[spkr]

FUD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

Good ^^ post!

 

[Garidy]

....bbbbbut audiophiles constantly indicate Cambridge Audio products are audiophile grade, WTF that is these days. They're ranked right there with NAD and the other boutique manufacturers like Emotiva and Rotel etc....you mean it ain't true? What got them kicked out of the club? Too many "featiures"?

LOL - I'm with you - kick them all out of the club - strong mid-fi at best. As an audiophile myself, I'd never make mention of any of these brands in the same sentence to describe the membership criteria of my club.

While I have a HTR, it was installed for the kids and family events - nice media space, very useful.

But dads private music only room, is decidedly two channel. I never have nor would I even consider any of the aforementioned brands for implementation in my two-channel system.

I am a music lover, as such, I put my money and my time were my love is, I spend much more than little time and little money, on this hobby that has become my second wife.

 

[spkr]

You showed a pretty graph that wasn't related to the sound difference in an AVR using SPDIF vs a preamp/amp using SPDIF. It would be useful IF this was a discussion of HDMI vs SPDIF and IF that pretty graph was a difference that could be proven to actually be an audible difference. I can draw a pretty diagram to explain the flawed comparison if that helps.

Good ^^^ post! However, if he reveals the audibility test results, it will mean a big loss of sales potential for his store. IOW, you will never see him revealing it.

 

[voxx1]

This guy probably makes this "forthright" argument 10x a day and I'm sure he's quite convincing. I've come to think of this line of reasoning as truthiness. Personally I went through a couple Cambridge integrated amps thinking along similar lines. When my 740a malfunctioned just after the warranty ran out, I made the switch to an AVR. With bass management features, I now had the tools to make my subwoofer integrate with my speakers properly, which along with Audyssey provides much improved sound quality. Oh, and the AVR easily takes me to any SPL I need, and due to economies of scale was half the price. I now view the money I spent on audiophile amplifiers (and CD players) as wasted.

I know what you're thinking about the salesman and his sales pitch . Let me put that in the proper context. I have been dealing with this guy for over 15 yrs...3 TV's 2 different AVR's, a few cell phones and sound bar. I know him quite well in and out of the store. When we were demoing the speakers it was after store hours and he was not trying to sell me a stereo amp. It may not have even been a Cambridge amp ... I don't recall exactly what brand it was but it was a top of the line stereo amp that he uses for demoing speakers and the name Cambridge came up at some point in the evening. The point he was making was that for the purist stereo simulation, he didn't use an AVR but a dedicated stereo amp. Make of that what you will.
Your statement about how the AVR you bought (to replace the 740a) and the ease you now had to integrate a sub provided you with a much improved sound quality boils down to preference. Is green really prettier than blue ? Because you preferred the sound over what you heard with the 740a doesn't necessarily mean you were getting the highest fidelity reproduction of what was originally recorded. Much like me listening to the uber-special no controls amp in my first post in this thread.

 

[Greenwood Ave]

IMO Cambridge doesn't produce Audiophile grade products - their marketing literature does, perhaps what you thought you were listening to wasn't, Audiophile grade, nullifying your cited reference. Just a thought to ponder.

As a foot note, I am personally glad that you have come upon better audio.

If you spend a $100 on an "audiophile" cable, there's always someone to tell you that the good ones start at $1,000. Spend a $1,000 on an "audiophile" amplifier, there's always someone to tell the really good ones start at $10,000. This line of reasoning no longer makes any sense to me.

 

[Garidy]

If you spend a $100 on an "audiophile" cable, there's always someone to tell you that the good ones start at $1,000. Spend a $1,000 on an "audiophile" amplifier, there's always someone to tell the really good ones start at $10,000. This line of reasoning no longer makes any sense to me.

That may or may not be so - but what is so - is that I'll never be one of them!

I have never mentioned money as being a determining factor in sonic goodness - that's on you and others!

