. . . over different speaker systems, not amplifiers, the topic we are discussing.Not necessarily engineered or programed effects. In re # 3 and 6, they're there in real life with real music played by real musicians, all at once, in a real space with real musical instruments. ]
[emphasis mine]Here are things I listen for when evaluating speakers, studio monitors or big PA systems.. . .
3. Stereo Imaging: phantom center image, localization, depth, soundstage
4. Definition/clarity: fine details, balance of instrumentation
5. Transient response: drums, percussion, piano, tightness, overhang
6. Ambience and openness: reproduction of acoustic space, reverberation, sense of "air" . . .
It's the way I evaluate an entire system, and every piece of it, not necessarily just speakers. Rex can of course do as he wishes. If he applies his list to only speakers, that's fine by me. I don't.. . . over different speaker systems, not amplifiers, the topic we are discussing.
To the best of my knowledge everyone here is in universal agreement speakers have major differences so bringing it up is obfuscation.
[The above was misquoted by me as being attributed to the wrong forum poster. I have now fixed it.]I have participated in single-blind amplifier tests that may as well have been double-blind because the switcher was behind us out of view. I think single-blind is good enough for consumers as long as no influences are used, and they're easily doable as long as you discount the sonic memory aspect of testing.
You misquoted me. The single blind I did at my house with the ML Statements and the Soundlab A1s, using the Classic 150s versus the VTL300s, the switcher was in the room to the side of the listening room, but completely out of sight. As you are aware, the panels are so large that they blocked everything to do with the equipment. I used a nearfield listening position, not as radical as I do now, but none of the equipment was visible. Plus the room had just enough lighting that you didn't trip over something. I setup access to the business end of the equipment from that room. We weren't out to trick one another, but were trying to choose phono cables initially, then after the first bottle of wine, it became ARC vs VTL, both at the time rated class A by Stereophile.I generally agree but the jump from single blind to double blind is not very difficult in this day and age thanks to the cell phone. What you do is never have the test conductor and the test subject (the listener) in the room at the same time. They communicate only through pre established responses such as:
Test conductor: "The room is now ready for Trial 1. Enter it, sit down and get comfortable, and proceed to play the music you pre-selected, switching back and forth with the button to hear the two amps you only see indicated as "A" and "B". When you have made a decision record it on the pad of paper and then text me once you have left the room."
Test subject: "OK, I have made a decision, recorded my vote, and have left the room so you may now enter."
Test conductor: "OK, the room is now ready for Trial 2. Enter it and as before switch back and forth with the button to hear the two amps you only see indicated as "A" and "B". When you have made a decision, record it on the pad of paper, and then text me."
If the test conductor and the test listener never have any physical contact then there's no possibility the test conductor may inadvertently divulge the true identities of "A" and "B" through subconscious body language or any other means so the test is effectively double-blind.
Cellphones can also be used as a test proctor, used in facetime mode, to watch the test subject as s/he listens to be sure there's no funny bussiness like sneaking a peak behind the curtain (stereo cabinet) to learn the true identities of A and B.
I took "wrong" to mean "Is there an audible compromise in using two channels of a 5 (or more) channel, name brand AVR used in direct (unprocessed) stereo mode, as possessed to having a dedicated 2ch system just for 2ch music. My answer is "No, there is generally no audible compromise in sound quality in doing that providing you obviously don't exceed the power limitations and clip the amp."The OP's topic was:
Is using an AVR for a 2 channel music system...wrong?
Does it really matter to you?Let's hear what you thought "wrong" meant, Ratman, thanks.
Economics of Scale only extends just so far. ...You seem to be caught up in the myth of electronic component's price as quality of sound. You need to get yourself familiarized with the economies of scale.
What other mode is there other than Stereo-Mode on a Stereo? I and many other listen to movies in Stereo all the time. I'm completely satisfied with what I hear.Only if you set the audio on stereo mode. Try watching 5.1 movie through stereo system and see what happens to the dialogue.
Same here. THOUSANDS of times. Because when you work in a high end audio store, like I did for many years, clients want to actually hear A/B demos of the gear being proposed so you have your various showrooms equipped with state of the art matrix switchers and can select any combination of goods you want AT THE FLICK OF A SWITCH.I have participated in single-blind amplifier tests that may as well have been double-blind because the switcher was behind us out of view.
I'm curious, do you dilute and compromise the proper reproduction of mono songs by playing them back through your stereo system or do you have a dedicated mono system for the proper reproduction of mono recordings?However ... assuming you have enough money to not have to dilute your equipment, I do recognize the advantages of Surround Sound. But as I said, my personal priority is Stereo, I would never be without one or more Stereo systems, if I had Surround Sound it would be in addition to, not in place of, a Stereo system.
I just took this +/-1dB test again ...The only fly in the ointment is precise level matching to the tenth of a dB must be done externally and with separate instrumentation.
Right, for stereo amp or stereo receivers because of much smaller demand than AV receivers.Economics of Scale only extends just so far. ...
Lets not because you brought up the use of AV receiver in stereo use vs stereo receiver or amp in stereo use.To better illustrate the point, let's use Speakers instead of Amps.
Once again, the economies of scale mentioned was for the amplification.We will assume a fixed budget of $1,000. In a Surround Sound system, that money has to buy SIX speakers. In a Stereo system that money has to buy TWO speakers. Which do you think delivers the better speakers? FIVE speakers and a Sub for $1000, or TWO speakers for $1000?
The same principle applies to amps. SEVEN ( or 9, or 11) for a fixed amount of money is not the same as TWO for that same fixed amount of money.
You said each will do the other. That's a false statement. You are now trying to shift the subject of debate to your personal preference of movie sound.What other mode is there other than Stereo-Mode on a Stereo? I and many other listen to movies in Stereo all the time. I'm completely satisfied with what I hear.
Blind-test supporters here think that sonic differences noted during sighted listening vanish when tested under blind conditions. That is not the case at all. The sonic characteristics heard under sighted evaluations are evident under blind tests as well. In fact, those audible differences are utilized to identify one component from another in DBT and ABX tests.Now, for someone who is fully invested as an "audiophile", who may have spent countless hours auditioning components and whose identity is in part built upon their self-perception of being a sophisticated listener with highly discerning perceptions, I can readily understand their resistance. Many otherwise smart people will argue there way out of seeing the plain truth. Seeking alternative explanation as the most likely explanation. And this is in part why we have such things as double-blind testing. Even with the many brilliant minds engaged in scientific pursuits, they understand the great need to put themselves and their ideas to independent test. Otherwise, it's far too easy to argue yourself out of any contrary information to your own particular set of views.