We would usually recommend spending more on the CD than the amp or speakers. Is this good advice?

[Vladimir]

 

[Frank Harvey]

The tests in question were an attempt to replicate (in a modern way) the original tests carried out by Martin Colloms for the early issues of Hi-Fi Choice, those produced in the 'pocket size' format.

We were taken through the setup for the tests by the two people carrying them out. We could and did check out the equipment for ourselves and were able to ask questions as to how and why things were done as they were.

Despite the equipment being very diverse and desite knowing what the four amplifiers under test were, no one could reliably tell them apart.

Yes I suppose the test could have been rigged but for what reason? What would be the point?

I am not trying to prove anything here, just to exlain how, the 'night and day' differences that we all observe during sighted tests all but dissappear under controlled conditions. Again, I must reiterate, this is not the same thing as saying that everything sounds the same, far from it, but it does show that many of the differences that we hear are not caused by the things we think they are.

How many people cite "night and day" differences? If so, what are the circumstances? Someone's "night and day" may well be another person's subtle difference.

Are you not open to the fact that blind tests may not be rigged?!

If you have specifics to a negative experience (that you seem to be aluding to), then do feel free to elaborate.

In my opinion, lengthened listening periods reduce the inconsistencies associated with short A/B listening tests.

 

[Frank Harvey]

If you've got something to say, just say it.

 

[Vladimir]

If you've got something to say, just say it.

The Thompson Ferrari quote cought me off guard.

In my opinion, lengthened listening periods reduce the inconsistencies associated with short A/B listening tests.

Experiencing more sighted bias to get rid of sighted bias? Doesn't work like that.

 

[davedotco]

The tests in question were an attempt to replicate (in a modern way) the original tests carried out by Martin Colloms for the early issues of Hi-Fi Choice, those produced in the 'pocket size' format.

We were taken through the setup for the tests by the two people carrying them out. We could and did check out the equipment for ourselves and were able to ask questions as to how and why things were done as they were.

Despite the equipment being very diverse and desite knowing what the four amplifiers under test were, no one could reliably tell them apart.

Yes I suppose the test could have been rigged but for what reason? What would be the point?

I am not trying to prove anything here, just to exlain how, the 'night and day' differences that we all observe during sighted tests all but dissappear under controlled conditions. Again, I must reiterate, this is not the same thing as saying that everything sounds the same, far from it, but it does show that many of the differences that we hear are not caused by the things we think they are.

How many people cite "night and day" differences? If so, what are the circumstances? Someone's "night and day" may well be another person's subtle difference.

Are you not open to the fact that blind tests may not be rigged?!

If you have specifics to a negative experience (that you seem to be aluding to), then do feel free to elaborate.

In my opinion, lengthened listening periods reduce the inconsistencies associated with short A/B listening tests.

Lots of people cite 'night and day', 'chalk and cheese' and any other possible cliche to describe clear easily heard differences.

Blind tests could indeed be rigged, but for what reason? I am as confident as I can be that the ones I have taken part in were not rigged.

Negative experience? I do not understand what you are asking.

Long term listening simply gets you 'used' to a system, hence the myth of 'run in' for electronic hi-fi components. As has been explained, long term audio memory is unreliable, but 'impressions' stay with us for a long time.

 

[Frank Harvey]

The Thompson Ferrari quote cought me off guard.

Meaning?

 

[lpv]

his an active dealer.. c'mon.. he cannot admit anyting against his business even if he knows he would faild to hear any differences in blind level matched test.. this conversation is highly predictable and no one learn anything from the other here and now because curiosity, willingness to learn, discover, knowledge sharing, ability to listen and scientific demistifying approach do not belong to this forum... it's a crowded waiting room.

Sorry, your English doesn't come across well.

I may be posting as an "active dealer", but my opinions are my own, and I wouldn't say anything I would be prepared to back up myself. Any claims about hearing difference are my own opinions, nothing to do with "business". I've said before, I have been party to blind listening tests in the past.

"Crowded waiting room"? Please do elaborate.

Sorry, your English doesn't come across well. [/b]

would you say the same to foreign client visiting your workplace?

