The Revolutionary New Marantz SA-10 Player - Page 4 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 118Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 09:00 AM
 
LFEer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Liked: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
But not in regards to long-term listening, and not in regards to listening without being tested, i.e. normal condition listening. Moreover, we're not talking about differences that don't physically exist in space and time. They do, and are easily measurable. Even two of the same model amp or DAC will have measurable differences due to manufacturing variance tolerances.
You can do long term blind listening which nullifies the claim that listening while being tested somehow diminishes the listener's hearing ability.
Quote:
Listening to music on hi-fi equipment is a *subjective* not objective experience. We don't listen to establish an audible difference at the scientific level. We listen to enjoy the sound, the music, and subjectively evaluate the experience.
What about when posting claims online?
LFEer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 09:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Jack D Ripper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Posts: 1,445
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 168 Post(s)
Liked: 542
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
No, this conclusion and position is secular religion. This has not anywhere near been established at the scientific level. Not even close. Now, they should sound far more alike than different, and more expensive ones might not be preferable. Many might even sound indistinguishable from one another to a lot of people.


Just because under certain testing conditions, which virtually always differ significantly from normal listening conditions, in some tests, people were not able to reliable discern a difference doesn't even come close to establishing that no human under all listening conditions cannot hear a difference. Or constitutes some sort of 'scientific proof' that justifies pooh-poohing anyone who claims to hear a difference between amps and DACs (or even cables).


Yes, there is a lot of snake oil in hi-fi and more expensive isn't always preferable, but taking it to the extreme you have (and others like Arny K.) isn't science. It's secular religion.
Of course an absolute proof has not been given, but that does not mean that there has not been sufficient evidence to draw that conclusion. The simple fact is, many people make all sorts of claims, certain types of which are such that whenever the people have been properly tested, they fail. That does not absolutely prove that every person on the planet would fail, but it does give us reason to believe that they are all likely to fail.

No one has tested every runner on the planet, and so we do not have an absolute proof that no one can run 100 mph. But only a fool would believe that someone can do that without them properly proving it. The exact same idea applies to audio, whenever it is a claim that is such that no one has ever been able to show that they can do it, it is most reasonable to disbelieve anyone who claims they can, until they actually prove it.

This, by the way, is at the scientific level, as absolute proofs are not required. Just sufficient evidence. No one has to test every person on the planet to reasonably come to the conclusion that no one can run 100 mph. Nor do they have to be tested on every road and every track and every path in the world. Likewise, no one has to test every person on the planet to come to the conclusion that, just as their are limits in running, so, too, are their limits to human hearing, such that there are certain things that no one can hear, no matter what they claim. And it is reasonable to reject claims to the contrary, until those claims are backed up with solid evidence, not simply repeated claims by someone who is offended at the idea that there are limits to their hearing ability.


As for the testing being significantly different from ordinary listening conditions, that is absolutely essential to find out if the person can really do what they claim. In ordinary conditions, one can see the different DACs, and so one's vision tells one that the one is different from the other. So someone being able to distinguish between them in ordinary conditions shows absolutely nothing about the sound of them; it just shows that the person can see. Likewise, the normal way for me to run has been alone and not with someone observing me. But in order to see if I can run 100 mph, I must be observed, so the conditions are significantly different. Would you then say that maybe I really can run 100 mph, and that the reason I don't when someone watches me is due to the very significantly different conditions when I am being viewed? If not, then your claim about the conditions of testing is just a meritless excuse. They fail the testing because they cannot do what they claim to be able to do.
Ovation and jsrtheta like this.

God willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.
Jack D Ripper is offline  
post #93 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 09:03 AM
 
LFEer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Liked: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
Not necessarily 'better', but they could sound somewhat different. They might have better specs, but whether it translates to preferable sound quality is subjective from person to person, given their ears, their hearing acuity, their other equipment and how it all interacts with the DAC, amp, cables or whatever.