 

[Greenwood Ave]

I know what you're thinking about the salesman and his sales pitch . Let me put that in the proper context. I have been dealing with this guy for over 15 yrs...3 TV's 2 different AVR's, a few cell phones and sound bar. I know him quite well in and out of the store. When we were demoing the speakers it was after store hours and he was not trying to sell me a stereo amp. It may not have even been a Cambridge amp ... I don't recall exactly what brand it was but it was a top of the line stereo amp that he uses for demoing speakers and the name Cambridge came up at some point in the evening. The point he was making was that for the purist stereo simulation, he didn't use an AVR but a dedicated stereo amp. Make of that what you will.
Your statement about how the AVR you bought (to replace the 740a) and the ease you now had to integrate a sub provided you with a much improved sound quality boils down to preference. Is green really prettier than blue ? Because you preferred the sound over what you heard with the 740a doesn't necessarily mean you were getting the highest fidelity reproduction of what was originally recorded. Much like me listening to the uber-special no controls amp in my first post in this thread.

I don't believe that modern amplifiers have a sound (sans EQ). From everything I've absorbed, this is the opinion of most credible engineers who have honestly considered what is audible. Of course there are amplifier enthusiasts, audio salesman, and audio reviewers who have a much different perspective.

I actually would cast my preference for the AVR in more objective terms. Using REW I can graph the improved frequency response before and after running Audyssey room correction. Dynamic EQ is another feature I believe objectively increases sound quality when listening at lower volume. These features help bring most users closer to "the highest fidelity reproduction of what was originally recorded."

 

[Garidy]

I don't believe that modern amplifiers have a sound (sans EQ). From everything I've absorbed, this is the opinion of most credible engineers who have honestly considered what is audible. Of course there are amplifier enthusiasts, audio salesman, and audio reviewers who have a much different perspective.

I actually would cast my preference for the AVR in more objective terms. Using REW I can graph the improved frequency response before and after running Audyssey room correction. Dynamic EQ is another feature I believe objectively increases sound quality when listening at lower volume. These features help bring most users closer to "the highest fidelity reproduction of what was originally recorded."

I must audit your statements, as you are making them out to be facts. The questions that I am about to present are for your internal consideration. As such, I am not expecting a response from you, as the answers are for you and you alone.

I don't believe that modern amplifiers have a sound (sans EQ). Fair enough - that's your opinion!

From everything I've absorbed, this is the opinion of most credible engineers who have honestly considered what is audible.
Who are the 'most credible engineers'?

How do you know that their efforts were honest (altruistic) and not for personal gain?


Of course there are amplifier enthusiasts, audio salesman, and audio reviewers who have a much different perspective. And there's isn't necessarily correct either. The degrees of audio fidelity is a complex issue, not a black and white one.

I actually would cast my preference for the AVR in more objective terms. Personal opinion - okay!

Using REW I can graph the improved frequency response before and after running Audyssey room correction. How do you know that it's an improvement?

Dynamic EQ is another feature I believe objectively increases sound quality when listening at lower volume. Auto loudness or the alike is an artificial enhancement devised to make improvements in audibility, at low volume levels ONLY. They are not linear. Just helpful in some settings. They have no place in a calibrated HTR or two-channel setup!

These features help bring most users closer to "the highest fidelity reproduction of what was originally recorded. False statement! They add sonic coloration, by overlaying a prescribed (non-linear) changes in various frequency amplitudes, to increase the overall audibility of the source data. Intelligibility is perhaps improved, perhaps not; but fidelity is absolutely not improved anywhere close to "the highest fidelity reproduction of what was originally recorded". Such is the dream of many though!

 

[Ratman]

If you are intending to give me advice, use private messaging.

LOL!
I tried that once.

 

[NorthSky]

This is a great thread; I am learning.

And everyone is contributing, without a single exception.

That's what a great audio forum is all about, right here, right now, with everyone sharing their knowledge, learning new stuff, and with all the love.

____________

Methinks that an Ethernet connection can affect sound quality, but I don't have proof of that, and no graph. ...I'll look for it though...give me some time.
I also believe that Wi-Fi and Bluetooth have a side effect on overall sound quality @ the preamp section of the AV receiver. ...Transmission spills.
But that too...give me some time to see what I can find out.


Great thread.

 

[NorthSky]

Public knowledge is more powerful than private knowledge. - Bob (me)

 

[spkr]

I must audit your statements, as you are making them out to be facts. The questions that I am about to present are for your internal consideration. As such, I am not expecting a response from you, as the answers are for you and you alone.

I don't believe that modern amplifiers have a sound (sans EQ). Fair enough - that's your opinion!

Wouldn't that be his belief? Just wondering, what your opinion on the sound of modern amplifiers?

 

[voxx1]

off topic again but certainly worth mentioning ...please ...when quoting someone ...especially if pictures are included ...have enough internet savvy to edit out the pictures in the quote.
There is absolutely no need to have the pictures represented 12 times in a post making the page take 6 mins to load.
Some of us are on older PC's that are mightily taxed already with all the ads and widgets on these pages no need to compound that with the same set of picture appearing 12 times ...

just sayin' ....

 

[amirm]

I don't believe that modern amplifiers have a sound (sans EQ).

What constitutes modern? What analog invention has led to amplifiers shedding their sound as you say?

And how do we equate belief with facts?

From everything I've absorbed, this is the opinion of most credible engineers who have honestly considered what is audible.

What makes them credible?

Of course there are amplifier enthusiasts, audio salesman, and audio reviewers who have a much different perspective.

You don't think there are engineerings who hold a different opinion? How did all the amplifiers that come from companies who don't believe in such, get designed?

I actually would cast my preference for the AVR in more objective terms. Using REW I can graph the improved frequency response before and after running Audyssey room correction.

You can also screw up your sound with Audyssey. So?

Dynamic EQ is another feature I believe objectively increases sound quality when listening at lower volume. These features help bring most users closer to "the highest fidelity reproduction of what was originally recorded."

Dynamic EQ is there to partly compensate for poor design of Audyssey target response. You sure you are not listening to "enthusiasts, audio salesman, and audio reviewers" when you say all of these things about Audyssey? If not, can you post a single double blind test that demonstrates what you just said about its efficacy?

 

[Greenwood Ave]

I must audit your statements, as you are making them out to be facts. The questions that I am about to present are for your internal consideration. As such, I am not expecting a response from you, as the answers are for you and you alone.

I don't believe that modern amplifiers have a sound (sans EQ). Fair enough - that's your opinion!

An opinion based on facts.

From everything I've absorbed, this is the opinion of most credible engineers who have honestly considered what is audible.
Who are the 'most credible engineers'?

How do you know that their efforts were honest (altruistic) and not for personal gain?

I suppose I don't. I don't know doctors advocating vaccines aren't being simply being paid off by the pharmaceutical industry (as some suppose). One side of that debate simply strikes me as being vastly more credible for a whole array of logical reasons.

Of course there are amplifier enthusiasts, audio salesman, and audio reviewers who have a much different perspective. And there's isn't necessarily correct either. The degrees of audio fidelity is a complex issue, not a black and white one.

Here's an audio salesman who saw the light on this issue:

"With him red faced, we proceeded to do at least an hour of listening with me swapping cables, or only pretending to, when he requested a switch. He listened to his favorite audiophile CDs. I did lots of swaps and fake swaps and during each would ask him which he thought he was listening to. In the end, his answers were roughly 50% correct which is the same as if he'd been randomly guessing. He even finally admitted, he couldn't tell which was which and WAS only guessing! I took his place and also couldn't hear any difference between the lowly receiver and his prized Bryston gear."

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/12752-blind-listening-tests-amplifiers.html

I actually would cast my preference for the AVR in more objective terms. Personal opinion - okay!

Using REW I can graph the improved frequency response before and after running Audyssey room correction. How do you know that it's an improvement?

Dynamic EQ is another feature I believe objectively increases sound quality when listening at lower volume. Auto loudness or the alike is an artificial enhancement devised to make improvements in audibility, at low volume levels ONLY. They are not linear. Just helpful in some settings. They have no place in a calibrated HTR or two-channel setup!

