AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
121 - 140 of 264 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,340 Posts
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. ]
. . . over different speaker systems, not amplifiers, the topic we are discussing.

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" . . .
[emphasis mine]

To the best of my knowledge everyone here is in universal agreement speakers have audible differences so bringing it up is obfuscation. Our topic is amps and the amp sections in receivers including AVRs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,986 Posts
. . . over different speaker systems, not amplifiers, the topic we are discussing.


[emphasis mine]

To the best of my knowledge everyone here is in universal agreement speakers have major differences so bringing it up is obfuscation.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,340 Posts
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.
[The above was misquoted by me as being attributed to the wrong forum poster. I have now fixed it.]

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,986 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,340 Posts
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."

Let's hear what you thought "wrong" meant, Ratman, thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,340 Posts
You misquoted me. .
Sorry, not sure how that happened. I was quoting another forum member but your name errantly got used on the quote maybe due to my rotten cut and paste job. . Oops. My bad. Fixed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,806 Posts
Let's hear what you thought "wrong" meant, Ratman, thanks.
Does it really matter to you?


My goodness...…………………
The guy was (I assumed) was wondering if using an AVR for stereo (2 channel) listening was a very bad idea.


The 1st few posts seem to have hit the nail on the head. :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,340 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,025 Posts
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.
Economics of Scale only extends just so far. ...

To better illustrate the point, let's use Speakers instead of Amps. 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.

Only if you set the audio on stereo mode. Try watching 5.1 movie through stereo system and see what happens to the dialogue.
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.

If you are using an AVR, of course, you do not want it to default to 5.1, when the system you have is 2.0. Set it to 2.0 mode.

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.

However, this discussion is not about Stereo vs Surround Sound, it is about the wisdom of using a AVR for Stereo, or put another way AVR vs Stereo for Stereo listening. I don't think it is wise to go with an AVR, depending on requirements, expectations, and budget.

I think I made a fair and balanced case, pointing out the advantages and disadvantages for both AVR and Stereo. Not really interested in the aside opinions of others. I addressed the Original Poster and his Original Question. And I stand by what I said.

Steve/bluewizard
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,340 Posts
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.
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.

When you work in an environment like this it is trivially quick and easy to do single blind A/B tests because everything is already setup and ready to go in a dedicated and isolated listening room, designed by professionals, using only high end peripheral gear and recordings. The only fly in the ointment is precise level matching to the tenth of a dB must be done externally and with separate instrumentation. Any test done without careful level matching is a worthless test because we know from AES published studies that people don't sometimes, but rather usually misconstrue small level differences of a dB or less as qualitative changes like, "air", "sheen", depth", "detail retrieval", "the bass", "the attack/dynamics" etc. even though the only actual change is level.

With the rare exceptions of some Mark Levinson series preamps and oddball Sony ES and Nakamichi DAT recorders, none of the gear I carried (or know of) can make .1dB changes. Most stuff out there in modern days uses digital display stepped volume controls working in .5dB steps [interestingly the change is usually done in the analog domain, not digital, even though the readout they show is "digital"]. To make a long story short, this means IDEALLY at least one of the two DUTs [devices under test] should have an old-school analog volume knob which is (of course) fully variable and not locked to .5 dB steps, otherwise achieving an adequate level match for the test can be sketchy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,340 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,340 Posts
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'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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,194 Posts
The only fly in the ointment is precise level matching to the tenth of a dB must be done externally and with separate instrumentation.
I just took this +/-1dB test again ...

https://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_level.php?lvl=1

and got 12/14 correct. I'm not sure how valid the test is because I quickly recognized a tell (I won't mention what it is, although I may have already influenced it for someone else a little just by mentioning it) on one of the sounds. Then again, maybe recognizing the tell is a sign of my hearing ability.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
441 Posts
Economics of Scale only extends just so far. ...
Right, for stereo amp or stereo receivers because of much smaller demand than AV receivers.
To better illustrate the point, let's use Speakers instead of Amps.
Lets not because you brought up the use of AV receiver in stereo use vs stereo receiver or amp in stereo use.
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.
Once again, the economies of scale mentioned was for the amplification.
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.
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. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,644 Posts
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.
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.

As I have stated in the past, those who believe that blind testing invalidates sighted testing must move from theory to actual participation in rigorously conducted DBT or ABX tests.

How? Contact a few audio manufacturers and ask if they are among the ones who run such tests in-house. Some do their own testing or hire a company to conduct the tests for them. Manufacturers that do these tests wish to know how their products fare against other brands or how a new, upcoming model compares against a current model. The blind testing is utilized sometimes along with sighted testing to sort out any remaining problems before a new product is released. Yes, the blind tests do indeed reveal differences--it would be pointless for them to spend the time and cost of conducting the tests if audible differences would not be observed.

For those new here, search out the late Charles Hansen's posts on AVS. He passed away recently, but not long ago discussed the blind testing conducted by his company, Ayre Acoustics.

I implore those who think blind testing invalidates sighted testing to participate themselves and watch others demonstrate that one can indeed differentiate one component from another under very rigorously controlled blind tests. If you truly believe in science, as I do (note that I am a retired university science editor and publisher of 30+ science journals and several hundred science books), and if you have trust in the science of blind testing, then participate and watch science at work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim99
121 - 140 of 264 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top