The differences are generally in tone quality or 'tone color' as well as frequency emphasis. They're all differently non-linear, active circuit devices with easily measurable differences. The question is whether they're audible to any one particular person in his or her listening conditions, and even if they are, which he or she prefers. For each person, it's ultimately all subjective.
But the real question is whether these are backed up by evidence or not.
jsrtheta likes this.
LFEer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #94 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 09:06 AM
 
LFEer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Liked: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
No, this conclusion and position is secular religion. This has not anywhere near been established at the scientific level. Not even close. Now, they should sound far more alike than different, and more expensive ones might not be preferable. Many might even sound indistinguishable from one another to a lot of people.


Just because under certain testing conditions, which virtually always differ significantly from normal listening conditions, in some tests, people were not able to reliable discern a difference doesn't even come close to establishing that no human under all listening conditions cannot hear a difference. Or constitutes some sort of 'scientific proof' that justifies pooh-poohing anyone who claims to hear a difference between amps and DACs (or even cables).


Yes, there is a lot of snake oil in hi-fi and more expensive isn't always preferable, but taking it to the extreme you have (and others like Arny K.) isn't science. It's secular religion, IMO.
It's not a secular religion. It's an evidence backed conclusion. Calling it a secular religion would be equivalent to calling medicine DBT R&D a secular religion.
Ovation, CharlesJ and jsrtheta like this.
LFEer is offline  
post #95 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 09:18 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: WI
Posts: 2,873
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2325 Post(s)
Liked: 1130
What's with all the bickering back and forth on this thread - seriously..?

Every single professional review I have read regarding the SA-10, and the PM-10 matching amplifier, say that it is outstanding.

Anyone else have a different point of view?
JA Fant likes this.

Shopping List:
TV: Samsung Q90R, or LG C9, or Sony ...
Blu-ray: Panasonic UB820, or Sony X800M, or Pioneer Elite LX500
Soundbar: Samsung Q90R, or Sennheiser Ambeo, or...
AVR and Speakers: Marantz 8012, or... and GE Triton Reference, or...
New24K is offline  
post #96 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 09:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Jack D Ripper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Posts: 1,445
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 168 Post(s)
Liked: 542
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
You can do long term blind listening which nullifies the claim that listening while being tested somehow diminishes the listener's hearing ability.

What about when posting claims online?
Suppose I were to say:

I can run 100 mph. But only when I am not under the stress of being tested.
Now, what would every reasonable person say about that? It is exactly the sort of claim that people make about audio and their ability to hear. They claim to be able to do it as long as they are never properly tested. Since it is the same kind of claim, the same standards should apply in both cases.

It is funny, though, that those who do make a religion out of audio, to try to exclude it from the realm of evidence that applies to other subjects, often like to accuse others of what they themselves are doing.


I am glad that you are bringing up such issues, as it is a very strange thing that many people like to partition off some subjects and disregard evidence regarding them, but are interested in evidence in other cases. One wonders why people do that, instead of being consistent in the principles that are applied to claims and observations.


In my case, I have heard differences between CD players. At first, this seemed important, but then somehow I realized (I do not recall if someone pointed this out to me, or if I thought of it on my own; this was decades ago) that they were not level matched (not to mention, I did not listen blind), so them sounding different meant nothing at all. I am aware of the fact that human hearing is not linear, and that a difference in volume is subjectively perceived as a difference in tonal quality (this is why there are "loudness compensation" controls on a lot of vintage equipment), so one CD player sounding "better" under the conditions in which I heard them was meaningless.

Some of us are smart enough to not thoughtlessly trust our senses. Doing otherwise would be like believing a stick is bent when it is halfway in water. It looks bent, but that does not mean that it is bent. And so it is with other perceptions, like hearing; they are not to be thoughtlessly trusted, as they do not directly give one reality. If hearing did, then 2 channel stereo would never work at all, as otherwise one would always hear that the sound is just coming from 2 places, instead of sounding like it is coming from other places, too (like in between the speakers). Of course, the reality is, the sound is all coming from the places where the speakers are, but one does not perceive it that way with one's ears. So trusting one's perceptions to directly give one an accurate depiction of reality is quite foolish.

The upshot is (and I am far from alone on this), I would not trust my untested perceptions of things, as I know it is possible to be misled. This is particularly true in cases where it is something that no one has demonstrated the ability to hear, as it is rather doubtful that I have superhuman hearing.

