies who do this ABX test
never verify all the signal parameters when trying to find the truth. Most will
stop at level matching only and not verify frequency response and perhaps check
audible noise levels.

It's ok though, you get the idea now on what is going on vs. blind attacking
from the past

Audio is suppose to be fun and one doesn't need to buy esoteric electronics
to have a great system, but getting great speakers is probably the #1 issue - ie,
I have never heard a commercial speaker I'd like to own, DIY is the way for me,
but I can easily accept $100 electronics because I know what is inside from my
electronics backround :hee hee ha ha:

Actually, his approach is scientific. Part of the scientfic method is to make an observation. This is not just one person's observation either, it is four different peoples observations, which starts lending credibilty to what was observed. The results are reproducible under the given experimental design.

Don't forget, they were only looking at pre-preocessing via DACs.

And as one cog in the big machine that is surround processing, what significance is gained here by his observations? What are we trying to extrapolate?

Listening to music in short intervals with a few buddies qualifies more for obseervations rather than hard science and fact.

We'll assume you were able to determine this via stereo listening.

!

Listening to music in short intervals with a few buddies qualifies more for obseervations rather than hard science and fact.

Steve isn't the only one doing DAC and amplifier sonic tests. These tests have been
done for decades by industry professionals. I think you missed some posts.

This is just a confirmation of what 'we' already know about those elements. But you
are correct, once you start to alter the signal by using signal processing, then the sound
changes and a different perception occurs, either good or bad

If anything, it tells an educated consumer not to worry about DACs and preamps,
rather worry about signal processing 'goodies' so you can tweak the sound system. I'm a fan of active crossovers, equalizers and delays.

personal "believes"? I'm not sure what this is but I wouldn't dare challenge it (Sorry, I couldn't resist) .

The old no wife, I'm going down to Mexico with the buddies, bringing my ABX box, and adusting Carmen's knobs for equal level story. You best be hoping that what happens in Mexico stays in Mexico Steve.

Interesting because it demonstrates that there are reasons for failing A/B/X tests that have nothing to do with a lack difference in sound. Your single failed test, taken out of context, would not have accurately represented the differences between the MC-1 and MC-12. And this is a real problem with using a single test (or single set of tests) to make broad generalizations.

Sanjay

that is why you need to have multiple subjects to make a dbt work. For example, the worst case scenario is if the test subject is deaf: he wouldn't be able to tell an unpowered Krell from a perfectly working Krell.

As you have more and more test subjects, the influence of an "abnormal" test subject is reduced, hopefully to a level of statistical insignificance.

I am tired most of the time so I may be able to get by with cheaper equipment

Hello thylantyr,
I have learned a lot. Thanks for noticing.

Who were the "scientists" doing all of this research in ABX comparisons with decades of experience?? The economist TN, or the hobbyist RC??? I am not taking anything away from them as they are both smart guys but they are not scientists nor do they have decades of experience on this topic. Of course; neither do I... Their "research" (like mine) is anything but complete.
My results are parked in between both camps. Your conclusion about FR and distortion causing sonic differences are not correct. I have never seen a non-linear FR in a SS amp. While we are at it, your recommendations to other "newbies" on having a tremendous amount of headroom (MEGA watts) is also wrong. Meaning, having more than enough power is meaningless to the ear unless the amp is clipping. If you disagree, take your own advice and prove it in a level matched ABX test. Since you don't have an ABX box, you are welcome to borrow mine to prove to yourself you have given bad advice.
I have logged multi thousand's of listening sessions over the years. I have been extremely impressed with several "commercial" loudspeakers. In my view, I can only conclude that you either you have a lack of experience or your speakers are better than everyone else's. HEHEHE

Hasn't Floyd Toole and David L Clark (DLC Design) done some DBT? I was not under the impression that TN and RC were the only ones in the audio world who had done them?