|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
142.134.97.112
In Reply to: RE: Answers posted by E-Stat on February 22, 2015 at 16:29:55
Well, at least you agree that with many speakers, amplifiers with a high output impedance will likely sound different than amplifiers with a low output impedance. If someone likes the results with a tube amp with a high output impedance, more power to them.
I audition speakers for the most part using amps with a low output impedance and have found speakers I like. I see no reason to muck up their response with an amp with a high out put impedance. But if someone prefers something else, that's there privilege. I advise people to get equipment they prefer.
You actually give no reason why anyone should believe reviewers and audiophiles who claim to hear differences in equipment that appear to be below commonly recognized audio thresholds. Now, if they did controlled DBTs which showed they could, fine. A secure audiophile might extol a piece of equipment, and if asked he/she had done a controlled DBT, could just say, "No." But you and others just react, which leads me to hypothesize that you are not very secure.
Research has shown that most people prefer speakers with similar characteristics, so if several purely subjective reviewers like a speaker, I may put it on an an audition list. But even so, I find a good set of measurements more reliable than reviewer's opinions. My favorite speaker reviewers also do measurements. But of course, you admit that speaker measurements have some value so we agree that, at least. I notice you do FR measurements in your room.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Follow Ups:
You actually give no reason why anyone should believe reviewers and audiophiles who claim to hear differences in equipment that appear to be below commonly recognized audio thresholds.
I'll be happy to fill in the obvious answer: we who hear lots of different components do too.
But of course, you admit that speaker measurements have some value so we agree that, at least.
To a point, sure. I find it worth the effort to experiment with room placement and treatments for them to sound their best.
Me:
You actually give no reason why anyone should believe reviewers and audiophiles who claim to hear differences in equipment that appear to be below commonly recognized audio thresholds.
E-stat:
I'll be happy to fill in the obvious answer: we who hear lots of different components do too.
My reply:
So what is the reason? You again play on an equivocation, as "hear" can refer to perception or detection. That's why I often talk about detecting differences.
I am only mildly in your perceptions about small differences in electronics, but I believe you have them.
But I simply see no reason to accept that you actually can detect small differences unless backed up by scientific data. This could be:
A. Measured differences above recognized thresholds. (Stereophile once did a poorly designed DBT between tube and a SS amp, which unsurprisingly got a positive result whereas they could have just noted that the two amps had audible differences in their measured FR into the speaker load).
B. Results of controlled blind tests.
As I said, I can listen to equipment to form preferences. I don't need you or some reviewer to do it for me.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
So what is the reason?Lots of practiced ears hear the same qualitative differences.
I can listen to equipment to form preferences. I don't need you or some reviewer to do it for me.
Developing preferences has never been the role of an audio reviewer. It is to reduce a huge field of possible components to a smaller number you can audition. As for preferences, those should be clearly stated in advance by the reviewer. Over time, you may then judge the comments in context of those preferences. They can also suggest qualities that you may never have heard before or be aware of.
It was JWC who introduced me to Dayton-Wright electrostats when I was 19 which became a lasting effect. I tended to prefer speakers that he liked as well. HP, on the other hand, was more about precise imaging, dynamic range and low end punch and less about coherency. While the IRS were definitely impressive sounding, I found the woofer towers sounded like they belonged to a different speaker. That bothered me, but clearly not Harry. He also tended to listen at higher levels than either the good doctor or me. Times I would visit Sea Cliff, I would typically turn down the sub level when I listened alone (then restored his setting). On one occasion, he actually preferred my adjusted setting.
On the other hand, I was very much in tune with his amplification preferences. Hated the Halcros, had mixed impressions over the Edge and ASR amps, wasn't really happy with the Western Electric SE amps (at least on the Nolas), but really enjoyed both the VTL Wotans and Siegfrieds (bought my 450s following hearing the former). They brought home the most natural sounding rendition allowing me to truly hear some of my favorite music as I had not previously heard them. Still happy twelve years later. Fortunately, my speakers are not affected so much by their relatively high source impedance.
