ABX Testing

[macallan]

I am considering upgrading my 2 channel system with the addition of a tube preamp but have read that preamps, amps etc can not be detected in ABX testing. I am curiuos as to peoples thoughts on what i could expect with the addition of a tube preamp. I am using a Rotel RSX-1056 receiver and B&K 200.2 amp to drive klipsch RF-7s.

 

[risabet]

I am considering upgrading my 2 channel system with the addition of a tube preamp but have read that preamps, amps etc can not be detected in ABX testing. I am curiuos as to peoples thoughts on what i could expect with the addition of a tube preamp. I am using a Rotel RSX-1056 receiver and B&K 200.2 amp to drive klipsch RF-7s.

Probably true, I say so what? I don't listen to ABX testers which may mask the sometimes subtle differences between high quality equipment. The DBT crowd argues constantly about this issue but I don't find the argument compelling. I can hear differences between amps and preamps based on long term evaluation in my system. It is certainly not measurable, or more accurately we can't necessarily correlate what we measure with sound quality. Listening is the best test.

 

[macallan]

I just wonder how much difference the Preamp section really makes. My long term goal is to buy Vantages but I was going to pick up a tube preamp to improve the RF-7s right now. Or, I may save the money towards the Vantages and continue to use the Rotel as a preamp.

 

[Rich]

Listening is the best test.

I agree. And that is exactly what a blind ABX test is: It is listening . . . without allowing preconceived bias to affect your perception of what you are hearing. It is always interesting to me how those who tout their abilities to hear minute variations between components in their systems over a long period of time always seem to be the ones who are most vociferous about the inadequacy of blind testing. I guess listening to music is more about art than science. But, to each his own.

I disagree that you can't tell a difference between preamps using ABX testing. It is certainly easier to tell differences between some than others. Two well-designed neutral-sounding preamps will be difficult to tell apart. I was able to tell the difference between my Sanders Sound Preamp and my ARC Ref 3 preamp 75% of the times I tried. Both are very neutral preamps. The differences were incredibly subtle and it was difficult, but I would say that is a statistically significant percentage to tell one from the other. However, I was just doing blind A/B testing, and not A/B/X.

I think what you will find with a tube preamp vs. your Rotel is a clearer, less grainy presentation with a much smoother midrange. You will notice less etch in the highs. You may notice less articulate bass, depending on the preamp you choose. And that really is the key. Some tube preamps will be easy to tell from your Rotel because they add so much of their own sound. Others, that are more neutral, may be tougher to distinguish. But if your system is capable of resolving the differences, you should be able to hear them in a blind test.

The question is: What type of improvement in sound are you looking for in substituting a tube preamp? Then you can choose which preamps to consider based on those parameters. I encourage anyone to try a double blind test just to see for themselves how subtle the differences are between quality components. Then you have to ask yourself, is it worth thousands of dollars to upgrade that component for a few subtle differences in presentation. For the higher-end systems and those with money to spend, the answer is a definite yes. For others, maybe not so much.

 

[sleepysurf]

Like all things audio, opinions re tube preamps will vary. Some preamps (tube or SS), will add a "sonic signature," with others more neutral. After purchasing the Modwright SWL 9.0SE (initially with SS rectifier, and Tungsol 5687 tubes), I found the sound more musical and "organic", and much less fatiguing, compared to my prior use of a Yamaha receiver (pre-outs to amp). Later, after upgrading the Modwright to the tube rectified version, and "rolling" to a Mullard 5AR4 rectifier tube, I've enjoyed even more "midrange bloom", and more forward "in your face" vocals. However, the lowest bass notes are now a bit "fuzzier", which is an unfortunate trade-off. Fortunately, the Modwright has a "Home Theater Bypass", so I can also use my new (SS) Denon 3808CI as a pre/pro. Going that route restores the fine detail to bass, and all instruments, but then the soundstage is more recessed, and arguably, "less musical." Right now, I'm just going back and forth, depending on my mood.

DBT is interesting, but I'll reiterate what risabet said... listening is best. The ideal approach is to "try before you buy" (or buy used, so you can always resell if not happy).

IMHO, tweaking speaker placement, and adding room acoustic treatment (or possibly EQ), might actually have a more beneficial impact on sonics, than merely changing components (or cables). That's what I plan to focus on next.

 

[daniel]

There's something great with abx testing: you always know that nobody will be able to tell the difference, and if someone do, you will ba able to say that he/she was lucky.