 

[Vladimir]

The Thompson Ferrari quote cought me off guard.

Meaning?

It's not valid for digital. A better analogy would be a bullet train that has 3 classes for seating, low, middle and high class. With digital it doesn't matter if you travel in low, middle or high class, you are getting at your destination at the same time. If you can afford it, enjoy streching out and being catered in high class. Enjoy an expensive and cool looking Electrocompaniet CDP or a dCS Scarlatti or some Burmester DAC. You wont get there physically faster but in better comfort and class time will go easier.

These debates can't get resolved if you think of diital in the analogue domain like Thompson does.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Ipv

Sorry, your English doesn't come across well.

would you say the same to foreign client visiting your workplace?

You don't seem to have a problem getting across your negative points against me, so I doubt I'd misinterpret that face to face - if it was a case of misunderstanding, I'm sure we'd have no problem in overcoming any misunderstandings.

 

[Frank Harvey]

It's not valid for digital. A better analogy would be a bullet train that has 3 classes for seating, low, middle and high class. With digital it doesn't matter if you travel in low, middle or high class, you are getting at your destination at the same time. If you can afford it, enjoy streching out and being catered in high class. Enjoy an expensive and cool looking Electrocompaniet CDP or a dCS Scarlatti or some Burmester DAC. You wont get there physically faster but in better comfort and class time will go easier.

These debates can't get resolved if you think of diital in the analogue domain like Thompson does.

Sorry, but that analogy is pretty poor. It's not a matter of speed, it's a matter of quality. The issue is in the digital to analogue conversion., which is where the end result can hinge upon.

At the end of the day, they all do things a little differently, so differences in the end result can be expected.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

[quote?=Vladimir]

The Thompson Ferrari quote cought me off guard.

Meaning?

It's not valid for digital. A better analogy would be a bullet train that has 3 classes for seating, low, middle and high class. With digital it doesn't matter if you travel in low, middle or high class, you are getting at your destination at the same time. If you can afford it, enjoy streching out and being catered in high class. Enjoy an expensive and cool looking Electrocompaniet CDP or a dCS Scarlatti or some Burmester DAC. You wont get there physically faster but in better comfort and class time will go easier.?

These debates can't get resolved if you think of diital in the analogue domain like Thompson does. 
[/quote]

Lol....but you should.

Why?

Because it's correct.

You guys read into 'digital transfer' too much and are genuinely guilty of buying into the hype about the digital domain. I'm serious.

In music it's. All analog - digital is a representation of that analog during transfer. Quote 'packets' use the word 'data' it still is what it is.

Starts as analog -ends in anolog. The transfer is just a means.

Like transporting water as ice , that's your digital domain or water as water that's your analog.

Wonder how long before someone includes that analogy in their future posts.....
:-D

 

[Frank Harvey]

Like transporting water as ice , that's your digital domain or water as water that's your analog.

Wonder how long before someone includes that analogy in their future posts..... :-D

That's as good an analogy as any I've seen on this forum.

 

[Vladimir]

It's not valid for digital. A better analogy would be a bullet train that has 3 classes for seating, low, middle and high class. With digital it doesn't matter if you travel in low, middle or high class, you are getting at your destination at the same time. If you can afford it, enjoy streching out and being catered in high class. Enjoy an expensive and cool looking Electrocompaniet CDP or a dCS Scarlatti or some Burmester DAC. You wont get there physically faster but in better comfort and class time will go easier.

These debates can't get resolved if you think of diital in the analogue domain like Thompson does.

Sorry, but that analogy is pretty poor. It's not a matter of speed, it's a matter of quality. The issue is in the digital to analogue conversion., which is where the end result can hinge upon.

At the end of the day, they all do things a little differently, so differences in the end result can be expected.

I figured that analogy will be a bit much for you and Thommy. But since you asked...

 

[ID.]

The Thompson Ferrari quote cought me off guard.

Meaning?

It's not valid for digital. A better analogy would be a bullet train that has 3 classes for seating, low, middle and high class. With digital it doesn't matter if you travel in low, middle or high class, you are getting at your destination at the same time. If you can afford it, enjoy streching out and being catered in high class. Enjoy an expensive and cool looking Electrocompaniet CDP or a dCS Scarlatti or some Burmester DAC. You wont get there physically faster but in better comfort and class time will go easier.

These debates can't get resolved if you think of diital in the analogue domain like Thompson does.

Please, Non-Reserved, Reserved, and Green Car. Maybe Gran Class above that, depending on the route

I can vouch that Gran Class provides a superior soundstage, separation, and sense of space. More attentation to detail and blacker backgrounds.

 

[MajorFubar]

Just to summarise, other than ThomsonUXB who lives in an alternative reality still governed by anachronistic principles that are irrelevant in a digital domain, did we agree that generally the most cost effective way of upgrading a digital-fronted hifi is speakers and amp...

 

[ID.]

Just to summarise, other than ThomsonUXB who lives in an alternative reality still governed by anachronistic principles that are irrelevant in a digital domain, did we agree that generally the most cost effective way of upgrading a digital-fronted hifi is speakers and amp...

I've skipped most of the thread, but I thought that had been pretty much settled by the first page.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Just to summarise, other than ThomsonUXB who lives in an alternative reality still governed by anachronistic principles that are irrelevant in a digital domain, did we agree that generally the most cost effective way of upgrading a digital-fronted hifi is speakers and amp...

Funny enough Major reading through the thread I thought my alternate universe is actually the place to be.

The arguments for it were sound and at no point reverted to name calling or grandiose statements of arrogance and the like.

(Usually associated when party's are losing an argument).

Reading as objectively as possible the advise given by the retailer was sound.

Special mention to David@ and Tonky.

I.e do not scrimp on the front end of any system be it analog or digital - the corner stone to any quality hifi system being the source.

I'll allow a few weeks though for it to settle in before what I've said starts being touted as the rule.

Like with the mention of 'resistance' when speaking of cables or 'comparible' when speaking of digital sources.

I honestly don't know why you guys just don't accept I'm right most times......

 

[ID.]

Just to summarise, other than ThomsonUXB who lives in an alternative reality still governed by anachronistic principles that are irrelevant in a digital domain, did we agree that generally the most cost effective way of upgrading a digital-fronted hifi is speakers and amp...

Funny enough Major reading through the thread I thought my alternate universe is actually the place to be.

The arguments for it were sound and at no point reverted to name calling or grandiose statements of arrogance and the like.

(Usually associated when party's are losing an argument).

Reading as objectively as possible the advise given by the retailer was sound.

Special mention to David@ and Tonky.

I.e do not scrimp on the front end of any system be it analog or digital - the corner stone to any quality hifi system being the source.

I'll allow a few weeks though for it to settle in before what I've said starts being touted as the rule.

Like with the mention of 'resistance' when speaking of cables or 'comparible' when speaking of digital sources.

I honestly don't know why you guys just don't accept I'm right most times......

I don't think to my and Dave ever said that. You are conflating arguments about all digital sources sounding the same, which doesn't come into it, with the arguments that the old rules about analogue sources not applying to digital sources due there being a much smaller range of difference. At no point do they claim the digital source is the heart of the system or that upgrading the digital source will bring more improvement than upgrading the speakers.

now if you'll excuse me, I'm of to put a Ferrari engine in my Fiat. Or was it the other way around...

maybe I'll just settle for some racing stripes.

 

[CnoEvil]

I have a (rhetorical) question - Why can't people make their points without making nasty personal attacks? In my opinion, it demeans them, diminishes their argument, drives people away and inhibits others from contributing?

Be careful, or you will end up with the forum you deserve.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Just to summarise, other than ThomsonUXB who lives in an alternative reality still governed by anachronistic principles that are irrelevant in a digital domain, did we agree that generally the most cost effective way of upgrading a digital-fronted hifi is speakers and amp...

Funny enough Major reading through the thread I thought my alternate universe is actually the place to be.

The arguments for it were sound and at no point reverted to name calling or grandiose statements of arrogance and the like.

(Usually associated when party's are losing an argument).

Reading as objectively as possible the advise given by the retailer was sound.

Special mention to David@ and Tonky.

I.e do not scrimp on the front end of any system be it analog or digital - the corner stone to any quality hifi system being the source.

I'll allow a few weeks though for it to settle in before what I've said starts being touted as the rule.

Like with the mention of 'resistance' when speaking of cables or 'comparible' when speaking of digital sources.

I honestly don't know why you guys just don't accept I'm right most times......

?

I don't think to my and Dave ever said that. You are conflating arguments about all digital sources sounding the same, which doesn't come into it, with the arguments that the old rules about analogue sources not applying to digital sources due there being a much smaller range of difference. At no point do they claim the digital source is the heart of the system or that upgrading the digital source will bring more improvement than upgrading the speakers.?

now if you'll excuse me, I'm of to put a Ferrari engine in my Fiat. Or was it the other way around...

maybe I'll just settle for some racing stripes. 

In summary I'm addressing the thread as a whole.

David@ and Tonky, I agreed with what they said in the context of this thread.

That 'alternate' advise - not much difference in digital, which a few week's ago was 'digital is digital' is still nonesense.

My take simply is do not scrimp on the source device be it analog or digital - its important, If you intend to build a quality set.

No point putting ATC anniversary50's on a Denon DM40.

Oh, and good luck with that Ferarri. project..... And refer to the majors last post.

 

[matt49]

I have a (rhetorical) question - Why can't people make their points without making nasty personal attacks? In my opinion, it demeans them, diminishes their argument, drives people away and inhibits others from contributing?

Be careful, or you will end up with the forum you deserve.

Hear, hear!

In some corners of the forum it seems now to be considered acceptable to call other posters 'idiots' (or similar). There's a creeping increase in low-level nastiness.

 

[Vladimir]

I have a (rhetorical) question - Why can't people make their points without making nasty personal attacks? In my opinion, it demeans them, diminishes their argument, drives people away and inhibits others from contributing?

Be careful, or you will end up with the forum you deserve.

Same 'question' for you Cno. Why can't you stop making passive agressive and veiled insults? As a frequent receptor of these, I'd appreciate when you run out of arguments not to resort to nagging, please. This is a sincere plea. I don't expect a sociopath like manicm to control himself, but I have hope you can.

 

[Vladimir]

Actually when you think about it, all forum conflicts start when the 'subjectivists' feel insulted over technical discussion that deflates and oposes their beliefs (and hefty investments). Instead of putting arguments on the table they resort to insults (direct or veiled). First people who should correct their behavior should be ignorant elitists and Dunning–Kruger sufferers. I won't hold my breath though.

 

[CnoEvil]

Same 'question' for you Cno. Why can't you stop making passive agressive and veiled insults? As a frequent receptor of these, I'd appreciate when you run out of arguments not to resort to nagging, please. This is a sincere plea. I don't expect a sociopath like manicm to control himself, but I have hope you can.

Why are you making an issue of a remark that was very general and not specifically aimed at you?

If you really think that my odd comment amounts to an attack, I'll make you a deal. You stop subtly insulting groups of people with carefully placed provocative remarks and I'll stop accusing you of insidious posting. It's not nice being picked on.

 

[Vladimir]

Same 'question' for you Cno. Why can't you stop making passive agressive and veiled insults? As a frequent receptor of these, I'd appreciate when you run out of arguments not to resort to nagging, please. This is a sincere plea. I don't expect a sociopath like manicm to control himself, but I have hope you can.

Why are you making an issue of a remark that was very general and not specifically aimed at you?

If you really think that my odd comment amounts to an attack, I'll make you a deal. You stop subtly insulting groups of people with carefully placed provocative remarks and I'll stop accusing you of insidious posting. It's not nice being picked on.

So you will stop making personal attacks only when I stop making general ones aimed at no one in particular? Clever. At least you've now come clean what you are doing and deny it. "Its just an observation". This proves my point in my previous post.

I clearly remember Joe Cox stating personal attacks on forum members are forbiden and general opinions are not. I have the right of freedom of speech and you have the right to feel insulted from my general remarks. And vice versa. Feel free to speak your mind on 'objectivists' or 'Vlads'.