These features help bring most users closer to "the highest fidelity reproduction of what was originally recorded. False statement! They add sonic coloration, by overlaying a prescribed (non-linear) changes in various frequency amplitudes, to increase the overall audibility of the source data. Intelligibility is perhaps improved, perhaps not; but fidelity is absolutely not improved anywhere close to "the highest fidelity reproduction of what was originally recorded". Such is the dream of many though!

Just to clarify, I believe when correctly implemented Audyssey can bring most users closer to what is heard in a mixing room. Perhaps only a little bit closer, but closer nonetheless. If one is listening to music in an acoustically treated room of ideal dimensions, then perhaps Audyssey becomes much less useful. Personally in my less-than-ideal space I've found that acoustic treatments in addition to Audyssey and an AVR with bass management have combined to take me to a vastly greater level of sound quality. My ears tell me it's an improvement. So do the measurements I've taken.

 

[mthomas47]

I must audit your statements, as you are making them out to be facts. The questions that I am about to present are for your internal consideration. As such, I am not expecting a response from you, as the answers are for you and you alone.

I don't believe that modern amplifiers have a sound (sans EQ). Fair enough - that's your opinion!

From everything I've absorbed, this is the opinion of most credible engineers who have honestly considered what is audible.
Who are the 'most credible engineers'?

How do you know that their efforts were honest (altruistic) and not for personal gain?


Of course there are amplifier enthusiasts, audio salesman, and audio reviewers who have a much different perspective. And there's isn't necessarily correct either. The degrees of audio fidelity is a complex issue, not a black and white one.

I actually would cast my preference for the AVR in more objective terms. Personal opinion - okay!

Using REW I can graph the improved frequency response before and after running Audyssey room correction. How do you know that it's an improvement?

Dynamic EQ is another feature I believe objectively increases sound quality when listening at lower volume. Auto loudness or the alike is an artificial enhancement devised to make improvements in audibility, at low volume levels ONLY. They are not linear. Just helpful in some settings. They have no place in a calibrated HTR or two-channel setup!

These features help bring most users closer to "the highest fidelity reproduction of what was originally recorded. False statement! They add sonic coloration, by overlaying a prescribed (non-linear) changes in various frequency amplitudes, to increase the overall audibility of the source data. Intelligibility is perhaps improved, perhaps not; but fidelity is absolutely not improved anywhere close to "the highest fidelity reproduction of what was originally recorded". Such is the dream of many though!

I like your interest in maintaining objectivity. I try to be quite careful as well about making definitive statements. The question of whether amplifiers sound different is an interesting one. I have read reports of blind tests where the participants couldn't distinguish between amplifiers, and yet I can't stop believing that the electronics can slightly color the sound. My own experience suggests that amplifiers can sound different. But where I have noticed a difference was in listening to an amplifier as the only change in my system over a sustained period of time, and then listening to another one in a similar way. Gradually, I would form an almost subconscious impression as to which sound I enjoyed more. This was before AVR's with a lot of features and modes to cloud the issue. Could I do it in a blind test? Probably not, but perhaps someone can. Again, it's an interesting question.

A more interesting question involves the extent to which the speaker/room interaction affects what we hear. And that was something to which the other poster was somewhat obliquely referring. I have been in "audiophile" rooms with very expensive speakers, turntables, and amplifiers (even down to the 1" thick cables snaking across the floor ) which I thought sounded terrible simply because the room's natural acoustics were so bad. One room in particular I remember was almost a cube, with an angled vaulted ceiling and a skylight. It was all hard surfaces in a small cubical space and despite the expensive equipment, it sounded awful to me at anything over a very low volume. The high frequency ringing obscured the music for me. And the most interesting aspect of the experience was that the person demoing the system for me couldn't seem to hear the distortion at all. He was simply "listening through" the sound as that psycho-acoustic phenomenon has been described.