But, there are many people who do trust their perceptions too much. It would be like someone saying, "I know what I see; look at the stick that is halfway in water; I can see it directly for myself that it is bent!" What makes this extra sad is that pretty much everyone knows that their perceptions cannot be so trusted, due to the stick in water example, and yet in other cases they stupidly and thoughtlessly trust their senses.

God willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.
Jack D Ripper is offline  
post #97 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 09:39 AM
Member
 
anoutsos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by New24K View Post
What's with all the bickering back and forth on this thread - seriously..?

Every single professional review I have read regarding the SA-10, and the PM-10 matching amplifier, say that it is outstanding.

Anyone else have a different point of view?
Unfortunately, the problem is that professional reviews may be biased, as the reviewers are part of the industry. Imagine if all reviews of new equipment concluded that they all sounded the same and as good as previous models. Both reviewers and hifi companies would be out of the job.
CruelInventions likes this.
anoutsos is offline  
post #98 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 09:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 4,214
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 625 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack D Ripper View Post
Of course an absolute proof has not been given, but that does not mean that there has not been sufficient evidence to draw that conclusion.

In this particular case, I am claiming precisely this. That there isn't sufficient evidence to draw that specific conclusion. In the case of a human possibly running 100 mph I agree there is, but that's an extreme case and not a good analogy to what we're talking about here.


There is no question that to establish on a scientific level that some particular person is hearing a difference they claim to be hearing between two amps or two DACs would require them passing some sort of devised scientific test. I'm saying this isn't a practical standard for the individual, given the differences are easily measurable, physically exist in space and time (and are also within the audible frequency range), there isn't a way to reliably test at the scientific level long term, normal condition listening, and ultimately each person's individual listening experience and assessment of the sound they're hearing from their ears and senses is subjective -- not objective.


Take the case of John Atkinson of Stereophile magazine. He participated in bling test of amplifiers, and couldn't tell the difference between any of them. At least in the test conditions. So he sold his more expensive amp and bought a cheaper one. He expected it to sound the same given the result of the blind tests, but in long term, normal listening it didn't. He didn't like the sound of his system with it, i.e. it bothered him, something was 'off' about it, he hated the sound and wasn't enjoying it as much as with the old amp. He replaced it and bought a similar amp as his old one and was again satisfied with the sound. In long term, normal listening he was able hear not just a difference, but a rather significant difference. Or at least, his senses and brain told him there was an audible difference, even when he didn't expect there to be one. Now, does this establish at a scientific level that he was actually hearing a difference? No, of course not, but it's not practical for him to reject what his senses tell him because he couldn't pass the short term blind test.


Look it's one thing for someone to claim they're hearing something that can't be measured and/or doesn't physically exist in space and time. That would clearly be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. But this is not the realm we're in here with this, and thus it isn't an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Ultimately, listening to music on a hi-fi system and assessing the sound is a sensory subjective experience. Thus, the standard of personally evaluating the experience of the sound isn't to establish proof at the scientific level of an audible difference.
RWetmore is offline  
post #99 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 09:46 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: WI
Posts: 2,873
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2325 Post(s)
Liked: 1130
Quote:
Originally Posted by anoutsos View Post
Unfortunately, the problem is that professional reviews may be biased, as the reviewers are part of the industry. Imagine if all reviews of new equipment concluded that they all sounded the same and as good as previous models. Both reviewers and hifi companies would be out of the job.
Virtually every reputable professional review I have read of upper-tier equipment gives both its pluses and minuses when reviewing a product - and compares it to other products with its pluses and minuses.

What I have found - is that if the piece of equipment isn't up to snuff - they just don't publish the review.

Shopping List:
TV: Samsung Q90R, or LG C9, or Sony ...
Blu-ray: Panasonic UB820, or Sony X800M, or Pioneer Elite LX500
Soundbar: Samsung Q90R, or Sennheiser Ambeo, or...
AVR and Speakers: Marantz 8012, or... and GE Triton Reference, or...
New24K is offline  
post #100 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 10:00 AM
Member
 
