It seems non-audiophiles never tire of proving that everything sounds the same.

[jaxwired]

I don't think trying different cables at home is an adequate test to conclude that some bring the benefits claimed. Even if they do, the conditions under which people seem to try them are not adequate to make an objective conclusion. Differing levels of attenuation can be enough to plant the seed of pretty much any subjective user experience.

My own theory is that ABX testing for audio is flawed. I don't know exactly why but the brain is obviously a very complex and sophisticated instrument. For whatever reason, ABX testing of audio equipment does not work IMO. My evidence is all anecdotal, but I do belive my own ears. I will give you an example. Before I got back into hifi years ago, I spent a decade owning a yamaha receiver and a pair of B&W speakers. The system was fine but I always thought it sounded bass light. One day I spoted a brand new NAD amp on ebay and purchased it. I had done zero reading on the NAD product and only new NAD from seeing the brand in stereo shops way back in the early 90s. I only new it was good brand I knew nothing about the signature of NAD products. After putting the NAD in place into a system that I had logged many hundreds of listening hours on, I immediately noticed the sound change. The most prominent change with the fuller bass. In fact, the bass was so much fuller that now I found the speakers to be somewhat too bass heavy on certain recordings. The exact same system that I felt was bass light for years. I change nothing but the amp, everything else was identical. I later learned that NAD was known for warm, bassy amps. That this was well known by the hifi community, but it was totally unknown to me. From this I conclude that the NAD amp did not sound identical to my old Yamaha amp. I believe this as a 100% fact. YET, the famous 1987 stereo review ABX test for amplifiers resulted in the panel failing to tell the difference between a Mark Levison solid state amp, a TUBE amp, and a cheap receiver. From this, and other ABX testing I have to conclude that ABX testing just doesn't work for audio gear. Either that, or my NAD experience is complete dillusion and it's just coincidence that I concluded it had more bass which ended up comporting with the overall hifi communities opinion. I refuse to believe that.

 

[CnoEvil]

From this I conclude that the NAD amp did not sound identical to my old Yamaha amp. I believe this as a 100% fact. YET, the famous 1987 stereo review ABX test for amplifiers resulted in the panel failing to tell the difference between a Mark Levison solid state amp, a TUBE amp, and a cheap receiver. From this, and other ABX testing I have to conclude that ABX testing just doesn't work for audio gear. Either that, or my NAD experience is complete dillusion and it's just coincidence that I concluded it had more bass which ended up comporting with the overall hifi communities opinion. I refuse to believe that.

Jax, I agree. You either believe what you hear, or you let others tell you what you're hearing, and believe that.

 

[Anonymous]

It's an interesting topic and you make some interesting points.

Peter Walker aimed for an amplifier to be a straight wire with gain. If it's used to drive a pair of speakers within it's design limitations then you shouldn't tell it apart from another amp driven within limitations. I understand that he and/or Quad proved this to some extent with their valve and solid state amps (yes, a mix of paradigms!).

I think that some equipment manufacturers have differing design goals and deliberately add some colour, aka house sound, aside from colour that may result from driving an amp outside it's limitations. NAD certainly seems to show this, I've experienced it too. For me, and based on my experience, such colouration has proven to be a pain and caused me to seek a better solution. For others, it's a must-have.

I hold the view that when driven within limitations, all amps should sound the same, adding or removing nothing. That way you can represent the source more faithfully, whether it's lossless stream or turntable. Speakers alone add enough colour to satisfy anyone, surely? That's within context of the listening room too!

I remember auditioning the Spendor SA1s with my Rotel RA03, some years ago. We swapped out to the Primare I30 and I couldn't hear a difference. This may well be down to auditioning fatigue though!

I don't know about the whole ABX thing. The test you refer to may indeed be accurate in it's findings. Maybe there wasn't a discernable difference. We have to remain open minded. So that comes back to personal experiences. In which case, tread carefully and keep an eye on science (such as psycho acoustics) in order to do yourself and your wallet a service. :type:

The thread title is curious. Maybe, just maybe, differences are overstated and/or misunderstood. Maybe that's why the topic keeps popping up.

