Speaker Cables -- did testing, sorry: now think it's nonsense

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
snyderkv said:
Oh you mean rolling off due to lack of power? So that would be into clipping? The test is suppose to prove that BELOW clipping, you will not hear a difference in SQ. Ofcourse if you're listening level requires something with more power than a Sunfire, then fine, it will sound better than a Sunfire that is overworked
Click to expand...

Apparently, you don't know much about Sunfire amps. No problem. I'm sure most others on the forum understood my point. Good luck trying to drive a Sunfire into clipping, though.

snyderkv said:
Again, EQ has no bearing on SQ. It's just nullified so you can compare sonic qualities in its unaltered state and eliminate tonal preferences etc. Same with filters that can roll off frequences or signal processing etc.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Frequency response has nothing to do with sound quality? Sorry, but if you nullify an amps particular frequency response, then you are altering a very real part of it's sound quality. Hence my disdain for the challenge. The only thing that should have to be matched is the volume level. Everything else is part of the unique sound quality of that particular amp's circuit design.

snyderkv said:
David Clark at the Los Angeles AES (Audio Engineering Society) show in the late 80's---------David did this test with the help of the Absolute Magazine over a 3 day period---------over 200 profesional audio engineers took the test----------the test amps were straight gain blocks (basic amps with no signal filters and/or processing)--------everyone was confident they could easily pass the test------the Absolute Mag was there in support of their journalistic claims and subjective test reports and approved the test set-up and procedures---------the amps were a generic Crown PSA-2 (about 1K at the time), a class A Threshold (about 10K at the time), and a OTL tube amp (about 15K at the time)--------final results at the end of the sessions????--------49/51---------as an additional note they also tested exotic Monster wire against solid 12ga THHN like is used to wire a house--------results of the wire????------49/50 as well---------did anyone learn anything???--------not at all
Click to expand...

Still curious where you cut and pasted this from.
 
Rich said:
if you nullify an amps particular frequency response, then you are altering a very real part of it's sound quality. Everything else is part of the unique sound quality of that particular amp's circuit design.
Click to expand...

We are measuring ONE variable and in this case the SONIC SIGNATURE of the AMPLIFIERS circuit topology NOT SIGNAL PROCESSING via EQ. That's like saying my Yamaha stadium DSP mode improved my SQ. By your standard that EQ improves this, then we should all buy a Radio Shack amp and put an EQ on it and make it sound just like a Krell (assuming the same watts) and save thousands. And I agree it would have the same "color" in that regard

Amplifiers should amplify and processors should process. Every amplfier out there amplifies the signal in a transparent form. Is there onboard components making them sound different than the source material?, If so, it's technically distorting the sound, making your amplfier subpar in performance. Amplifers should be transparent. Period.

It's obvious how butt hurt you all are when you have to use personal insults just to help convince yourself that you spent all that money on your expensive amplifier for amplification outputs alone

Rich said:
The only thing that should have to be matched is the volume level.
Click to expand...

Failed again. The rules state that you can EQ the cheap amp or the expensive amp. Results are the same, inaudible! So what's unfair? We are simply eliminating the processing variable to prove that the amplification stage/outputs does not improve SQ and that a watt is a watt. If you want to compare EQ processing, gains, filters, crossovers etc, then create your own test. Call it the coloration test

Rich said:
Hence my disdain for the challenge
Click to expand...

No I think your disdain comes from having something to lose

Rich said:
Still curious where you cut and pasted this from.
Click to expand...

You would know with all the research you've done ;)
 
Last edited:
snyderkv said:
We are measuring ONE variable and in this case the SONIC SIGNATURE of the AMPLIFIERS circuit topology NOT SIGNAL PROCESSING via EQ. That's like saying my Yamaha stadium DSP mode improved my SQ.
Click to expand...

And that's my point, really. If you are going to say that no one can tell the sound of two amps apart in blind tests, then you need to test the sound of the amps, not one particular variable. It is disingenuous to rig the test and then say it proves no one can tell the difference in sound from different amps.

snyderkv said:
Amplifers should be transparent. Period.
Click to expand...

Hogwash! They certainly can be, but there is no reason they should have to be. Some of the best-sounding amps in some situations are highly euphonic tube amps. Are they transparent? No. Absolutely not. They add a very heavy sonic signature to the signal and roll off some highs usually. But in certain systems and on certain music, they can sound absolutely divine. You sound like some photographers I know who can't handle the look of a heavily-processed HDR shot because they are "purists" and that's not real photography. To each his own. There are no hard rules in art or music.

snyderkv said:
It's obvious how butt hurt you all are when you have to use personal insults just to help convince yourself that you spent all that money on your expensive amplifier for amplification outputs alone
Click to expand...

Really? How old are you exactly? Because that remark sounds like it came straight from a twelve year old. Where have I insulted you? I am trying to have a discussion, but you just seem to get angrier and angrier that you can't convince me of your point of view. And as for whether you are a troll, I certainly didn't think you were originally, but when you come up with comments like this one it seems that perhaps you are.

snyderkv said:
Failed again. The rules state that you can EQ the cheap amp or the expensive amp. Results are the same, inaudible! So what's unfair? We are simply eliminating the processing variable to prove that the amplification stage/outputs does not improve SQ and that a watt is a watt. If you want to compare EQ processing, gains, filters, crossovers etc, then create your own test. Call it the coloration test
Click to expand...

Coloration is part of the sonic signature of any amp. By altering that sonic signature, you are rigging the test. Simple as that.

snyderkv said:
No I think your disdain comes from having something to lose
Click to expand...

Really? What have I got to lose?
 
Boys and girls, I've cleaned up and did a bit house keeping in order to try and 'preserve the topic at hand'.......lets keep it civil or the thread will go "bye...bye"
 
Rich said:
And that's my point, really. If you are going to say that no one can tell the sound of two amps apart in blind tests, then you need to test the sound of the amps, not one particular variable. It is disingenuous to rig the test and then say it proves no one can tell the difference in sound from different amps.
Click to expand...

Well that was the point of the test. To test the one variable that manufacturers, magazines and salesmen market to you as improving SQ. It's like you just keep missing the entire talking points or just not reading them. You say you do but you obviously missed the objective of the test and my talking points over and over again by reitering the same thing.

Yes amps do sound different. Hope you're happy now


Rich said:
Hogwash! They certainly can be, but there is no reason they should have to be. Some of the best-sounding amps in some situations are highly euphonic tube amps. Are they transparent? No. Absolutely not. They add a very heavy sonic signature to the signal and roll off some highs usually.
Click to expand...

Yes amps do sound different. Thanks for your inputs


Rich said:
Really? How old are you exactly? Because that remark sounds like it came straight from a twelve year old.
Click to expand...

Ditto to this remark. The classic how old are you, insinuating immaturity insult
 
Last edited:
Rich said:
Yes, I am quite satisfied. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Finally, so to reiterate talking points for future readers

1) The main determinant of sound quality is the amount of power the amplifier can deliver. i.e when played at 150W, an expensive 100W measured amplifier will clip and sound worse than a cheap 200W measured amp

2) Signal processing, EQ, filters, gains etc, affects ones preference and is subjective and has nothing to do with SQ as marketers would have you believe

3) Buy an amp for its build quality, warranty, that meets your power demands etc, not for claimed SQ based off exotic materials, topology, DSP effects and all that

I'm glad you understand now
 
Last edited:
snyderkv said:
Finally, so you agree that

1) The main determinant of sound quality is the amount of power the amplifier can deliver. i.e when played at 150W, an expensive 100W measured amplifier will clip and sound worse than a cheap 200W measured amp

2) Processing or EQ as you said, affects preference in sound and is subjective and has nothing to do with SQ as marketers would have you believe

I'm glad you understand now
Click to expand...

Well, heavens no. How would you possibly conclude that? I have heard thirty watt tube amps that had much better sound quality than some 200 watt SS amps, whether either was driven to clipping or not. For that matter, I have heard tube amps that sound better while clipping than some SS amps not driven to clipping.

As for your second contention, it is spurious. All considerations of SQ are subjective. You may prefer a wider soundstage and more detail retrieval. I may not. You may notice a distinct roll-off of the highs. I may not. You may prefer tighter, faster bass. I may like more rounded bass that isn't so tight. All are aspects of sound quality, and all are subjective.

You boldly stated the challenge was definitive proof that no one can hear differences between amps, then when pressed on the details you finally admitted that there are sound quality differences between amps. 'nuff said.
 
Rich said:
You may prefer a wider soundstage.
Click to expand...

The signal processing is responsible for creating soundstage?

I thought that was more for your speakers and placement and such?

How is a linear audio circuit supposed to improve Soundstage? Please explain! Sure the soundstage/image suffers when you clip, hence needing more power which equates to better SQ for the demands your putting on it

So I get you're arguing over the definition of SQ now?

PS. I see you're having a hard time not getting your personal unsults deleted. You can just PM me if you like
 
Last edited:
snyderkv said:
PS. I see you're having a hard time not getting your personal unsults deleted. You can just PM me if you like
Click to expand...

Not sure how it is a personal insult to quote your own words from a few months ago:

snyderkv said:
Agreed, I think it's rediculous to audition cables but I'm a newb so what do I know.
Click to expand...

Thanks for schooling all us old timers. ;)
 
Snyder,

Given the history of this thread, if you wish to respond, great. If not, that's fine too.

Let's start with three assumptions, which you can agree to or not. I hope it's the former. So let me try to establish a "baseline" for the discussion going forward.

1) DBT is a defensible test for a single item (amps, cables, CDP, etc.) that allows the user to hear (or not) a difference and determine what the user prefers regarding the choices under test for that single item.

2) A system is composed of many parts and ultimately, when one listens to the system, one judges if that system reflects the individual bias(es) as to how music sound quality should be reproduced. The final system sound quality is a "sum" of its various parts; the room's acoustic anomalies (inclusion or lack of room treatments influencing sound quality such as boomy, bright, image focus, speed, dimensionality, etc.); components; type of music preferred; volume, etc.

3) The personal goal / desire is to have a "you are there" experience. You can connect with and enjoy the music within the confines of ones budget and the inherent imperfections of reproduced sound. You are no longer listening to the electronics (all of the various components) but simply relaxing and enjoying the music. I like to call this the "end goal".

So we have, from my personal perspective, many parts that influence the "final listening experience".

I've read some of the info you posted but I did not see any reference to the final / complete system listening experience.

How does one use DBT to successfully realize the "end goal"?

GG

PS: Please know this post is not "bait" but myself, like others I suspect, look at DBT and question its relevance within the context of attaining the "end goal".
 
Last edited:
Gordon Gray said:
Snyder,

Given the history of this thread, if you wish to respond, great. If not, that's fine too.

Let's start with three assumptions, which you can agree to or not. I hope it's the former. So let me try to establish a "baseline" for the discussion going forward.

1) DBT is a defensible test for a single item (amps, cables, CDP, etc.) that allows the user to hear (or not) a difference and determine what the user prefers regarding the choices under test for that single item.

2) A system is composed of many parts and ultimately, when one listens to the system, one judges if that system reflects the individual bias(es) as to how music sound quality should be reproduced. The final system sound quality is a "sum" of its various parts; the room's acoustic anomalies (inclusion or lack of room treatments influencing sound quality such as boomy, bright, image focus, speed, dimensionality, etc.); components; type of music preferred; volume, etc.

3) The personal goal / desire is to have a "you are there" experience. You can connect with and enjoy the music within the confines of ones budget and the inherent imperfections of reproduced sound. You are no longer listening to the electronics (all of the various components) but simply relaxing and enjoying the music. I like to call this the "end goal".

So we have, from my personal perspective, many parts that influence the "final listening experience".

I've read some of the info you posted but I did not see any reference to the final / complete system listening experience.

How does one use DBT to successfully realize the "end goal"?

GG

PS: Please know this post is not "bait" but myself, like others I suspect, look at DBT and question its relevance within the context of attaining the "end goal".
Click to expand...

I made my point already. I will leave your nice last words for future readers to think about as it provides good closure to a beaten subject
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top