It should always be you who makes the decision based upon your musical tastes and preferences. The best reviewers can make it easier for you to in effect audition far more gear than you would likely get a chance to by yourself.
edit: BTW, I had never really optimized the HT system when I updated the processor to a newer Emotiva unit. I just got finished doing that. As with the upstairs system, it look lots of experimentation measuring the effect of a range of changes albeit using different methods. In the end, I found the optimum low pass for the subs, high pass for the mains and center and used the parametric EQ to apply a bit of attenuation (-3db) at two frequencies in the 99-105 hz region. There are still 3 db room nulls around 80 and 160 hz, but the response is now more linear and neutral sounding.
Edits: 02/23/15 02/23/15 02/23/15
E-stat
"Lots of practiced ears hear the same qualitative differences."
That is certainly an unproved assertion with a lot of equipment, notably accurate electronics. I expect that when electronics sound different, there is a measurable reason for it.
E-stat
"Developing preferences has never been the role of an audio reviewer."
Of course reviewers develop preferences for audio equipment! They make recommendations as to how good they think various pieces of equipment are. Some even make lists. Stereophile even has a list of Recommended Components, issued periodically.
Perhaps you mean equipment reviewers do not try to change the "musical tastes and preferences" of their readers."
E-stat adds
" It is to reduce a huge field of possible components to a smaller number you can audition."
Uhhh yeah. I see ads on Comedy Central involving a Captain Obvious. There are indeed more components, even more speakers than anyone can personally audition. Some we may not have even heard about. Some are only available with difficulty. So one needs some way of selecting equipment to audition, and reviewers, internet comments, friends, dealers, etc. can provide input. Do such people, including reviewer, actually know if different models of accurate electronics operated within their design limits sound better than others. Most probably not. If a reviewer thought that a big Bryston amplifier did not sound as good as a big Parasound amp or the MF Titan, I would pay no attention to it, unless there is some good reason to believe him. A good set of measurements is handy here.
E-stat
"As for preferences, those should be clearly stated in advance by the reviewer."
You mean like Julian Hirsch did? LOL
E-stat
"The best reviewers can make it easier for you to" in effect audition far more gear than you would likely get a chance to by yourself."
I am not sure what you mean here. Sure, professional reviewers audition a lot more equipment than I do, there's no "in effect" about it. They do it. As for me, this is hardly anything I would regard as me "in effect" auditioning equipment!
What about speakers and lists Recommended Component? Well, reviewer evaluations can give some idea of what they think about how well the product compares to others. On the other hand, a good set of measurements is more reliable. I have had objections to my procedure from a couple of reviewers, one of whom, at least, simply does not understand speaker measurements even as well as I do. But I find such performance measurements to be useful, and what business has anyone else to object to that? I use speaker measurements (Soundstage, Stereophile, and Audio Ideas Guide, chiefly) as a screening tool. If a speaker has mediocre or worse measurements, I certainly will not spend time and effort to seek it out, no matter what purely subjective reviewers say, though if I came across it by chance, I might audition such a speaker if I had the time.
Some years ago, I read the Paradigm was coming out with a no holds barred speaker line, the Signature line. When my dealer got the S2 in, I took some time to audition them, and I was very impressed with them as they seemed to me to be among the finest speakers I had ever heard (you don't have to agree). This was not a time to buy as my wife and I were soon about to leave to care for her aging mother. which took some time. During the months we were away, I was able to audition the S2 again, even the S8, along with a number of other speakers by PSB, Dynaudio, B & W, Dali, and others I have forgotten.