 

[Anonymous]

From this I conclude that the NAD amp did not sound identical to my old Yamaha amp. I believe this as a 100% fact. YET, the famous 1987 stereo review ABX test for amplifiers resulted in the panel failing to tell the difference between a Mark Levison solid state amp, a TUBE amp, and a cheap receiver. From this, and other ABX testing I have to conclude that ABX testing just doesn't work for audio gear. Either that, or my NAD experience is complete dillusion and it's just coincidence that I concluded it had more bass which ended up comporting with the overall hifi communities opinion. I refuse to believe that.

Jax, I agree. You either believe what you hear, or you let others tell you what you're hearing, and believe that.

There's a middle ground. Be open minded and understand what you're hearing or think you're hearing. (Not you specifically 8) )

 

[CnoEvil]

There's a middle ground. Be open minded and understand what you're hearing or think you're hearing. (Not you specifically 8) )

Iggs, you'll get no argument on that from me (and my comment was very general and not aimed anywhere in particular).....though I think listening can be made over-complicated.

I know it has become a cliche, but my wife has a remarkable ability to hear the most subtle of changes in my system, and I always check out my notions, by getting her assessment....she doesn't consider herself an "audiophile", thinks I'm nuts and certainly doesn't want me "wasting" any more money.

 

[Anonymous]

I've stopped asking my wife for input :rofl:

 

[CnoEvil]

I've stopped asking my wife for input :rofl:

Does it work? :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Well, when I did ask it was generally the case that everything sounded the same... :O

 

[CnoEvil]

Well, when I did ask it was generally the case that everything sounded the same... :O

A cunning plan indeed!

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I've had to change tack towards user interface products now, you know, Apple products, etc :dance:

 

[CnoEvil]

Yeah, I've had to change tack towards user interface products now, you know, Apple products, etc :dance:

You may win the odd battle, but you won't win the war!

 

[Ajani]

IMO there are a number of factors that cause these discussions:

1) some persons hear better than others. When was the last time you took a hearing test? So sometimes the person claiming no differences really can't hear that well OR the person claiming to hear differences can't hear jack and is imagining things.

2) even persons with equally good hearing won't hear the same differences. Hearing subtle hifi differences requires experience and training. How many of us actually know what all these hifi terms like micro dynamics, imaging and cohesiveness actually mean and sound like?

3) the effect of components depends on the rest of your system. If you have a clean power supply, then chances are high that you will experience little difference by using power filters, cords etc. if your power supply is really nasty then you might find a power filter to be a miracle product. Likewise cables - some amps, and especially passive preamps, are more cable dependent than others.

4) because we don't currently know how to measure a phenomena doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. DBT can't prove that differences don't exist, only that on average persons are unable to identify differences under test conditions. Meaning that many differences are far more subtle than many audiophiles claim. There are 2 US reviewers who scored 4/5 and 5/5 on a DBT of amps, but their results were considered statistically insignificant since the masses couldn't tell the differences. So even though the experts scored highly, that doesn't count since the average untrained listener didn't score well.

 

[Anonymous]

Ah, sweet indulgence...

I'm not saying though that they all sound the same. the biggest differentiator would be" meating cost on a certain price point", which takes into account quality and value of components used and thus "where corners will be cut".

Exactly. What you don't realize is that 90% of engineering is cutting corners. There is no reason whatsoever why any two ampfiliers from the same class should sound alike, it's like giving the same floorplan to two different contractors and then wondering why the houses don't look the same.

It's also why many manufacturers have a "reference" line of some sort. It's to showcase what can be done if the engineers don't need to cut corners (well, when the amount of corner cutting is reduced to a minimum).

My own theory is that ABX testing for audio is flawed. I don't know exactly why but the brain is obviously a very complex and sophisticated instrument. For whatever reason, ABX testing of audio equipment does not work IMO.

You are more than welcome to suggest a better method. But please be aware that ABX testing is used exactly because humans are very complex (the brain is tested with radioactivity), and it has been used succesfully in many other fields.

My evidence is all anecdotal, but I do belive my own ears.

Of course. Everyone believes their own ears, and there is nothing wrong with that. But I hope you realize that by "trusting your own ears", you will never be able to anything more absolute than "according to jaxwired's ears, ...." -- and that is not what science is about. Science is about finding universal truths, not personal ones.

Hearing subtle hifi differences requires experience and training.

I disagree. I'd posit that anyone can hear the differences, it only takes training to understand and communicate those differences.

4) because we don't currently know how to measure a phenomena doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. DBT can't prove that differences don't exist, only that on average persons are unable to identify differences under test conditions.

That's true, but it's also a cop-out. Creationism has been playing that whack-a-mole game for quite some time. It's scientifically impossible to prove a negative, which means anyone can claim anything: any time a scientist takes enough interest to disprove your specific theory-du-jour, you simply amend your theory slightly and keep claiming "science didn't prove me wrong, so I must be right".

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I've had to change tack towards user interface products now, you know, Apple products, etc :dance:

You may win the odd battle, but you won't win the war!

Yeah. Just ordered a iPhone 4S though. The Apple TV2 went back though, didn't realise there might be a 3 appearing soon. Anyway, I'm off topic completely now. :roll:

 

[bigboss]

I don't think trying different cables at home is an adequate test to conclude that some bring the benefits claimed. Even if they do, the conditions under which people seem to try them are not adequate to make an objective conclusion. Differing levels of attenuation can be enough to plant the seed of pretty much any subjective user experience.

My own theory is that ABX testing for audio is flawed. I don't know exactly why but the brain is obviously a very complex and sophisticated instrument. For whatever reason, ABX testing of audio equipment does not work IMO. My evidence is all anecdotal, but I do belive my own ears. I will give you an example. Before I got back into hifi years ago, I spent a decade owning a yamaha receiver and a pair of B&W speakers. The system was fine but I always thought it sounded bass light. One day I spoted a brand new NAD amp on ebay and purchased it. I had done zero reading on the NAD product and only new NAD from seeing the brand in stereo shops way back in the early 90s. I only new it was good brand I knew nothing about the signature of NAD products. After putting the NAD in place into a system that I had logged many hundreds of listening hours on, I immediately noticed the sound change. The most prominent change with the fuller bass. In fact, the bass was so much fuller that now I found the speakers to be somewhat too bass heavy on certain recordings. The exact same system that I felt was bass light for years. I change nothing but the amp, everything else was identical. I later learned that NAD was known for warm, bassy amps. That this was well known by the hifi community, but it was totally unknown to me. From this I conclude that the NAD amp did not sound identical to my old Yamaha amp. I believe this as a 100% fact. YET, the famous 1987 stereo review ABX test for amplifiers resulted in the panel failing to tell the difference between a Mark Levison solid state amp, a TUBE amp, and a cheap receiver. From this, and other ABX testing I have to conclude that ABX testing just doesn't work for audio gear. Either that, or my NAD experience is complete dillusion and it's just coincidence that I concluded it had more bass which ended up comporting with the overall hifi communities opinion. I refuse to believe that.

How does your experience compare with ABX testing? Both are completely different. Don't forget the placebo effect in the absence of blind testing. What's the best way to test then? I would've expected stark differences between a coat hanger & an expensive cable, to justify the cost. It's like proposing a new treatment for a disease without any studies.....from "anecdotal evidence".

People notice a difference between two components, that's fine. But rubbishing a test because it doesn't agree with your beliefs is different.

I was part of The Big Question at WHF 2 years ago where we compared a cheap stereo amplifier with 3 AV receivers at different price points (this wasn't told to us until the tests were completed). It was essentially an ABX blind testing. All of us could pick out the stereo amplifier by the end quite easily. I do not agree that ABX testing is flawed.

 

[chebby]

Just ordered a iPhone 4S though. The Apple TV2 went back though, didn't realise there might be a 3 appearing soon.

Get this TubeIn Radio Pro app for 69p...

http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/tunein-radio-pro/id319295332?mt=8

...it is brilliant via AirPlay.

 

[FennerMachine]

Does a dedicated AV amp and surround speaker package sound better than 2 watt built in speakers on a telly with tiny satellite rear speakers?

Find me someone with average hearing who genuinely can't hear the difference.

Therefore not all amps and speakers sound the same.

 

[bigboss]

Does a dedicated AV amp and surround speaker package sound better than 2 watt built in speakers on a telly with tiny satellite rear speakers?

Find me someone with average hearing who genuinely can't hear the difference.

Therefore not all amps and speakers sound the same.

I haven't seen anyone who can't tell the difference between different amps & speakers.

 

[paradiziac]

Interesting discussion about blind testing.

Here are my thoughts:

For significant differences, it's obvious, blind or not.

For smaller differences, it's really hard to hold a few seconds of clip A in "auditory memory", then listen to a few seconds of clip B and then remember that and then say whether another clip X is A or B. And if the levels aren't perfectly matched, it's impossible to get an accurate result.

A better way is to put component X in your system for a few weeks, listen casually and get used to the sound. Then take it out and put the original component back in. Suprizing how the ear can pick up on subtle differences between components that superficially sound the same when doing A/B switching.

 

[bigboss]

Interesting discussion about blind testing.

Here are my thoughts:

For significant differences, it's obvious, blind or not.

For smaller differences, it's really hard to hold a few seconds of clip A in "auditory memory", then listen to a few seconds of clip B and then remember that and then say whether another clip X is A or B. And if the levels aren't perfectly matched, it's impossible to get an accurate result.

A better way is to put component X in your system for a few weeks, listen casually and get used to the sound. Then take it out and put the original component back in. Suprizing how the ear can pick up on subtle differences between components that superficially sound the same when doing A/B switching.

That's true. But then that begs the question; is the "small difference" worth the extra outlay? Only the listener can decide that.

 

[Ajani]

Interesting discussion about blind testing.

Here are my thoughts:

For significant differences, it's obvious, blind or not.

For smaller differences, it's really hard to hold a few seconds of clip A in "auditory memory", then listen to a few seconds of clip B and then remember that and then say whether another clip X is A or B. And if the levels aren't perfectly matched, it's impossible to get an accurate result.

A better way is to put component X in your system for a few weeks, listen casually and get used to the sound. Then take it out and put the original component back in. Suprizing how the ear can pick up on subtle differences between components that superficially sound the same when doing A/B switching.

That has been my point about DBT - At most it proves that a lot of differences are far more subtle than many audiophiles and reviewers claim. There are far too many ridiculous claims of "night and day" differences. A night and day difference would be obvious even under the most stressful conditions. Put a gun to my head and clamp to my sensitive area and I could still tell the difference between neon pink and dark green.

 

[Ajani]

Interesting discussion about blind testing.

Here are my thoughts:

For significant differences, it's obvious, blind or not.

For smaller differences, it's really hard to hold a few seconds of clip A in "auditory memory", then listen to a few seconds of clip B and then remember that and then say whether another clip X is A or B. And if the levels aren't perfectly matched, it's impossible to get an accurate result.

A better way is to put component X in your system for a few weeks, listen casually and get used to the sound. Then take it out and put the original component back in. Suprizing how the ear can pick up on subtle differences between components that superficially sound the same when doing A/B switching.

That's true. But then that begs the question; is the "small difference" worth the extra outlay? Only the listener can decide that.

Agreed. It's not my job to tell anyone whether a subtle difference is worth and extra $5K. They must determine, based on their listening needs and disposable funds. There is a huge difference in the HiFi system I would buy based on my current disposable income versus if I was as rich as Bill Gates.

 

[matthewpiano]

Interesting topic and some interesting view points being made.

From my perspective, I have no doubt that the biggest variable is the speakers. They vary according to materials used on drive units, the cabinet design and bracing, positioning of ports, use of transmission lines etc. Crucially the speakers interact with the room and that, in my opinion, is where systems tend to fall down. Knowing your listening space, choosing appropriate speakers, and siting them carefully is a major step in achieving the best sound.

After that, I feel amplification quality and power is important. The amp needs to be able to grip the speakers and control them. I'm fairly convinced that the biggest differences in the sound of amplifiers are down to how easily they are exerting this control, although I don't deny that some manufacturers like NAD do seem to voice their amps in a particular way.

 

[Anonymous]

For what it's worth, i think the key word in the opening post is "proving". As far as i'm aware, nobody has ever successfully and consistently identified one cable from another, one amp from another, etc etc, in a blind test.

Therefore while believing cable A sounds different to cable B, amp A sounds different to amp B etc etc, one cannot prove so.

If one cannot prove so, then shouldn't the opening post have been

"It seems non-audiophiles never stop pointing out that audiophiles can't prove that everything doesn't sound the same"

 

[CnoEvil]

"It seems non-audiophiles never stop pointing out that audiophiles can't prove that everything doesn't sound the same"

I can't get my head round that it doesn't seem unreasonable, that reasonable thinking non-audiophiles wouldn't be more unreasonable, about components that don't sound the same. :?