So, I believe there is a legitimate point to be made with respect to the use of room treatment, or perhaps room EQ, as the above poster mentioned. The most difficult aspect of the question, for me, is how much is enough? My overwhelming interest is in music. I read of very heavily treated rooms and they certainly don't sound like rooms I would want to listen to music in, or even hold a conversation in. Our speakers were designed to be played indoors, and not all of the effects of a room are necessarily bad. So, while I would agree that REW can be a useful tool for diagnosing specific acoustic problems, in the end I don't think it is a substitute for critical listening. Carrying this notion of objectivity into this aspect of the discussion, I believe if we want the best possible sound it is important to try hard to train our ears/minds to not simply "listen through" negative acoustical situations, and instead attempt to correct the ones that bother us. Of course, on the other hand, we can't hear what we can't hear, so perhaps it's better not to try to train ourselves.

I don't claim to be breaking any new ground here, but since the discussion has already wandered a bit, I thought I would introduce some of this as well. Room/speaker inter-relationships may be even more important than amplifier/speaker relationships. Just another viewpoint which could support the idea that modern amplifiers may have something legitimate to offer, and that room EQ, when well implemented, may be more than just another extraneous feature.

 

[beaveav]

Could be. Then again it could be this:

I have data to back my position. Do you have data where your head is?

Considering that I designed and tested HDMI and SPDIF outputs on numerous consumer A/V product lines - and that I was quoted in EE times for some work I did on jitter in D/A conversion, I find this post deliciously ironic.

 

[amirm]

Considering that I designed and tested HDMI and SPDIF outputs on numerous consumer A/V product lines - and that I was quoted in EE times for some work I did on jitter in D/A conversion, I find this post deliciously ironic.

Oh? You are a design engineer but your only reaction to technical explanation of how AVRs work and measurements within was FUD and a link to Wikipedia?

But sure, let's see the specifics. What company did you work for? What A/V products did you design? And is there a link to said EE Times article?

My only interaction with you that I recall unfortunately does not point proper experience in this field, let alone as a design engineer. To wit, you didn't recognize one of the two most common pieces of instrumentation used for measuring audio equipment: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...eaker-frequency-response-10.html#post23962051

To return the ball in kind, the data I have shared has all been published in Widescreen Review magazine. It has been read by thousands of people in the consumer electronics industry. And not one person has written in to me or the editor saying there was something wrong with it. Much less calling it FUD. Similar data was shared by Paul Miller of UK's HiFi News. Which I showed was quote as part of the presentation to Audio Engineering Society.

AES also has a working group on High Resolution Audio. This is what they had to say on the topic:

The above was reported in the Journal of Audio Engineering Society. Would you please share your experience that enables you to call of this FUD? Have you made the same measurements I had made? Did you have them published?

 

[Talos4]

I suppose I don't. I don't know doctors advocating vaccines aren't being simply being paid off by the pharmaceutical industry (as some suppose). One side of that debate simply strikes me as being vastly more credible for a whole array of logical reasons.

Isn’t there a slight difference in the quantity of vaccine test subjects over the years as opposed to blind testing amplifiers? The wife and I embarked on a test not so very different from your red faced audio salesman, between two hifi amp manufacturers. We got 73-75 correct (more precisely 23-25, 25-25, and 25-25). That’s not enough evidence to go telling newbies they will experience the same differences. With different room, speakers, listeners, music the results can easily change. But it was enough for the family to base personal buying decisions from, and we have. It also destroyed my preexisting confirmation bias that non-malfunctioning, non-clipping solid state amplifiers will necessarily sound the same.

 

[tubetwister]

A similar thread is here and my response is post 10..
​

that was a very good thread and post I will repeat my comment here :

Very good post. I think with AVR's it gets down to any features you may need e.g, room correction etc ,speaker requirements and adequate amplifier sections /power supplies to meet the requirements of your speakers in a given room and allow for distortion free loudness headroom requirements *for your intended uses *which may include listening distance to the speakers and a lot of other variables ,a lot of that is speaker/room dependent ..