anoutsos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 18
In any case, I have recently decided not to waste any more money on electronics and spend on (the much more expensive) buying and treating a listening room - and of course, money allowing, upgrading my speakers. I don't think that going from my AV8801/MM8077 to the SA10/PM10 is going to improve my listening experience as much as putting the former in a properly treated room.
noears likes this.
anoutsos is offline  
post #101 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 10:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 4,214
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 625 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack D Ripper View Post
In my case, I have heard differences between CD players. At first, this seemed important, but then somehow I realized (I do not recall if someone pointed this out to me, or if I thought of it on my own; this was decades ago) that they were not level matched (not to mention, I did not listen blind), so them sounding different meant nothing at all. I am aware of the fact that human hearing is not linear, and that a difference in volume is subjectively perceived as a difference in tonal quality (this is why there are "loudness compensation" controls on a lot of vintage equipment), so one CD player sounding "better" under the conditions in which I heard them was meaningless.

But after you level matched you didn't perceive an audible difference in long term listening, right? Or at least after you realized they weren't level matched when you were directly comparing them they didn't sound different to you in long term listening, right? That's awfully convenient (for you). Not everyone else necessarily has the same experience in similar situations.


In the case of John Atkinson, you don't think he should have stuck with the amp he didn't like the sound of and was bothering him in long term, normal listening, because under the conditions of the blind test he couldn't hear a difference, do you? That would be pretty stupid of him to do that, and this is my point here with all of this. Ultimately, it's a subjective sensory experience and assessment. And we're not talking about magic pixie dust or something in the realm of the unmeasurable, or the unverifiable physical existence in space and time of.
RWetmore is offline  
post #102 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 10:38 AM
Member
 
southleft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Washington state
Posts: 172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by commsysman View Post
My impression, after listening to all or part of a couple of dozen CDs and SACDs that I am quite familiar with, is that the SA-10 is unquestionably better-sounding than either the OPPO BDP-105, which had been my preferred player in the past, or the Marantz UD7007, which is also quite good.

Fine details in the music that are not clearly discernible with the OPPO or 7007 become very clear and fully audible with the SA-10. It takes listening pleasure to a distinctly higher level.

It is clear to me that the SA-10 has a consistently higher level of resolution than the other players, and makes the music more realistic and enjoyable to a very significant degree.

My wife made the comment that the sound of massed strings on certain classical CDs had always grated on her nerves, and that for the first time the SA-10 made them sound much more realistic and pleasant to listen to, to her. She finds that some CDs that were not entirely pleasant for her to listen to before are now much nicer-sounding.

I noticed that many classical solo piano recordings assumed a degree of clarity and the ability to hear every note perfectly that I had never heard before on any player.

One interesting comment I read on another website from an SA-10 owner was that his SA-10 was perhaps not quite as good as his REGA Isis player for CDs. That player costs $9000, however, and does not play SACDs; CD only.

I am in love with the SA-10, and so is my wife; big smiles.

The price is a bit steep, but I am glad I bought it. It is a very significant improvement to our listening pleasure.

In terms of price vs performance, however, the OPPO is still a great value at $1200 or so (I assume that the new OPPO 205 will continue to offer sound quality at least as good as the 105).

There is a big difference in sound quality once you have heard both, but I think most people will still find the OPPO quite good for its price.
" It is clear to me that the SA-10 has a consistently higher level of resolution than the other players, and makes the music more realistic and enjoyable to a very significant degree.

My wife made the comment that the sound of massed strings on certain classical CDs had always grated on her nerves, and that for the first time the SA-10 made them sound much more realistic and pleasant to listen to, to her. She finds that some CDs that were not entirely pleasant for her to listen to before are now much nicer-sounding.
"

My GF loves music and movies, but couldn't care less about the hardware used to play it. Her hearing, however, is acute. It's a rare day when she makes a positive comment regarding the sound of whatever i'm auditioning. Often it's "Mmm, sounds about the same" or "Whatever that thing costs, it isn't worth it!". So, when she walks through the room, pauses, then sits down and listens it usually means a really bad or really good comment is coming. And, when she says that this or that favorite music sounds better than ever, it has never been at odds with what i'm hearing.