So, I knew I liked the S2. But were there others even better? Reviewers come in here, as well. First of all, I found good sets of measurements of the S2 in two reviews, one in Soundstage and the other in Soundstage. John Atkinson and Doug Schneider liked it a lot. Audio Ideas Guide reviewed the S4, and Andrew Marshall liked it a lot. The measurements were superb, and three of my favorite speaker reviewers spoke very highly of the Signature line. There is always the chance that I might like some other monitor speaker even better, but with superb measurements and three competent reviewers who thought the Signature line was first class, I was pretty confident not only that they would do me fine, but that it was unlikely that there was any monitor much better than the S2. And of course, there is a certain cachet to having speakers given a Class A, limited LF extension, rating by Stereophile.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
I expect that when electronics sound different, there is a measurable reason for it.
Perhaps, but you'll never find why in the data presented by Stereophile, Audio, Soundstage, Audioholics, etc.
Of course reviewers develop preferences for audio equipment!
I'll respond again to your previous comment:
I can listen to equipment to form preferences. I don't need you or some reviewer to do it for me.
Of course you don't need help forming preferences. We aleady have preferences as individuals. Why on earth do you think reviewers attempt to mold your preferences? They tell you what they observe in light of their own preferences.
What about speakers and lists Recommended Component?
They are a reflection of their favorites based upon recently reviewed gear .
On the other hand, a good set of measurements is more reliable.
Reliable for perhaps a few basic characteristics that you hear immediately anyway. But they provide little insight to important characteristics like imaging, coherency, balance, etc.
I was very impressed with them as they seemed to me to be among the finest speakers I had ever heard (you don't have to agree).
Why should I disagree as your experience? On the other hand, I find it sad that the best you've heard is some little boxes . Those create a lifelike image to you? Mind you, I have some mini-monitors in both the HT and in a bedroom system. They sound nice, but severely lack scale.
You mean like Julian Hirsch did? LOL
Julian Hirsch? His hearing acuity is the same today as it was thirty years ago.
And of course, there is a certain cachet to having speakers given a Class A, limited LF extension, rating by Stereophile.
As for me, I couldn't care less!
Why is Halcro the number (never heard one) one punching bag when discussing amplifiers, there are many others failing to deliver, why only Halcro all the time. Morricab for eg, bags both VTL and Lamm.
Whats the beef with Halcro and for the record, it had issues when i looked at it's bench test, so no suprise, if driving below 8 ohm speakers of low sensitivity...
Regards,
Edits: 02/23/15
I found it to have a very unnaturally lean tonal balance lacking harmonic richness like you hear with the real thing. It was all bones and no meat. Think tundra in winter .
Which is how I find many amplifiers that use prodigious amounts of "corrective" NFB and also why I'm not a fan of switching amps.
E-Stat,Thanks for the response, Was that consistent with all speakers or just on panels/ dipoles ..? As to NFB, I'm not totally disagreeing, but, isn't that the same as saying , amplifiers with High THD sound natural to you ..:)
We all have our "things" to look at when we select, for me, wimpy high -z drive only amplifiers, just sound wimpy to me, so i stay away from amplifiers that wont exhibit true voltage source into low-Z.
Regards..
Edits: 02/23/15
Was that consistent with all speakers or just on panels/ dipoles.
Driving Nola Grand Reference at Sea Cliff which is really neither.
but, isn't that the same as saying , amplifiers with High THD sound natural to you ..:)
Everything's relative. I find the quality and spectrum of distortion more important than the quantity below certain thresholds (1-2%). Companies like Ayre and Pass make low distortion amps using zero feedback.
High NFB designs tend to cascade their distortions in very non-linear ways using multiple stages. Fortunately, it's usually very easy to spot those designs as they have unnecessarily high damping factors.
Again, Not disagreeing with you about high NFB amplfiers, a balance is necessary, too much versus too little, is the Ayre no NFB or low NFB, many like to say none, when it's not ...
Fully "balanced" high NFB amplfiers can sound good, single ended not .
Regards..
Edits: 02/23/15
I believe like many of Nelson Pass' designs, the Ayre MX-R uses no global feedback, only small amounts of local feedback. Like my '81 Stasis.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: