Nucleafueled
Member
The condemnation is official, therefore I withdraw my Symphony No.4
HI Folks Newbie Here! Lking for assist in gaining Natural Hi's fron New Electomotion
- Thread starter prcjr
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
To the above poster. Duh.
Bernard,
Ditto for me.
I look forward to any relevant answer to the question in Post No. 39.
Another question for the test crowd. How many hardware purchasing decisions have you made based on a DBT / DBX test prior to the purchase?
Please describe the process, the items under review, and the methodology employed.
Gordon
Bernard,
Ditto for me.
I look forward to any relevant answer to the question in Post No. 39.
Another question for the test crowd. How many hardware purchasing decisions have you made based on a DBT / DBX test prior to the purchase?
Please describe the process, the items under review, and the methodology employed.
Gordon
snyderkv
Well-known member
You seem to be using the same generalalities as before to discredit what others have been contributing.
By the way, you are the one keeping the thread alive with your third dead horse comment when you could have done more by not commenting at all. You appear to be the one coming back for a fight while others made there contrabutions and moved on.
Last edited:
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Snyder,
What piece(s) of hardware (wire, amplifier, preamp, cd player, etc.) have you purchased based solely on a DBT / DBX test?
GG
PS: I respectfully invite all others who have posted, who are "believers", to also respond to the above question.
What piece(s) of hardware (wire, amplifier, preamp, cd player, etc.) have you purchased based solely on a DBT / DBX test?
GG
PS: I respectfully invite all others who have posted, who are "believers", to also respond to the above question.
Last edited:
I think Gordon isn't going to get an answer to his question because it has been my experience that most proponents of DBT don't actually use it when purchasing their gear. Lots of reasons for that, including how difficult it is to set up a good DBT. Most people don't even want to invest in buying a proper switch to do it with.
But I will answer Gordon's question. Once I did make a purchasing decision based on DBT. At the behest of Roger Sanders, and using a switch he loaned to me, I did a blind test between his preamp and the ARC Ref 3 in my primary system. As Roger expected, I could tell very little difference between the two. However, I found that I could pick out the Ref 3 vs. the Sanders preamp about 2 out of 3 tries by paying attention to the quality of the highs. The Ref 3 had a smoother presentation, whereas the Sanders preamp showed just a little touch of grain/etching in the highs. Most people probably wouldn't have been able to pick out that difference. It was subtle, but it was there. I opted for the Ref 3 in my primary system and have been very happy with its sound combined with the Sanders monoblocs and the Summits. But I also purchased the Sanders preamp for my secondary system because I thought it was an excellent preamp for the price. In my secondary system, combined with the Pass Labs X-350.5, it performs flawlessly. The Pass amp seems to compensate for the slight graininess of the preamp and the highs sound superb in that system.
The problem with these types of discussions is that both sides are right . . . to some extent. DBT is an excellent way to try to distinguish between obvious differences between components. But it is not the be-all end-all and it is not without its limitations. Some sonic nuances cannot be heard quickly switching back and forth between components. They reveal themselves subtly over a much longer period of time. What I really don't understand is why people have to get all bent out of shape just because other people disagree with their opinion.
And if you disagree with this comment, then go **** yourself. (OK, that was a joke. Geez, lighten up a little.)
But I will answer Gordon's question. Once I did make a purchasing decision based on DBT. At the behest of Roger Sanders, and using a switch he loaned to me, I did a blind test between his preamp and the ARC Ref 3 in my primary system. As Roger expected, I could tell very little difference between the two. However, I found that I could pick out the Ref 3 vs. the Sanders preamp about 2 out of 3 tries by paying attention to the quality of the highs. The Ref 3 had a smoother presentation, whereas the Sanders preamp showed just a little touch of grain/etching in the highs. Most people probably wouldn't have been able to pick out that difference. It was subtle, but it was there. I opted for the Ref 3 in my primary system and have been very happy with its sound combined with the Sanders monoblocs and the Summits. But I also purchased the Sanders preamp for my secondary system because I thought it was an excellent preamp for the price. In my secondary system, combined with the Pass Labs X-350.5, it performs flawlessly. The Pass amp seems to compensate for the slight graininess of the preamp and the highs sound superb in that system.
The problem with these types of discussions is that both sides are right . . . to some extent. DBT is an excellent way to try to distinguish between obvious differences between components. But it is not the be-all end-all and it is not without its limitations. Some sonic nuances cannot be heard quickly switching back and forth between components. They reveal themselves subtly over a much longer period of time. What I really don't understand is why people have to get all bent out of shape just because other people disagree with their opinion.
And if you disagree with this comment, then go **** yourself. (OK, that was a joke. Geez, lighten up a little.)
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Well said Rich.
My position on this issue has been very clear.
I'm not a "believer" and have always purchased gear with a minimum 2 weeks "in home" audition.
As you said, it has allowed me to determine nuances that you simply can't determine in the "test". And nuances, along with personal biases, are very important once you get to a certain level of your system's transparency.
Having said that, all I've asked is for folks to accept the fact that there are justifiable reasons for having an honest difference of opinion.
Best,
Gordon
My position on this issue has been very clear.
I'm not a "believer" and have always purchased gear with a minimum 2 weeks "in home" audition.
As you said, it has allowed me to determine nuances that you simply can't determine in the "test". And nuances, along with personal biases, are very important once you get to a certain level of your system's transparency.
Having said that, all I've asked is for folks to accept the fact that there are justifiable reasons for having an honest difference of opinion.
Best,
Gordon
Hi Gordon,
I see that this reply is different than the one I originally read.
I'd like to point out that I have never once discussed DBT/DBX with anyone at any point ever. However I can understand how one could come to the conclusion that I maybe a DBT/DBX believer due to my stance against certain products in this industry that I deem snake oil.We as humans are biased. Our perceptions on everything is colored by our biases, experiences, and our current state of mind. It's known that humans have issues in our memory such as Transience (deterioration of a memory over time. Side note: we even distort the memory every time it is recalled), Misattribution, Suggestibility, and Bias. Please also see the Placebo Effect and the that eyewitnesses are known to be unreliable as other interesting topics. These are well known and documented subjects. Knowing these things help us to differentiate between objective and subjective results. We've advanced so much in our science and reasoning but yet there's still people who believe the world is flat, conspiracy theories, cryptids (bigfoot, lochness monster, etc), magic, ghosts/spirits, and other paranormal pseudo-science. So why is it that someone who can dismiss all or any number of those things due current accepted scientific findings can rationalize that's there's something scientifically unknown in regards to audio cables? I ask this is a serious and sincere manner, not with my usual sarcasm and assholishness.
It's not that I don't accept the differences of opinion, it's that I believe many audiophile products to be fraudulent. I find that audiophile marketing especially in the regards to cables and various knickknack doodads is straight out of the playbook of Patent Medicine miracle cures of yore and religious charlatans that promise salvation as long as you have money to purchase it. I suppose at least with audio cables you get something physically tangible and it's not potentially life threatening (unless your S/O finds out how much you spent on them LOL)...
Anyway I'll leave with this interesting article I read recently:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/08/the-look-of-music/
Last edited:
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Great post Tch. Totally agree with you that there are lots of hokey audio products out there.
I will read the article.
GG
I will read the article.
GG
snyderkv
Well-known member
I am selling my hi-fi gear based on my own testing. Never purchased based on controlled tests but if I had, I would have saved myself thousands.
The industry standard for determining audibility is a time synched, level matched, double blind test which are some of the guidelines outlined in BS 116-1 paper for ABX. Without adhering to some or all of these guidelines you cannot prove that you aren't simply hearing outside variables including added EQ/Filters/Gains etc other than the quality/expense of the amp itself. It was already proven hundreds if not thousands of times already that removing factory gimmicks (cables included) with a cheap equalizer running on a cheap amp below clipping, is not audibly better than high end gear of any price.
Not saying cables/amps all sound the same. What I am saying is that we have tested enough audio gear and obtained consistent results to be able to make a few generalizations about audio amplifiers and cables in general. I personally have not done a listening test that conforms well to BS 1116-1 but don't need to as the supporting data is out there and my own tests have concluded the same. no audible difference unless there was intentional colouration of the sound from not simply passing the source signal as it was mastered from the studio.