Some audio research has suggested that women often have more sensitive or more acute high-frequency hearing. Maybe that goes along with their sensitivity to emotional nuances in speech and music. At any rate, a thumbs-up rating from her is definitely a good thing in our household.
southleft is offline  
post #103 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 10:46 AM
 
LFEer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Liked: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
In this particular case, I am claiming precisely this. That there isn't sufficient evidence to draw that specific conclusion. In the case of a human possibly running 100 mph I agree there is, but that's an extreme case and not a good analogy to what we're talking about here.
Claims of hearing differences that are too small for humans to hear is just as extreme as people claiming to be able to run 100 mph.

Quote:
There is no question that to establish on a scientific level that some particular person is hearing a difference they claim to be hearing between two amps or two DACs would require them passing some sort of devised scientific test. I'm saying this isn't a practical standard for the individual, given the differences are easily measurable, physically exist in space and time (and are also within the audible frequency range), there isn't a way to reliably test at the scientific level long term, normal condition listening, and ultimately each person's individual listening experience and assessment of the sound they're hearing from their ears and senses is subjective -- not objective.
You can do long term normal condition listening without knowing which component is connected a.k.a. blind condition.
Quote:
Take the case of John Atkinson of Stereophile magazine. He participated in bling test of amplifiers, and couldn't tell the difference between any of them. At least in the test conditions. So he sold his more expensive amp and bought a cheaper one. He expected it to sound the same given the result of the blind tests, but in long term, normal listening it didn't. He didn't like the sound of his system with it, i.e. it bothered him, something was 'off' about it, he hated the sound and wasn't enjoying it as much as with the old amp. He replaced it and bought a similar amp as his old one and was again satisfied with the sound. In long term, normal listening he was able hear not just a difference, but a rather significant difference. Or at least, his senses and brain told him there was an audible difference, even when he didn't expect there to be one. Now, does this establish at a scientific level that he was actually hearing a difference? No, of course not, but it's not practical for him to reject what his senses tell him because he couldn't pass the short term blind test.
I have listened to different components in subjective (no level matching or double blind) comparison and heard a difference even when doing short term listening. This just debunked the necessity of long term listening. Then I listened to the same components in level matched DBT and the difference I once noticed was gone. So there you have it.

Quote:
Look it's one thing for someone to claim they're hearing something that can't be measured and/or doesn't physically exist in space and time. That would clearly be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. But this is not the realm we're in here with this, and thus it isn't an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Ultimately, listening to music on a hi-fi system and assessing the sound is a sensory subjective experience. Thus, the standard of personally evaluating the experience of the sound isn't to establish proof at the scientific level of an audible difference.
What you are doing here isn't personally evaluating the experience of the sound. It's posting claims online. For your posts to carry water, they need supporting evidence.
Jack D Ripper likes this.
LFEer is offline  
post #104 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 11:16 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,697
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 785 Post(s)
Liked: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
... people were not able to reliable discern a difference doesn't even come close to establishing that no human under all listening conditions cannot hear a difference. ....
Is this what is needed, absolutes? After all, we are not talking about establishing thresholds of detection here at AVS but home listening and detecting differences for home usage and enjoyment.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #105 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 11:18 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,697
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 785 Post(s)
Liked: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by anoutsos View Post
Unfortunately, the problem is that professional reviews may be biased, ....
Maybe? LOL. They are until all their reviews are based on a DBT listening session. TAC is history, the rest is fantasy.
Jack D Ripper likes this.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #106 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 11:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,697
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 785 Post(s)
Liked: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by southleft View Post
...

Some audio research has suggested that women often have more sensitive or more acute high-frequency hearing. Maybe that goes along with their sensitivity to emotional nuances in speech and music. At any rate, a thumbs-up rating from her is definitely a good thing in our household.
Maybe. However, they are not immune from subconscious bias.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #107 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 11:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: WI
Posts: 2,873
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2325 Post(s)
Liked: 1130
So basically what everyone is telling the owners (and reviewers) of the SA-10 who love it is... "Don't believe you lying ears"

Shopping List:
TV: Samsung Q90R, or LG C9, or Sony ...
Blu-ray: Panasonic UB820, or Sony X800M, or Pioneer Elite LX500
Soundbar: Samsung Q90R, or Sennheiser Ambeo, or...
AVR and Speakers: Marantz 8012, or... and GE Triton Reference, or...
New24K is offline  
post #108 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 11:49 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 4,214
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 625 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Look, I understand that most CD players for example will easily sound different from one another because they're not level matched, because the difference heard is primarily a difference in level output (which is generally easily heard, but not necessarily perceived as a difference in level output) and not in the measurable sound signature differences of the CD players' DACs. In fact, it's been obvious in my own experience that the level differences between CD players are often quite large and obviously level differences and not sound signature differences. None the less, I fully agree that for any scientific testing, i.e. to establish an audible difference at the scientific level, you have to precisely level match what you're comparing.