If you dont' want to get screw with this testing, try blind listening. You take as long as you want, listening to different aspect and taking as many notes as you wish. Than someone will switch the component, without telling you what it was and what it's going to be, and again take as much time as you wish.

I used to beleived in abx testing, and I bought an horrible piece of equipment following this procedure. (A cheap tape deck ( 99$) won over a nakamichi.

Since I was not satisfied, I borrowed y brother's nak, and with the help of my girlfriend, tried blind testing. Let me tell you, it was night and days.

p.s. it was just 99$, but it could have been thousand.

 

[risabet]

There's something great with abx testing: you always know that nobody will be able to tell the difference, and if someone do, you will ba able to say that he/she was lucky.

If you dont' want to get screw with this testing, try blind listening. You take as long as you want, listening to different aspect and taking as many notes as you wish. Than someone will switch the component, without telling you what it was and what it's going to be, and again take as much time as you wish.

I used to beleived in abx testing, and I bought an horrible piece of equipment following this procedure. (A cheap tape deck ( 99$) won over a nakamichi.

Since I was not satisfied, I borrowed y brother's nak, and with the help of my girlfriend, tried blind testing. Let me tell you, it was night and days.

p.s. it was just 99$, but it could have been thousand.

Which supports, anecdotally only, my position that ABX testing masks differences between components. Blind testing with direct connections doesn't have that limitation.

 

[amey01]

Everyone will have a different opinion. There are good and bad in each.

My opinion - ABX is frought with danger and difficulties. Let's not forget it is about what makes you happiest - not what sounds "Best" in a short, blind listen.

It's really hard to set up and many things can affect your "opinion" that will not hold true after extended listening - eg. If one is louder it might sound "better", or if one has more bass it might sound "better". What about something that has tizzy treble - it might sound more "Detailed".

Don't go there - just listen to your favourite music for an extended period and buy what gets you closer to this music - what makes you enjoy this music most. That's all that matters.

 

[longhorn]

I agree. And that is exactly what a blind ABX test is: It is listening . . . without allowing preconceived bias to affect your perception of what you are hearing. It is always interesting to me how those who tout their abilities to hear minute variations between components in their systems over a long period of time always seem to be the ones who are most vociferous about the inadequacy of blind testing. I guess listening to music is more about art than science. But, to each his own.

I disagree that you can't tell a difference between preamps using ABX testing. It is certainly easier to tell differences between some than others. Two well-designed neutral-sounding preamps will be difficult to tell apart. I was able to tell the difference between my Sanders Sound Preamp and my ARC Ref 3 preamp 75% of the times I tried. Both are very neutral preamps. The differences were incredibly subtle and it was difficult, but I would say that is a statistically significant percentage to tell one from the other. However, I was just doing blind A/B testing, and not A/B/X.

I think what you will find with a tube preamp vs. your Rotel is a clearer, less grainy presentation with a much smoother midrange. You will notice less etch in the highs. You may notice less articulate bass, depending on the preamp you choose. And that really is the key. Some tube preamps will be easy to tell from your Rotel because they add so much of their own sound. Others, that are more neutral, may be tougher to distinguish. But if your system is capable of resolving the differences, you should be able to hear them in a blind test.

The question is: What type of improvement in sound are you looking for in substituting a tube preamp? Then you can choose which preamps to consider based on those parameters. I encourage anyone to try a double blind test just to see for themselves how subtle the differences are between quality components. Then you have to ask yourself, is it worth thousands of dollars to upgrade that component for a few subtle differences in presentation. For the higher-end systems and those with money to spend, the answer is a definite yes. For others, maybe not so much.

Did you post your findings on the differences between the Sanders Preamp and the ARC REF? I thought I read it somewhere,and now I can't find it,even using the Search help.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Rich,

See my post in the "Preamp Suggestions, Please" thread.

Parallel threads to a degree.

I don't doubt that, with a system of sufficient transparency, you can decifer the differences between Preamp A and B. In your case, the Sanders versus the AR.

I guess my issue with that is how a "clinical" / short duration test that can, more often than not, "objectively" determine a difference in sound should be used as a foundation for making an informed decision regarding one's long term / emotional connection with the music recreated by that piece of hardware.

Gordon

 

[Rich]

Agreed, Gordon. I also agree with Risabet that a low quality ABX switch can mask subtle differences in high end preamps. It is important to really spend some time with each preamp in your system to get a solid feel for how it sounds. ABX testing, while useful in my opinion, is certainly not the only way or even the best way to choose between components.