That's simplifying the issue. People are justified to get upset when one uses their own oppinion as a supporting authority to justify large purchases for others when objectionable facts prove otherwise.
Mods must love you or love cables enough to turn such a blind eye on your hate for non believers of cable mythology.
If audible differences exist, then you should be able to hear them right away (since it's audible). When people take hearing tests, they don't ask for two weeks in order to hear the beep. Your mind is simply focusing on differnt aspects of the music like a different instrument or beat of the song thus making it sounds different when it's the same darn song.
Last edited:
Pretty much as I said. Most people who promote blind testing don't actually use it themselves to audition audio gear.
I used an ABX switch and did many tests. The only variable was the preamps themselves. I determined that I was able to pick out one preamp over the other based on the quality of the highs an average of two out of three times. That was good enough for me in making my purchasing decision. I don't have to "prove" anything to anyone else. The point is that by using ABX testing I was able to tell a difference between these components in this particular system and it was a difference that mattered to me in my purchasing decision.
I see what you did there (and so does everyone else). Quoting that comment out of context, while intentionally ignoring the succeeding comment "(OK, that was a joke. Geez, lighten up a little.)" is inherently dishonest. It clearly shows you aren't really here to have a frank and honest discussion, but rather just to troll and bash other members every chance you get. As for the mods, each and every one of them know me personally. They know when I am getting out of hand, and they know when I am just joking around and trying to lighten the mood a little, as I did there.
By the way, when exactly did I "hate" on "nonbelievers in the cable mythology"? In fact, I don't believe I mentioned cables anywhere in my comment. Looks like you are going to great lengths to put words in my mouth so that you can "hate" on me.
Your point that audible differences should be heard immediately is true, but is also somewhat irrelevant. The point of auditioning components is to determine whether you like the sound of them in your system, not just whether you can hear a difference. Some differences are subtle, and may not be easily picked up switching back and forth, but can make a difference in the quality of the sound over a longer period of time. Other differences might sound better initially, but sound worse over a longer period of time. A prime example is a recent discussion in a different thread about the differences between a Krell integrated and an ARC preamp. The Krell has a much more forward presentation, which at first sounds "better." But after extended listening it begins to grate on the ears and doesn't sound near as smooth and natural as the ARC. You may not realize this in an A/B test, but it becomes painfully apparent after a longer period of audition.
Personally, I think ABX testing is a great way to tell if there are obvious differences between the sonic signature of components, but is an awful way of trying to determine which of the two components you would prefer in your system over the long haul. Extended demo in your system is the only way to really determine that.
Last edited:
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
In home audition experience
Hi Rich,
Just wanted to share one experience I had with a VTL 150 tube amp that I was auditioning several years ago.
Audible differences between my previous amp (Classe CA150) immediately audible and clearly a classic tube coloration. On some material (classical and jazz), I really liked it. On electronic material (rock, etc.) the bass was simply too slow and muddy for my tastes.
After a week, I decided I couldn't live with the tradeoffs over the long haul and returned it. I subsequently auditioned my Pass Labs 250.5. Again, major differences but after living with it for two weeks, I decided that it did enough things "right" and I decided to purchase. Haven't looked back.
Gordon
Hi Rich,
Just wanted to share one experience I had with a VTL 150 tube amp that I was auditioning several years ago.
Audible differences between my previous amp (Classe CA150) immediately audible and clearly a classic tube coloration. On some material (classical and jazz), I really liked it. On electronic material (rock, etc.) the bass was simply too slow and muddy for my tastes.
After a week, I decided I couldn't live with the tradeoffs over the long haul and returned it. I subsequently auditioned my Pass Labs 250.5. Again, major differences but after living with it for two weeks, I decided that it did enough things "right" and I decided to purchase. Haven't looked back.