But this is a moot point relative to the point I've been making here with all of this. Mostly because it has nothing to do with long term listening perceived differences in sonic signature, nor someone's ultimate subjective assessment of what they're hearing. By long term listening, I mean at least on the order of multiple hours and more like days to weeks (or even months). Maybe I didn't make that clear.

Last edited by RWetmore; 02-27-2018 at 12:00 PM.
RWetmore is offline  
post #109 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 11:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 4,214
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 625 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post
Is this what is needed, absolutes?

No, of course not. I'm not suggesting that at all. I think the evidence reasonably supports that the claims of those who hear large or obvious differences between virtually all DACs and amps are likely untrue. Or at least, the differences aren't likely to be as large and as easy to perceive as a lot of people claim and believe they are. That's about it.
RWetmore is offline  
post #110 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 12:02 PM
Newbie
 
gizzlerr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: East Coast
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post
It's not a secular religion. It's an evidence backed conclusion. Calling it a secular religion would be equivalent to calling medicine DBT R&D a secular religion.
Quite an apt analogy!
JA Fant likes this.
gizzlerr is offline  
post #111 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 01:32 PM
 
LFEer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 818 Post(s)
Liked: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
But this is a moot point relative to the point I've been making here with all of this. Mostly because it has nothing to do with long term listening perceived differences in sonic signature, nor someone's ultimate subjective assessment of what they're hearing. By long term listening, I mean at least on the order of multiple hours and more like days to weeks (or even months).
If you are deciding whether you will like your new purchase or not then generally it would take some time to decide, though there are exceptions such as "love at first sight".

Personal preference doesn't help anyone other than the one deciding it. What good does it do in places where people don't even talk face to face?
LFEer is offline  
post #112 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 02:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,697
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 785 Post(s)
Liked: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by New24K View Post
So basically what everyone is telling the owners (and reviewers) of the SA-10 who love it is... "Don't believe you lying ears"
Well, look at it this way. They test and listen to a component. Then make a subjective take on the sound.... Did they really compare it to another equivalent component at the time or they draw from memory of sound quality of previous components tested? If the latter, well it really has little value as memory is unreliable for such events. If the former, how was it compared? How did they control for bias?
To lye, one has to know the truth.
And yes, the brain where the processing take place can and does mislead. It looks for differences, not sameness most of the time.
Jack D Ripper likes this.
CharlesJ is offline  
post #113 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 02:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JA Fant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Prattville AL
Posts: 2,715
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 551 Post(s)
Liked: 1328
Quote:
Originally Posted by New24K View Post
What's with all the bickering back and forth on this thread - seriously..?

Every single professional review I have read regarding the SA-10, and the PM-10 matching amplifier, say that it is outstanding.

Anyone else have a different point of view?
I wish I could find a Marantz dealer/retailer that has one for audition in the showroom?
JA Fant is offline  
post #114 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 04:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Jack D Ripper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Posts: 1,445
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 168 Post(s)
Liked: 542
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
In this particular case, I am claiming precisely this. That there isn't sufficient evidence to draw that specific conclusion. In the case of a human possibly running 100 mph I agree there is, but that's an extreme case and not a good analogy to what we're talking about here.


There is no question that to establish on a scientific level that some particular person is hearing a difference they claim to be hearing between two amps or two DACs would require them passing some sort of devised scientific test. I'm saying this isn't a practical standard for the individual, given the differences are easily measurable, physically exist in space and time (and are also within the audible frequency range), there isn't a way to reliably test at the scientific level long term, normal condition listening, and ultimately each person's individual listening experience and assessment of the sound they're hearing from their ears and senses is subjective -- not objective.


Take the case of John Atkinson of Stereophile magazine. He participated in bling test of amplifiers, and couldn't tell the difference between any of them. At least in the test conditions. So he sold his more expensive amp and bought a cheaper one. He expected it to sound the same given the result of the blind tests, but in long term, normal listening it didn't. He didn't like the sound of his system with it, i.e. it bothered him, something was 'off' about it, he hated the sound and wasn't enjoying it as much as with the old amp. He replaced it and bought a similar amp as his old one and was again satisfied with the sound. In long term, normal listening he was able hear not just a difference, but a rather significant difference. Or at least, his senses and brain told him there was an audible difference, even when he didn't expect there to be one. Now, does this establish at a scientific level that he was actually hearing a difference? No, of course not, but it's not practical for him to reject what his senses tell him because he couldn't pass the short term blind test.


Look it's one thing for someone to claim they're hearing something that can't be measured and/or doesn't physically exist in space and time. That would clearly be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. But this is not the realm we're in here with this, and thus it isn't an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Ultimately, listening to music on a hi-fi system and assessing the sound is a sensory subjective experience. Thus, the standard of personally evaluating the experience of the sound isn't to establish proof at the scientific level of an audible difference.

In your description of the case of John Atkinson, there are too many things left unanswered. Was the "unsatisfactory" amplifier ever taken to a repair shop to be examined, to make sure it was properly functioning? A malfunctioning amplifier may well sound different from one that is not. What were the impedance characteristics of the speakers he was using? Was the amplifier designed for such use? If not, then, again, there is a possible source of his issue. What was the sensitivity of his speakers, and how did the power output of his "unsatisfactory" amplifier compare with his previous one? Again, there are possible issues there. Of course, we cannot dismiss the possibility of it all being a psychological matter as well. But I would not jump to that conclusion without first considering other possible explanations, though I would likewise not rule it out without having a good reason to do so.


There are many things that can be measured but cannot be perceived by humans. 100kHz is quite measurable, but that does not make it audible. The simple fact is, what is audible and what is not audible has been studied, so scientists have a pretty good idea of what is possible to hear and what isn't. Human psychology has also been studied, and scientists have a pretty good idea of the ways in which human perception is unreliable. So there is good reason to doubt the claims of many audiophiles. Regardless of whether they believe this or not.

It is also funny that you present the idea of things being measurable and therefore maybe are important. The difference between two speakers of the same model can be measured, and so can the difference between the two channels of stereo amplifiers. If the minute differences that you are mentioning were audible, audiophiles would always be complaining that they can never get the two channels of their stereo to sound the same, since they always are measurably different, by vastly more than the difference between two competently made DACs. Yet strangely, one pretty much never hears audiophiles complain about the differences between the channels of their system. The idea that they can magically hear it in one case, but cannot when the difference is greater, is absurd.

God willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.
Jack D Ripper is offline  
post #115 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 06:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by New24K View Post
What's with all the bickering back and forth on this thread - seriously..?

Every single professional review I have read regarding the SA-10, and the PM-10 matching amplifier, say that it is outstanding.

Anyone else have a different point of view?
"Professional review"? Who, pray, are these "professionals"?
jsrtheta is offline  
post #116 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 06:39 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post
Is this what is needed, absolutes? After all, we are not talking about establishing thresholds of detection here at AVS but home listening and detecting differences for home usage and enjoyment.
Yes, by this reasoning, then one should never take a prescription that was validated in double-blind testing because, while none of the test subjects died from it, there could be someone who will die.

Whereas this nifty homeopathic remedy worked for my cousin Larry's neighbor. He said...
Ovation likes this.
jsrtheta is offline  
post #117 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 06:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWetmore View Post
In this particular case, I am claiming precisely this. That there isn't sufficient evidence to draw that specific conclusion. In the case of a human possibly running 100 mph I agree there is, but that's an extreme case and not a good analogy to what we're talking about here.


There is no question that to establish on a scientific level that some particular person is hearing a difference they claim to be hearing between two amps or two DACs would require them passing some sort of devised scientific test. I'm saying this isn't a practical standard for the individual, given the differences are easily measurable, physically exist in space and time (and are also within the audible frequency range), there isn't a way to reliably test at the scientific level long term, normal condition listening, and ultimately each person's individual listening experience and assessment of the sound they're hearing from their ears and senses is subjective -- not objective.


