ooh.. said:
That's not true. Persons have been able to do so. John Atkinson and Michael Fremmer (Both from a major US review mag) have both spoken about taking part in DBT of amps and scoring 4/5 and 5/5 respectively. However, their scores were deemed to be statiscally insignificant, since the other listeners scored poorly.
So while the conclusion of the test is that users were not able to differentiate between amps under blind conditions, the fact that the 2 HiFi experts in the test were able to do so is really interesting IMO.
Describe a 'non-audiophile' for me please; no really, indulge me....
I'll have a go. Is it someone who does not spend relatively large sums of money on hifi equipment and therefore does not continually switch, tweak and fiddle with positioning, seating, cables, 'toe'in', equilateral triangles, spikes, sorbothane, stands, sand, filler, grilles on/off, placing pennies in a corner and believes what Russ Andrews claims? :?
I'll have a go. Is it someone who does not spend relatively large sums of money on hifi equipment and therefore does not continually switch, tweak and fiddle with positioning, seating, cables, 'toe'in', equilateral triangles, spikes, sorbothane, stands, sand, filler, grilles on/off, placing pennies in a corner and believes what Russ Andrews claims? :?
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
I was thinking about that Loch Ness Monster comment earlier - you don't see forums full of people debating whether it exists or not, both asking for proof either way, and neither side winning. I will admit, I've never looked to see if that's the case, but I doubt it is. Does it exist or not? There's no proof either way, so either outcome is possible. Who cares? Those that believe will believe, those that disbelieve will disbelieve. It's just those that like a good confrontational chinwag that keep making mountains out of molehills...
Anyway, do various electronics, cables etc make a difference? I'm with Jax on this, but this whole thing reminded me of a guy I knew in Plymouth in the early 90's. This was the heyday of "the tweak", and this guy basically did everything. He had a good system which no doubt would've sounded good on its own, but everything was isolated with double layers of slate, each with insulating sorbothane between them. Nice mains cables, serious speaker cables, even nicer interconnects, and stuff where stuff really wasn't needed, but he wasn't taking a chance. Nowadays, those that can't help but mention snake oil if a cable is over 3p per metre would've classed him a psychopath, and to be honest, I was a little worried when he asked me to his house to listen to his system. But by God, he had one of the best systems I've ever heard. Did any of the tweaks help? Make your own mind up, because you will do anyway
If you're reading this Mike from Plymouth who used to ride Cannondale bikes, hello
Anyway, do various electronics, cables etc make a difference? I'm with Jax on this, but this whole thing reminded me of a guy I knew in Plymouth in the early 90's. This was the heyday of "the tweak", and this guy basically did everything. He had a good system which no doubt would've sounded good on its own, but everything was isolated with double layers of slate, each with insulating sorbothane between them. Nice mains cables, serious speaker cables, even nicer interconnects, and stuff where stuff really wasn't needed, but he wasn't taking a chance. Nowadays, those that can't help but mention snake oil if a cable is over 3p per metre would've classed him a psychopath, and to be honest, I was a little worried when he asked me to his house to listen to his system. But by God, he had one of the best systems I've ever heard. Did any of the tweaks help? Make your own mind up, because you will do anyway
If you're reading this Mike from Plymouth who used to ride Cannondale bikes, hello
FrankHarveyHiFi said:Nowadays, those that can't help but mention snake oil if a cable is over 3p per metre would've classed him a psychopath, and to be honest, I was a little worried when he asked me to his house to listen to his system. But by God, he had one of the best systems I've ever heard. Did any of the tweaks help? Make your own mind up, because you will do anyway
If you're reading this Mike from Plymouth who used to ride Cannondale bikes, hello
I'd suggest that while Mike from Plymouth wasn't at the hands of snake oil salesmen (perhaps), the industry is plagued with it. I think my speaker cable works out at around 50p a metre and it's excellent. It's been sufficient for my needs and as good as the Audioquest Type IV it superceded (which was substantially more). Reckon I'll hang on to the 50p stuff for a while longer!
tremon said:
I doubt that. Based on my experience with both Harman's free online Audiophile training software and a distortion test (used by audiophiles on another forum) I found (as did the other audiophiles who tried them) that the first time you took the test you did far worse than on subsequent tests when you had practiced. Generally, the more you practiced to detect differences, the better you became at identyfing them. That is totally different from understanding and communucating them. I became significantly better at identifying differences with practice and training.
Of course that leads to a bigger question - Why should I train to be able to pick out subtle differences? That seems to just lead to disatisfaction with my existing gear and the need to spend lots more money on upgrades.
tremon said:
No. That is illogical and unscientific. Science not proving something wrong, doesn't make it right. Just because I can't prove the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, does not mean that it is real. So persons who believe it's real will continue to do so and those who don't believe it's real will also continue to do so. Neither side can prove anything to the other. So my point is not a cop out - just a fact. I just don't like to see when persons use DBT to make claims that are not actually proven by DBT. Now don't get me wrong - I support the use of DBT in HiFi as it helps to identify when differences are far more subtle than many audiophiles claim.