Gordon
Exactly, Gordon. Determining whether there is a difference is a small part of the puzzle. Deciding whether you prefer that difference over the long haul and with a variety of music is the hard part. Which is why auditioning components in your system before buying is the most important thing you can do when considering a major purchase.
snyderkv
Well-known member
What are you talking about? If I can't hear a difference sighted under my own A/B, how can I hear a difference blind? Sounds aren't magically going to pop out of nowhere under controlled conditions. I think you're lost on the purpose of a controlled test.
Did anyone say all pre-amps sound the same? Don't preamps have like audyssey, tone settings, DSP sound affects etc? Of course they sound different. ugh.
Anyone who believes in the cable mythology can go **** your mother. haha joke.
Yeah I see what YOU did here. The mods are your personal friends? Ah it all makes sense now.
Again, I still stand by my comment that no matter how subtle the difference is, someone should be able to point it out in way less than two weeks. But the point being that if it's that subtle, is it worth mortgaging the house over.
Last edited:
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Snyder,
Hi end preamps generally don't have tone controls, audyssey, or DSP modes.
Basis is that these type circuits compromise integrity of the sound. Goal is to create the most simple path from preamp to amplifier, thereby maximizing quality and purity.
GG
Hi end preamps generally don't have tone controls, audyssey, or DSP modes.
Basis is that these type circuits compromise integrity of the sound. Goal is to create the most simple path from preamp to amplifier, thereby maximizing quality and purity.
GG
I think you don't know as much about ABX testing as you pretend. "Blind" means you don't know which component you are listening to when you do the test, in order to avoid psychosomatic factors. If you know you are listening to the more expensive cable, amp, etc., then you might make yourself think you are hearing a difference when you aren't. Any proper controlled test is done "blind." That is why the B in DBT stands for "blind."
Huh? I simply provided my experience in a controlled test that I did regarding preamps (neither of which had any of those things you mention, btw) in response to a post by Gordon asking if anyone used DBT/ABX testing to make purchasing decisions. You then felt the need to butt in and say I couldn't prove anything by that if I didn't follow some strict scientific methodology. Now you say of course they all sound different so of course I could hear a difference. Not sure what the point of your comments is . . . except to harass me.
Again, where did I mention cable mythology? You seem to be going out of your way to pick a fight (and you seem to do this on a regular basis). And yes, I do consider the mods my friends, along with many other members of this forum. But no, I don't think I get any special treatment because of that. But you go ahead and keep picking fights on the forum, and I expect you will get some special treatment from them.
And again, knowing there is a difference doesn't tell you anything about whether you like the difference and want to spend thousands of dollars on a component. Knowing whether you are happy with the sound of the component in your system is what it is all about. And for that, you need an extended audition. And the question of whether minor improvements are worth the money is a highly subjective question that everyone must answer for themselves. There is no right or wrong answer on that one.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, Gordon. Very few of us have rooms with anything like ideal room response. None of us have rooms which will compensate for album by album FR variance.
And current SoTA DSP-based pre-pros are vastly better than just a few years ago. You should visit!:music:
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Ken,
I agree within the context of multi-channel preamps. I also agree that very few rooms exist that don't have "room induced" tonal anomalies.
I was speaking of stereo / 2 channel only hardware, which is what Rich was referring to when he made his post on the ARC vs the Sanders preamp.
My next system, when I retire and move, may incorporate some type of "surround sound" technology. I have been buying many 5 channel / SACD's.
Looking forward to the "new and improved".
Best,
Gordon
I agree within the context of multi-channel preamps. I also agree that very few rooms exist that don't have "room induced" tonal anomalies.
I was speaking of stereo / 2 channel only hardware, which is what Rich was referring to when he made his post on the ARC vs the Sanders preamp.
My next system, when I retire and move, may incorporate some type of "surround sound" technology. I have been buying many 5 channel / SACD's.
Looking forward to the "new and improved".
Best,
Gordon
Gordon, I, too, am talking about stereo. The SoTA DSP-based pre-pro I use in my 2ch system is waaaay more sophisticated than those in my multi-channel, movie-only systems.
'Cuz I'm a whole lot pickier about 2ch.
'Cuz I'm a whole lot pickier about 2ch.
Understand your point, Ken. But Gordon did say "generally." And he is correct. Generally speaking, most high end two-channel preamps don't incorporate DSP.