Take the case of John Atkinson of Stereophile magazine. He participated in bling test of amplifiers, and couldn't tell the difference between any of them. At least in the test conditions. So he sold his more expensive amp and bought a cheaper one. He expected it to sound the same given the result of the blind tests, but in long term, normal listening it didn't. He didn't like the sound of his system with it, i.e. it bothered him, something was 'off' about it, he hated the sound and wasn't enjoying it as much as with the old amp. He replaced it and bought a similar amp as his old one and was again satisfied with the sound. In long term, normal listening he was able hear not just a difference, but a rather significant difference. Or at least, his senses and brain told him there was an audible difference, even when he didn't expect there to be one. Now, does this establish at a scientific level that he was actually hearing a difference? No, of course not, but it's not practical for him to reject what his senses tell him because he couldn't pass the short term blind test.


Look it's one thing for someone to claim they're hearing something that can't be measured and/or doesn't physically exist in space and time. That would clearly be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. But this is not the realm we're in here with this, and thus it isn't an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Ultimately, listening to music on a hi-fi system and assessing the sound is a sensory subjective experience. Thus, the standard of personally evaluating the experience of the sound isn't to establish proof at the scientific level of an audible difference.
Atkinson started out with Hi-Fi News & Record Review, a subjectivist rag. Now he runs a magazine that depends for its very survival on advertising from tweako audio jewelers. He will never agree with the idea of DBT, because it would give the lie to much of his livelihood.

He's an audio pornographer.
jsrtheta is offline  
post #118 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 06:48 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by New24K View Post
Virtually every reputable professional review I have read of upper-tier equipment gives both its pluses and minuses when reviewing a product - and compares it to other products with its pluses and minuses.

What I have found - is that if the piece of equipment isn't up to snuff - they just don't publish the review.
How would you know?
jsrtheta is offline  
post #119 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 07:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 4,214
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 625 Post(s)
Liked: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack D Ripper View Post
Of course, we cannot dismiss the possibility of it all being a psychological matter as well.

No, of course we cannot. But it isn't practical for one to do so *if* they are perceiving long term listening differences in normal listening conditions.


We also cannot dismiss the possibility that he actually heard a difference, as this, if true, would not radically transform our understanding of the universe as many of you seem to imply.


Even the anti pseudo-science folks at Audioholics believe amps and DACs can and do sound different (and they easily measure differences between them). It's the 'everything sounds the same or it's defective' position that I object to, and is what I believe is not science based.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack D Ripper View Post
here are many things that can be measured but cannot be perceived by humans. 100kHz is quite measurable, but that does not make it audible.

100Khz is also not reproducible by speaker tweeters. Maybe an amp can do 100Khz, but not the speakers. So it would be something that doesn't physically exist or isn't physically produced to potentially be perceived by the listener.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack D Ripper View Post
It is also funny that you present the idea of things being measurable and therefore maybe are important. The difference between two speakers of the same model can be measured, and so can the difference between the two channels of stereo amplifiers. If the minute differences that you are mentioning were audible, audiophiles would always be complaining that they can never get the two channels of their stereo to sound the same, since they always are measurably different, by vastly more than the difference between two competently made DACs. Yet strangely, one pretty much never hears audiophiles complain about the differences between the channels of their system. The idea that they can magically hear it in one case, but cannot when the difference is greater, is absurd.

Any difference claimed to be perceived has to at least start with a measurable difference. BTW, I actually did hear a channel difference between two amps of the same model. One was -- at least noticeably to me -- producing more bass on the right side than the left side (undesirably so because each channel wasn't balanced or equal to the other in bass output). My senses picked it up right away as soon as I set it up where I had the other one of the same model. Maybe the manufacturing tolerances between channels were fairly loose and the one for the right channel just made the cut, or maybe it was all imagined.
RWetmore is offline  
post #120 of 179 Old 02-27-2018, 07:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
RWetmore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brick, New Jersey
Posts: 4,214
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 625 Post(s)
Liked: 388
BTW,


Here is the famous debate between Atkinson and Kruger if any of you haven't heard it and would like to:


JA Fant likes this.
RWetmore is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off