CnoEvil said:
I don't want to sound too nihilistic Cno, but IMO variation over the same theme is nothing new. it's like with making a carrot cake. you can get as many carrot cakes as there are cooks. and most of them would have their distinct flavour. but they will all be carrot cakes anyway.
to my knowledge there's only A, B, C, D. anything else is just derivative or even a mere variation. to be honest IMO all those classes like G, V, Ł, Ü, etc, etc, have only one purpose of stirring imagination of potential customer. in other words - just another marketing buzz word.
more about why amps should sound the same. do you think that an amp form one respected/ self respecting company should differ much in sound from a product of another self respecting company? for instance, do you think that top of the line class D amp from Linn should sound differently then top of the line class D amp from, say, Mark Levinson? I think they should perform and thus sound almost the same. maybe even in such a similar way that it wouldn't be discernible for a human ear. however, if they don't sound the same that'll mean that one company, or even both, are doing a very bad job or maybe even cheating us. why? don't you think that an ultimate goal for a hi-fi company is achieving perfect reproduction pattern? if every company is heading in the same direction shouldn't they meet in the same place?
again, I'm not saying that everything sounds the same. but isn't it logical that 2 amps of the same class using components of similar quality should sound similar?
FrankHarveyHiFi said:
I suspect that if people were spending hundreds or thousands of pounds of money based on a belief that the Loch Ness monster exists or doesn't exist, then there would be huge debate. Moreso if businesses were selling based on a belief. Fortunately, in the main, people stick with the likely scientific view that such a beast couldn't exist, rather than just saying it does because there's no proof either way.
Does a wine connoiseur, who insists on analysing every sip, enjoy a glass of wine more than someone else? I don't think so but if that's what makes them happy then all power to their sipping elbow.
The only way there would be no discernible sound difference is if every system achieved the goal of perfect reproduction of the original source in exactly the same way with no interpretation, engineering or component variances between them and if everybody used the same music source file, had the same listening environment, the same hearing and the same perception. And whose word would we accept that what was produced was an exact reproduction of the original? And how long would it be in any case before someone said they wanted a different sound quality to that? Aaaaaaaaagh!
Having never heard the core original production of any music I don't know if that's what I am ultimately aiming for and what I would enjoy most, for now I'm happy if what I hear sounds good to me and makes me smile.
This is a very good thread but it's Sunday, it's sunny, I intend to open a bottle and just revel in the music...
The only way there would be no discernible sound difference is if every system achieved the goal of perfect reproduction of the original source in exactly the same way with no interpretation, engineering or component variances between them and if everybody used the same music source file, had the same listening environment, the same hearing and the same perception. And whose word would we accept that what was produced was an exact reproduction of the original? And how long would it be in any case before someone said they wanted a different sound quality to that? Aaaaaaaaagh!
Having never heard the core original production of any music I don't know if that's what I am ultimately aiming for and what I would enjoy most, for now I'm happy if what I hear sounds good to me and makes me smile.
This is a very good thread but it's Sunday, it's sunny, I intend to open a bottle and just revel in the music...
igglebert said:
Totally agree that it's the fact that money is at stake that gets people hot under the collar.
However it works the other way around as well, people using dodgy science to "prove" that others must be imagining what they hear. Presumably the payoff for these people is peace of mind that their system couldn't possibly sound better if they spent some extra money on cables.
Personally, I think cables are system dependent and you do need quite a good system before they make much of a difference. In most cases, the same money spent on room treatments or components will give a bigger improvement.
am I the only hifi enthusiast that doesn't care? People wanna spend 15% of their overall budget on cables? Be my guest? You think all amps sound the same? Ok. For all I care, I may just be buying amps and DACs because I've run out of shiny other gadgets to buy.
oldric_naubhoff said:
I have found little about this ridiculous hobby that is logical. All I know is that amps, even in the same Class, sound quite different, which tells me there's more going on than this.
There are generalities that I have found - I mostly like Class A, and mostly dislike Class D (except Bel Canto). Class A/B is a very mixed bag.
Whatever the truth of it, I think our taste is quite similar.
I got to a stage with it all that the hobby was overtaking the reason for it in the first place; the music. Like matthewpiano's mentioned, there was too much focus on the hardware and it became a distraction.
I do think there isn't a huge amount of difference between CDPs for example; I bought a Philips CD850 last year to try out and it was very good. Not massively different from the Marantz I have and that's a player going back a good twenty years. The Technics SLPG580A was slightly softer sounding, but again, while more obvious, it still wasn't "night and day" (a phrase that's banded around this hobby with abandon). I'm sure the old Marantz CD52 (in whichever of its three versions you get) would still be a good contender and see also many of Sony's range.
Likewise, the Linn Mimik, Audio Analogue Paganini and the truly brilliant (and vastly underrated) Kenwood DP7090 were all similar. Great players all.
Cables, well, no need for me to add to anything I've already mentioned here and a zillion times elsewhere. Subtle changes at best.
The biggest impacts will be where there's a mechanical influence - turntables, speakers in particular (or tube amps if you enjoy tube rolling, or swapping valves round, etc). The sound can be tweaked to your heart's content and of course, there are some decks that need major efforts to get them "there". Garrard 401s, etc. I'm not convinced any longer that vinyl is the pinnacle of the audio art (far from it in fact) but there's an undeniable appeal to records that will last for a long time yet.
There isn't a "one size fits all" setup either I doubt. Recordings are so varied in production and mastering quality today that stereos have a hard time coping but the trend towards more analytical and bright sounding equipment in recent years isn't a great leap forward IMO and doesn't really help matters.
I do think there isn't a huge amount of difference between CDPs for example; I bought a Philips CD850 last year to try out and it was very good. Not massively different from the Marantz I have and that's a player going back a good twenty years. The Technics SLPG580A was slightly softer sounding, but again, while more obvious, it still wasn't "night and day" (a phrase that's banded around this hobby with abandon). I'm sure the old Marantz CD52 (in whichever of its three versions you get) would still be a good contender and see also many of Sony's range.
Likewise, the Linn Mimik, Audio Analogue Paganini and the truly brilliant (and vastly underrated) Kenwood DP7090 were all similar. Great players all.
Cables, well, no need for me to add to anything I've already mentioned here and a zillion times elsewhere. Subtle changes at best.
The biggest impacts will be where there's a mechanical influence - turntables, speakers in particular (or tube amps if you enjoy tube rolling, or swapping valves round, etc). The sound can be tweaked to your heart's content and of course, there are some decks that need major efforts to get them "there". Garrard 401s, etc. I'm not convinced any longer that vinyl is the pinnacle of the audio art (far from it in fact) but there's an undeniable appeal to records that will last for a long time yet.
There isn't a "one size fits all" setup either I doubt. Recordings are so varied in production and mastering quality today that stereos have a hard time coping but the trend towards more analytical and bright sounding equipment in recent years isn't a great leap forward IMO and doesn't really help matters.
the record spot said:
RS, I think this is key and probably deserves its own thread in order to try and understand the reason for it.
For example is it down to:
- A change in taste
- A move to digital
- A Proliferation of Class D amps, which are "Greener".
- A more accurate representation of what's on the disc
- Badly mastered music
- Improved understanding and knowledge/manufacturing technology, techniques and materials.
- Modern speaker design
All I know, is that there are more threads on here complaining about systems sounding over bright and forward, than the other way round...and the solution is often found in the more niche brands, who are inclined to use more "old fashioned" tried and tested solutions.
CJSF said:
I think this is partly an age thing. Those brought up on a diet of Vinyl, Tube amps and warmer sounding speakers, find the modern fashion for a bright, forward, analytical sound (seen as excitement), as one step too far.
Those brought up on MP3 lossy, loudness mastered, new improved sound, find the "sound of old", dull and wooly.
Now I exaggerate to make a point, and there is of course a happy medium.
It is also interesting to note, that a lot of the musicians on here would go the Sugden/Spendor route, rather than the Cyrus/ATC one...another generalization, I know.
I think it's also a case of bright/forward/analytical gear sounding superficially more detailed and impressive in well-damped demo rooms and thus more likely to sell...and also less likely to be satisfying in the long run so the customer has to return to "upgrade".
And the fact that there are probably people who are more into the hifi than the music.
And the fact that there are probably people who are more into the hifi than the music.
BenLaw
Well-known member
paradiziac said:
A good point. There is also an argument that such gear is better reviewed (and therefore sells more), for the same reasons.
I suppose the corollary of this is that if people did more to treat their rooms they might have a better experience with their kit, but that may not be realistic.
BenLaw said:
....or at least be aware of the possible effect of their room, and choose equipment accordingly.
BenLaw
Well-known member
CnoEvil said:
Of course. My main point (FWIW) was in the first para. I'm even aware of a manufacturer saying they will make a product brighter than they would naturally like to in order to get a better review where review rooms have been heavily acoustically treated.
BenLaw said:
Due to the increase in sales that a good review can have, I can see the temptation of doing this.....but it is certainly not a good thing; the tail wagging the dog and all that.
BenLaw
Well-known member
CnoEvil said:
I agree entirely. It is hard to blame the manufacturer tho, especially in the current climate, as sales are everything. It is difficult to see a way to break the cycle tho.
BenLaw said:
Perhaps a warning "sticky" on this forum might help educate the potential consumer?
And maybe a glossary/translation of review terms:
"not the best match for a system which is already on the bright side" = "this thing will make your head hurt"
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram