[jeffc]

"Steve" wrote in message
...
What was your recent "audition"? These things have to be done carefully,
with the exact same system (I assume it was) but also well volume matched
(use a test tone and multimeter to check the voltage output from the
amp.)

This was at a dealers and I had no way to objectively set the volume
to equal. So I set the volume by ear changed the volume each time up
or down according to whim. Not very scientific but similar to what one
would do at home.

Unless you use a voltmeter at home :-) Available at Radio Shack, cheap.

[Steven Sullivan]

Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:45:57 -0800, jeffc wrote
(in article ):

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Some will argue that well-made amps that measure the same
will sound the same.

The myth here is that two amps could measure the same. Even each channel
of
a stereo amplifier will measure differently, given sufficiently accurate
measuring gear.

I don't believe the measuring tests are really that accurate. If you doubt
this, consider: voice recognition is extremely difficult for even the most
sophsticated equipment, yet trivially easy for even children. The same is
true for image recognition. Measurements might be good enough for the cell
phone generation, but that ain't sayin' much.

Theoretically, if it can't be measured it can't be heard. But just because
it can be measured doesn't mean it is being measured.


And since even if everything we hear could be preceisly quantified and
weighted according to the requirements of human perception, that still
doesn't mean that the ordinary audiophile would have access to the equipment
with which to make those measurements for himself. We have two instruments we
can use when choosing audio equipment and we carry them with us everywhere we
go. Use 'em!

In using any tools, it's important to keep their limitations in mind.
The 'two instruments' you cite are part of a system whose well-known
inaccuracies and tendencies to error, tend to be ignored in audiophile
culture.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:52:02 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 08:47:53 -0800, codifus wrote
On a slightly different note, I found one way to easily distinguish a
lossy audio file from its lossless counterpart: distortion. The
Lossless file will play much louder and cleaner than the lossy file on
the same system.

That is very true.

It's very not true.

A friend recently gave me an 340k MP3 of the end title cut
for the movie soundtrack "The Mummy Returns". When I got it home, I was
disappointed at how distorted it sounded. I then borrowed the CD from him
and
did my own "rip" using Apple Lossless. The end result was as clean as the
CD.

Then there was something wrong with your friend's mp3.

No there isn't. It's the same version of iTunes that I use and we set it to
320 KBPS ourselves, first.

I still maintain that compression artifacts are clearly audible and very
nasty sounding, but others keep telling me that it's my imagination.

You've never presented good evidence to the contrary. As in, performance
on an ABX test, with a good mp3 vs. source.

The point here is that I don't care that others say it's my imagination. I
know it isn't. I maintain that anybody who says that MP3 is as good as the
uncompressed original simply can't hear.

Some of you guys talk as if double-blind ABX tests are so easy to set-up and
perform that one would think that you hold such tests regularly. They are not
easy to set-up or perform and they require considerably more than one person
to perform them. They simply aren't practicable in most situations.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 30, 11:59 am, Sonnova wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:40:53 -0800, willbill wrote
(in article ):
trust your ears

Oh, yes. After all, they're the only "test instruments"
that most of us posses.

Any test instrument, including one's ears, has limitations.
Their proper use includes knowledge of and proper
consideration of their shortcomings.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people seriously
over-trust their test instruments (meters and ears
equally) and thus are more than eager to be led to
appropriately erroneous conclusions as a result.

They do require a bit of training, however.

And many people who say that assume that training
allows them to ignore the fundamental limitations
of the instrument, indeed, even "entitles" them to
ignore them.

No matter how much they are trained, one's ears has
pretty serious limitations. That they are backed by very
sophisticated brains is both a bug AND a feature. Those
brains allow one to supplant things the ears themselves
are incapable of.

[Tynan Agviðr[_2_]]

Steve wrote in
om:

Some time ago the now defunct stereo review had an interesting article
on blind a/b tests between different amplifiers - I saw a reprint
here;

http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

After a hiatus of many years I am now putting together a system and
every one I talk to tells me there is a difference between amplifier
sounds. I am sceptical and in a recent audition could not tell a Creek
EVO from a NAD 325 BEE (through EPOS M12.2 speakers with a Creek cd
source).

Has any more work been done on this subject, esp. blind a/b tests?

Steve

This is discussed regularly within the pages of Audio EXpress.
(www.audioeXpress.com) ..I will be glad to send you a copy of the pertinent
articles if you want...(I suggest subscribing...it is the only audio-
centric magazine that I read for facts instead of fiction)

just shoot me an email if you want the articles.

=Tynan

[Steven Sullivan]

Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:52:02 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 08:47:53 -0800, codifus wrote
On a slightly different note, I found one way to easily distinguish a
lossy audio file from its lossless counterpart: distortion. The
Lossless file will play much louder and cleaner than the lossy file on
the same system.

That is very true.

It's very not true.

A friend recently gave me an 340k MP3 of the end title cut
for the movie soundtrack "The Mummy Returns". When I got it home, I was
disappointed at how distorted it sounded. I then borrowed the CD from him
and
did my own "rip" using Apple Lossless. The end result was as clean as the
CD.

Then there was something wrong with your friend's mp3.

No there isn't. It's the same version of iTunes that I use and we set it to
320 KBPS ourselves, first.

What mp3 codec does iTunes use?

I still maintain that compression artifacts are clearly audible and very
nasty sounding, but others keep telling me that it's my imagination.

You've never presented good evidence to the contrary. As in, performance
on an ABX test, with a good mp3 vs. source.

The point here is that I don't care that others say it's my imagination. I
know it isn't. I maintain that anybody who says that MP3 is as good as the
uncompressed original simply can't hear.

THe point is, the claim you make -- for 320 kbps mp3 no less, which when done *properly*,
is very difficult to tell from source, for untrained listeners --
is extraordinary, thus the evidence for it should be sound. Yours isn't.

Some of you guys talk as if double-blind ABX tests are so easy to set-up and
perform that one would think that you hold such tests regularly. They are not
easy to set-up or perform and they require considerably more than one person
to perform them. They simply aren't practicable in most situations.

Utterly wrong in this case. An mp3 vs source ABX is perhaps the most simple to set up, as software
'ABX boxes' have already been developed, and are free. MP3 codecs --LAME in particular,
considered the best -- have been developed using ABX tests to tweak them at every
step.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:23:17 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

On Dec 30, 11:59 am, Sonnova wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:40:53 -0800, willbill wrote
(in article ):
trust your ears

Oh, yes. After all, they're the only "test instruments"
that most of us posses.

Any test instrument, including one's ears, has limitations.
Their proper use includes knowledge of and proper
consideration of their shortcomings.

That goes without saying. Everything has limitations.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people seriously
over-trust their test instruments (meters and ears
equally) and thus are more than eager to be led to
appropriately erroneous conclusions as a result.

Agreed.

They do require a bit of training, however.

And many people who say that assume that training
allows them to ignore the fundamental limitations
of the instrument, indeed, even "entitles" them to
ignore them.

I suppose that's true.

No matter how much they are trained, one's ears has
pretty serious limitations. That they are backed by very
sophisticated brains is both a bug AND a feature. Those
brains allow one to supplant things the ears themselves
are incapable of.

Exactly. But what do YOU propose in it's stead?

[willbill]

Sonnova wrote:

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:40:53 -0800, willbill wrote

fwiw, the tubes vs solid state "squabble"
went well beyond the '60's and in fact
likely continues to this day

Likely? Based upon the twin facts that there are more companies building
tubed audio components today than at probably any other time since the
transistor came on the scene in the middle 1960's and that recognized tube
brands like Audio Research, VTL, VAC, etc (even Dynaco), have much higher
resale value than SS gear of similar initial costs (with some exceptions),
I'd say that this particular "squabble" was very much still with us!

agreed smiling

in my own not too distant past, tubes still
sounded better; bleeding problem is their
lack of practicality, not to mention that
they now cost so much more than in the 60's

I have a pair of VTL 140 tube monoblocs that I'm going to be buried with
(along with my Alfa Romeo GTV-6). That's the only way I'll give 'em up is to
be dead. Also I find my tube gear to be very practical. I bought out an old
ham operator of his stash of NOS JAN WWII vinatge 807s (each amp uses six of
them) for pennies each. They're better than newly manufactured 807s. Anyway,
I think I've replaced ONE tube in the last 10 years. I'd say that's pretty
practical! Modern tube components (my VTLs were manufactured in the early
1990's), unlike their 1950's and 1960's antecedents, are not biased so
heavily, so the tubes last a really long time.

ok already

i've been thru the whole tube thing,
and i had more than a few qualms about
ditching not only my amps but also the
vintage tubes (unused)

oh well

trust your ears

Oh, yes. After all, they're the only "test instruments" that most of us
posses. They do require a bit of training, however.

it's interesting in how well most people
trust "new = better"

it's built into our learning system

... and in general most new stuff
is better:
PC's being perhaps the best example,
closely followed by small/convenient
digital cameras, small/convenient
digital sound recorders, etc. etc.

i can add that imho solid state has
come a very very long way forward
in the last 20/25 years.

That too is true. I still prefer tubes for music though.

ok and agreed

SS amps mostly sound
too clinical for my tastes, although they are probably more accurate. In an
ideal world, where recordings were perfect, perhaps the clinically accurate
solid state amps will sound "better" than the euphonically colored tube
equipment, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I listen to music for
pleasure and tubes give me more. There is not, nor does there need to be. any
other justification than that.

i don't know if you run 1 or 2 sound rooms

i run a modest hi-end smiling at myself
5.1 SS/dynamic driver setup in a large/quiet
living room; i can play as loud as i want

given a multichannel 5.1 setup, i'd appreciate
your opinion on:

1. i've thought for some time that the F/R/C
speakers are the most important in a 5.1
multichannel surround setup

agreed/disagreed?

2. of a tube preamp vs. tube amps, my best
guess is that tube amps driving the F/R/C
speakers is the best payoff for using tubes

agreed/disagreed?

all ears.

bill

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:19:12 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:45:57 -0800, jeffc wrote
(in article ):

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Some will argue that well-made amps that measure the same
will sound the same.

The myth here is that two amps could measure the same. Even each channel
of
a stereo amplifier will measure differently, given sufficiently accurate
measuring gear.

I don't believe the measuring tests are really that accurate. If you
doubt
this, consider: voice recognition is extremely difficult for even the most
sophsticated equipment, yet trivially easy for even children. The same is
true for image recognition. Measurements might be good enough for the
cell
phone generation, but that ain't sayin' much.

Theoretically, if it can't be measured it can't be heard. But just
because
it can be measured doesn't mean it is being measured.


And since even if everything we hear could be preceisly quantified and
weighted according to the requirements of human perception, that still
doesn't mean that the ordinary audiophile would have access to the
equipment
with which to make those measurements for himself. We have two instruments
we
can use when choosing audio equipment and we carry them with us everywhere
we
go. Use 'em!

In using any tools, it's important to keep their limitations in mind.
The 'two instruments' you cite are part of a system whose well-known
inaccuracies and tendencies to error, tend to be ignored in audiophile
culture.

But, when they're all you have.....

Tell me. How do you choose new audio components. Do you drag a lab full of
test equipment with you to the audio salon? (If so, I'll bet the store owner
just LOVES to see you coming :-) Or do you make your own components,
measuring everything as you go along?

[Serge Auckland]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:19:12 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:45:57 -0800, jeffc wrote
(in article ):

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Some will argue that well-made amps that measure the same
will sound the same.

The myth here is that two amps could measure the same. Even each
channel
of
a stereo amplifier will measure differently, given sufficiently
accurate
measuring gear.

I don't believe the measuring tests are really that accurate. If you
doubt
this, consider: voice recognition is extremely difficult for even the
most
sophsticated equipment, yet trivially easy for even children. The same
is
true for image recognition. Measurements might be good enough for the
cell
phone generation, but that ain't sayin' much.

Theoretically, if it can't be measured it can't be heard. But just
because
it can be measured doesn't mean it is being measured.


And since even if everything we hear could be preceisly quantified and
weighted according to the requirements of human perception, that still
doesn't mean that the ordinary audiophile would have access to the
equipment
with which to make those measurements for himself. We have two
instruments
we
can use when choosing audio equipment and we carry them with us
everywhere
we
go. Use 'em!

In using any tools, it's important to keep their limitations in mind.
The 'two instruments' you cite are part of a system whose well-known
inaccuracies and tendencies to error, tend to be ignored in audiophile
culture.

But, when they're all you have.....

Tell me. How do you choose new audio components. Do you drag a lab full of
test equipment with you to the audio salon? (If so, I'll bet the store
owner
just LOVES to see you coming :-) Or do you make your own components,
measuring everything as you go along?

In my case, for electronics I go by the specifications of equipment made by
manufacturers I trust.
What's the point is listening to the stuff?

For loudspeakers, I would look at the specs, check any measurement-based
reviews and finally, listen in my own room to check that the particular
inaccuracies of the loudspeakers are something I can live with.

Measurements come after I've bought it to make sure the manufacturer's
specification is being met.

S

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:18:45 -0800, willbill wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:40:53 -0800, willbill wrote

fwiw, the tubes vs solid state "squabble"
went well beyond the '60's and in fact
likely continues to this day

Likely? Based upon the twin facts that there are more companies building
tubed audio components today than at probably any other time since the
transistor came on the scene in the middle 1960's and that recognized tube
brands like Audio Research, VTL, VAC, etc (even Dynaco), have much higher
resale value than SS gear of similar initial costs (with some exceptions),
I'd say that this particular "squabble" was very much still with us!

agreed smiling

in my own not too distant past, tubes still
sounded better; bleeding problem is their
lack of practicality, not to mention that
they now cost so much more than in the 60's

I have a pair of VTL 140 tube monoblocs that I'm going to be buried with
(along with my Alfa Romeo GTV-6). That's the only way I'll give 'em up is
to
be dead. Also I find my tube gear to be very practical. I bought out an old
ham operator of his stash of NOS JAN WWII vinatge 807s (each amp uses six
of
them) for pennies each. They're better than newly manufactured 807s.
Anyway,
I think I've replaced ONE tube in the last 10 years. I'd say that's pretty
practical! Modern tube components (my VTLs were manufactured in the early
1990's), unlike their 1950's and 1960's antecedents, are not biased so
heavily, so the tubes last a really long time.

ok already

i've been thru the whole tube thing,
and i had more than a few qualms about
ditching not only my amps but also the
vintage tubes (unused)

oh well

trust your ears

Oh, yes. After all, they're the only "test instruments" that most of us
posses. They do require a bit of training, however.

it's interesting in how well most people
trust "new = better"

That's a sociological "thing". Modern humans are so used to the always
accelerating pace of technological change that they assume that anything
"new" is a direct result of technological "breakthroughs" and therefore must
be better than the old.

it's built into our learning system

Oh, yes.

.. and in general most new stuff
is better:
PC's being perhaps the best example,
closely followed by small/convenient
digital cameras, small/convenient
digital sound recorders, etc. etc.

And people extrapolate the rate of "improvement" from a few products to all
products.

i can add that imho solid state has
come a very very long way forward
in the last 20/25 years.

That too is true. I still prefer tubes for music though.

ok and agreed

SS amps mostly sound
too clinical for my tastes, although they are probably more accurate. In an
ideal world, where recordings were perfect, perhaps the clinically accurate
solid state amps will sound "better" than the euphonically colored tube
equipment, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I listen to music
for
pleasure and tubes give me more. There is not, nor does there need to be.
any
other justification than that.

i don't know if you run 1 or 2 sound rooms

i run a modest hi-end smiling at myself
5.1 SS/dynamic driver setup in a large/quiet
living room; i can play as loud as i want

given a multichannel 5.1 setup, i'd appreciate
your opinion on:

1. i've thought for some time that the F/R/C
speakers are the most important in a 5.1
multichannel surround setup

agreed/disagreed?

If you mean that F/R/C is Front/Rear/Center, you've described all of them
except the subwoofer(s). From that, I suspect that you are asking about the
importance of subwoofers. They are optional. If your right and left front
speakers have sufficient bass in and of themselves, then sunwoofers are
optional/superfluous.

2. of a tube preamp vs. tube amps, my best
guess is that tube amps driving the F/R/C
speakers is the best payoff for using tubes

agreed/disagreed?

Yeah. Tube amps are probably more important (to the tube listening
experience) than is the preamp, although, I'd try to go with both.

Frankly, to be honest, my music system and my surround system are completely
separate. My music system is two-channel. It has tube equipment for the amp
and preamp and uses Martin-Logan electrostatic speakers. My surround system
is solid-state, uses all cone drivers and is only used in conjunction with my
video system (except when I'm listening to Sirius satellite radio which comes
with my TV satellite service). IOW, I rarely listen to music on it.

all ears.

bill

[willbill]

Sonnova wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:18:45 -0800, willbill wrote

i run a modest hi-end smiling at myself
5.1 SS/dynamic driver setup in a large/quiet
living room; i can play as loud as i want

given a multichannel 5.1 setup, i'd appreciate
your opinion on:

1. i've thought for some time that the F/R/C
speakers are the most important in a 5.1
multichannel surround setup

agreed/disagreed?

If you mean that F/R/C is Front/Rear/Center,

i screwed up (and did it a 2nd time below!)

i meant the 3 front speakers: L/R/C

you've described all of them
except the subwoofer(s). From that, I suspect that you are asking about the
importance of subwoofers. They are optional. If your right and left front
speakers have sufficient bass in and of themselves,

not quite

fwiw, they are a decent 2 way pair
of 10 year old Mission 782 speakers;
tweeter and two 5 5/8" midrange
(measured outside of the flexible
rubber that attaches to the cone.
dimensions: 20"H 13"D 10"W;
more efficient than my C speaker)

then sunwoofers are
optional/superfluous.

i have two Martin Logan Dynamo
subwoofers (placed front center
and back center). inexpensive
($600), but overall a nice addition

2. of a tube preamp vs. tube amps, my best
guess is that tube amps driving the F/R/C
speakers is the best payoff for using tubes

agreed/disagreed?

Yeah. Tube amps are probably more important (to the tube listening
experience) than is the preamp, although, I'd try to go with both.

does a 5.1 tube AVR even exist?

and what does it cost?

if anything, a SS AVR with 5.1 preamp
outputs (which don't all have to be used)
is almost surely the high volume choice
(meaning lowest cost; meaning that it could be
used with it's own SS amp power for rear L/R,
together with a stereo tube amp (for front L/R)
together with a mono tube amp (for front center)
is likely the low cost way of getting back
into tubes)


Frankly, to be honest, my music system and my
surround system are completely separate.

i had a sense of this, but wasn't sure
(i'm new to the rec.audio. newsgroups)

My music system is two-channel. It has tube equipment for the amp
and preamp and uses Martin-Logan electrostatic speakers.

i saw a pair at BB on my last visit (they'd
blown something out and i wasn't able to get
a demo). does Martin-Logan do more than
one electrostatic?

My surround system
is solid-state, uses all cone drivers and is only used in conjunction with my
video system (except when I'm listening to Sirius satellite radio which comes
with my TV satellite service). IOW, I rarely listen to music on it.

if i win the mega lotto, i'll be sure
to set up with two sound rooms.
right after i help fund a long term
health study (for t1 diabetes, of
which i am one)

bill, t1 since '57, hearing still aok.

[Steven Sullivan]

Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:19:12 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:45:57 -0800, jeffc wrote
(in article ):

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Some will argue that well-made amps that measure the same
will sound the same.

The myth here is that two amps could measure the same. Even each channel
of
a stereo amplifier will measure differently, given sufficiently accurate
measuring gear.

I don't believe the measuring tests are really that accurate. If you
doubt
this, consider: voice recognition is extremely difficult for even the most
sophsticated equipment, yet trivially easy for even children. The same is
true for image recognition. Measurements might be good enough for the
cell
phone generation, but that ain't sayin' much.

Theoretically, if it can't be measured it can't be heard. But just
because
it can be measured doesn't mean it is being measured.


And since even if everything we hear could be preceisly quantified and
weighted according to the requirements of human perception, that still
doesn't mean that the ordinary audiophile would have access to the
equipment
with which to make those measurements for himself. We have two instruments
we
can use when choosing audio equipment and we carry them with us everywhere
we
go. Use 'em!

In using any tools, it's important to keep their limitations in mind.
The 'two instruments' you cite are part of a system whose well-known
inaccuracies and tendencies to error, tend to be ignored in audiophile
culture.

But, when they're all you have.....

Tell me. How do you choose new audio components. Do you drag a lab full of
test equipment with you to the audio salon? (If so, I'll bet the store owner
just LOVES to see you coming :-) Or do you make your own components,
measuring everything as you go along?

False dichotomy.

In fact I rarely audition gear; I would only seriously desire or feel the
need to do so, for loudspeakers, but that's rarely feasible to do at home
(and listening 'in store' is not a good substitute). And any such
auditions are prone to sighted bias effect. Solid state amps, preamps,
CD/hard media players, cables are commodity gear, more likely to sound
alike than not in a fair (blind) test when operated withing their limits.
(I don't deal with turntables or tube gear, gear that introduces
irreversible , supposedly 'euphonic', distortion). So I keep up on gear
evolution, decide what features I want, then I choose gear that has them,
based on manufacturer's information, and reviews, and published bench
tests. Appearance and price can also be factors in my final choice. I
mostly buy online, I don't often visit 'audio salons' except to sightsee.
At all times I'm aware that 'sighted' reviews and reports on sound are
suspect, including my own.

I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment. It
stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in sound
quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the nonsense
promulgated by audiophile culture.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Randy Yates]

Steven Sullivan writes:
[...]

An EXCELLENT summary of what matters and what doesn't in audio! We
are in complete agreement.
--
% Randy Yates % "And all that I can do
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % is say I'm sorry,
%%% 919-577-9882 % that's the way it goes..."
%%%% % Getting To The Point', *Balance of Power*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 21:02:31 -0800, willbill wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 08:18:45 -0800, willbill wrote

i run a modest hi-end smiling at myself
5.1 SS/dynamic driver setup in a large/quiet
living room; i can play as loud as i want

given a multichannel 5.1 setup, i'd appreciate
your opinion on:

1. i've thought for some time that the F/R/C
speakers are the most important in a 5.1
multichannel surround setup

agreed/disagreed?

If you mean that F/R/C is Front/Rear/Center,

i screwed up (and did it a 2nd time below!)

i meant the 3 front speakers: L/R/C

In that case, yes the front speakers are the most important, but surround
seems to work better when the rear speakers are at least RELATED to the front
ones - like being smaller versions of the same make that share a similar
sound signature. Bass in the rear speakers is not as important as it is in
the front because surround signals are often purposely limited in low
frequency response.

you've described all of them
except the subwoofer(s). From that, I suspect that you are asking about the
importance of subwoofers. They are optional. If your right and left front
speakers have sufficient bass in and of themselves,

not quite

fwiw, they are a decent 2 way pair
of 10 year old Mission 782 speakers;
tweeter and two 5 5/8" midrange
(measured outside of the flexible
rubber that attaches to the cone.
dimensions: 20"H 13"D 10"W;
more efficient than my C speaker)

then sunwoofers are
optional/superfluous.

i have two Martin Logan Dynamo
subwoofers (placed front center
and back center). inexpensive
($600), but overall a nice addition

2. of a tube preamp vs. tube amps, my best
guess is that tube amps driving the F/R/C
speakers is the best payoff for using tubes

agreed/disagreed?

Yeah. Tube amps are probably more important (to the tube listening
experience) than is the preamp, although, I'd try to go with both.

does a 5.1 tube AVR even exist?

I dunno. I haven't seen one. But one could do it with individual tubed
components.

and what does it cost?

if anything, a SS AVR with 5.1 preamp
outputs (which don't all have to be used)
is almost surely the high volume choice
(meaning lowest cost; meaning that it could be
used with it's own SS amp power for rear L/R,
together with a stereo tube amp (for front L/R)
together with a mono tube amp (for front center)
is likely the low cost way of getting back
into tubes)


Frankly, to be honest, my music system and my
surround system are completely separate.

i had a sense of this, but wasn't sure
(i'm new to the rec.audio. newsgroups)

My music system is two-channel. It has tube equipment for the amp
and preamp and uses Martin-Logan electrostatic speakers.

i saw a pair at BB on my last visit (they'd
blown something out and i wasn't able to get
a demo). does Martin-Logan do more than
one electrostatic?

They have a complete range of speakers from about $2000/pair up to about
$12000/pair.

My surround system
is solid-state, uses all cone drivers and is only used in conjunction with
my
video system (except when I'm listening to Sirius satellite radio which
comes
with my TV satellite service). IOW, I rarely listen to music on it.

if i win the mega lotto, i'll be sure
to set up with two sound rooms.
right after i help fund a long term
health study (for t1 diabetes, of
which i am one)

bill, t1 since '57, hearing still aok.

Good for you and good luck.

[c. leeds]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such
auditions are prone to sighted bias effect.

It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because a dubious
result is possible.

I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment. It
stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in sound
quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the nonsense
promulgated by audiophile culture.

You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're
talking about. It's certainly nonsensical to buy audio equipment without
listening. But, some people buy a new car without driving it first,
others buy clothes without trying them on. There's simply no accounting
for preference, which is all that you are stating.

[Arny Krueger]

"jeffc" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Some will argue that well-made amps that measure the
same will sound the same.

The myth here is that two amps could measure the same.
Even each channel of
a stereo amplifier will measure differently, given
sufficiently accurate measuring gear.

I don't believe the measuring tests are really that
accurate.

That's too bad.

If you doubt this, consider: voice recognition
is extremely difficult for even the most sophsticated
equipment, yet trivially easy for even children.

Even in the past few days I have transacted very exacting business with
computers, based entirely on voice recognition.

The same is true for image recognition.

I have likewise completed several transactions based on image recognition.

Measurements might
be good enough for the cell phone generation, but that
ain't sayin' much.

Am I missing something here, or do we have a case of attempted proof by
means of falsified assertions?

Theoretically, if it can't be measured it can't be heard.

Practically speaking, appropriate measurements readily resolve differences
that have never been heard.

For example, there are no known instances of humans reliably perceiving 0.01
dB level differences even at the frequencies where the ear is most
sensitive, but 0.01 dB level differences are very easy to measure with a
great deal of reliability and certainty.

But just because it can be measured doesn't mean it is
being measured.

Irrelevant to the issues I raised. It is completely illogical to attempt to
falsifiy a claim about measruements that have been made on the grounds that
they might not have been made.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


And since even if everything we hear could be preceisly
quantified and weighted according to the requirements of
human perception, that still doesn't mean that the
ordinary audiophile would have access to the equipment
with which to make those measurements for himself.

There's nom chance that the "average audiophile" would have the knowlege or
motivation to make any reasonable set of audio measurements, or be able to
interpret them properly. After all, the various high end ragazines and web
sites have been making sport of audio measurements for more than 30 years.

Their motivation for attacking audio measurements is very clear - they have
created a new economy for audio evaluations where reviewers can simply claim
as the whole truth, whatever flies into their heads for whatever reason.

If a reviewer bases his claims on some measurement or other reliable
repeatable procedure, then interested parties could try to duplicate their
claimed results. By avoiding making claims that are justified by anything
but unsupported opinons, the reviewer can not be held accountable.

We have two instruments we can use when choosing audio
equipment and we carry them with us everywhere we go. Use
'em!

The fallacy here is the idea that any audiophile's unassisted ear is always
a realiable tool for discerning the performance of all kinds of audio
products.

[Steven Sullivan]

c. leeds wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such
auditions are prone to sighted bias effect.

It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because a dubious
result is possible.

Who says I 'forsake listening'? I said I forsake auditioning gear.
I do *plenty* of listening to music, though.

I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment. It
stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in sound
quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the nonsense
promulgated by audiophile culture.

You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're
talking about. It's certainly nonsensical to buy audio equipment without
listening.

No, it's not. Because it's not often *certain* that gear intrinsically sounds
different, even when your 'ears' suggest it does. It's often *quite likely* that your
judgement of sound quality is not fairly based, in such 'auditions'.

The comparatively few cases where one can safely assume there's real audible difference,
include comparisons where electromechanical transducers are involved (loudspeakers, tt/cart).
Even there, of course, assessment of *sound quality* can be polluted by non-audio factors --
this is an elementary fact of human psychology -- which is why the CRC and Harman employ a
blind comparator setup for loudspeaker evaluation and development.

But, some people buy a new car without driving it first,
others buy clothes without trying them on. There's simply no accounting
for preference, which is all that you are stating.

This is a false analogy. There's little a priori reason, from the technology and physiology
involved, to assume that different models of car WON'T 'drive' different in some way, and much
to assume the opposite. Contrast this to audible difference between amps, preamps, CD
players, cables. To make such an analogy you;'d have to completely ignore the idea that
perception of difference involves physiological thresholds; you'd have to assume that the
thresholds involved in *hearing* the measurable differences in audio gear, are at all
comparable to those involved in sensing a difference in 'driving' (which btw you haven't
defined; in what sense, exactly is 'driving' analogous to 'hearing'?)

Similarly, you need to define what the claim is you're making about clothes choice. In what
sense are 'different' clothes perceptibly different? IS a difference in fabric , in cut, in
color, between , say, two shirts, AT ALL comparable to the measurable difference between CD
players?

What I *am* stating, which audiophiles like you tend to gloss over, is that *preference for
sound* is not necessarily the result of the qualities of the *sound*. And thus it's
often self-delusional to be CERTAIN about it based on sighted comparisons.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

c. leeds wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such
auditions are prone to sighted bias effect.

It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because a dubious
result is possible.

I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment. It
stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in sound
quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the nonsense
promulgated by audiophile culture.

You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're
talking about.

By the way, Curtis, 'nonsense' would include neary every 'review' ever published
in the audio press, or on the interwebs, regarding the 'sound' of different
audio cables. Add to that the numerous reviews claiming striking , even soul-changing
differences between amplifiers and disc players. Not to mention the 'effects' of
risible 'tweaks' such as the 'LP demagnetizer' touted by your fellow vinylphile Michael
Fremer, or the 'Intelligent Chip' that has so excited certain excitable parties on Audio
Asylum. Or, hell, just page through the gear catalogs of Elusive Disc or Music Direct

This 'please provide examples' business can only be coyness on your part. Speaking of
certainties, RAHE and rec.audio.* veterans such as yourself are *certainly* well-aware of, and
usually conversant in, the rhetoric of audiophile culture.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Harry Lavo]

"c. leeds" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such auditions are prone to
sighted bias effect.

It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because a dubious result
is possible.

I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment.
It stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in sound
quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the
nonsense promulgated by audiophile culture.

You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're talking
about. It's certainly nonsensical to buy audio equipment without
listening. But, some people buy a new car without driving it first, others
buy clothes without trying them on. There's simply no accounting for
preference, which is all that you are stating.

Except that Steven is very quick to accuse anybody who claims to hear what
they think is better sounding electronic gear of fooling themselves. It is
a very hypocritical position to take, it seems to me, for someone who
doesn't even bother to listen, yet claims to know that others can't hear
what he doesn't even bother to listen to or for.

[Serge Auckland]

"c. leeds" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such auditions are prone to
sighted bias effect.

It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because a dubious result
is possible.

I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment.
It stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in sound
quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the
nonsense promulgated by audiophile culture.

You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're talking
about. It's certainly nonsensical to buy audio equipment without
listening. But, some people buy a new car without driving it first, others
buy clothes without trying them on. There's simply no accounting for
preference, which is all that you are stating.

Why is it nonsensical to audio equipment without listening first? There's
only a point in listening to electromechanical transducers that "can" sound
different, and then, in the case of loudspeakers, only in one's own
listening room. Electronics of modern competent design do not sound
different so why listen?

Regarding clothes, do you try on underwear, shirts, knitwear before buying?
Suits need to be fitted to the person so should either be made to measure
and fitted, or if bought ready-made then at least tried, and other items
like overcoats may need to be tried for comfort, but there's no analogy that
I can see between audio equipment and clothes. Cars, like outer garments,
will need checking for comfort and fit, i.e. do the seats adjust
comfortably, is the visibility suitable etc, so a test-drive is appropriate,
but again, what is the analogy between cars and audio equipment? A better
analogy perhaps is wine, as the suitability of wine is entirely subjective.
One might buy a bottle without tasting, but would you buy a crate? However,
the analogy with wine only applies to those components, like loudspeakers,
that *do* have a subjective component to their suitability, it fails in the
case of electronics that, excluding a few outre components like SET
amplifiers, don't have a subjective component to their suitablity.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[c. leeds]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Who says I 'forsake listening'? I said I forsake auditioning gear.

Exactly. In my opinion, it's silly to buy audio equipment without
auditioning it first. But, you are satisfied with buying based on
specifications and manufacturer "reputation." That's your preference,
and you're entitled to it.

Because it's not often *certain* that gear intrinsically sounds
different, even when your 'ears' suggest it does.

So, you throw the baby out with the bathwater and dispense with
auditioning equipment entirely. Again - that's your preference, and
you're entitled to it. I think it's silly.

What I *am* stating, which audiophiles like you tend to gloss over, is that *preference for
sound* is not necessarily the result of the qualities of the *sound*.

No, I do not gloss over this simple fact. I simply prefer to listen
before I buy. From this preference you have built a whole construct of
reasoning that is based on your fantasy.

As I said, some people will buy a car without driving it first; others
buy clothes without trying them on. So you are hardly alone in your
preference for selecting products without first evaluating them as they
will be used.

And thus it's
often self-delusional to be CERTAIN about it based on sighted comparisons.

Of course, I never made any such assertion about certainty. I simply
prefer to try before I buy. It's a preference.

You're entitled to your preference. That we don't agree doesn't make me
"self-delusional," no matter how noisy your objection.

[c. leeds]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the nonsense
promulgated by audiophile culture.

I answered:
You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're
talking about.

Steve responds:
...'nonsense' would include neary every 'review' ever published
in the audio press, or on the interwebs, regarding the 'sound' of different
audio cables. Add to that the numerous reviews claiming striking , even soul-changing
differences between amplifiers and disc players.

"Soul-changing" differences????? Examples, please! And - what is the
"interweb?"

Not to mention the 'effects' of
risible 'tweaks' such as the 'LP demagnetizer' touted by your fellow vinylphile Michael
Fremer,

Mr. Fremer is not a "fellow vinylphile" of mine and we are not
associated in any way. Neither am I familiar with the 'LP demagnetizer,'
so I don't know what you are talking about.

...or the 'Intelligent Chip' that has so excited certain excitable parties on Audio
Asylum.

Again, I'm not familar with the 'Intelligent Chip,' so I don't know what
you're talking about.

Or, hell, just page through the gear catalogs of Elusive Disc or Music Direct

I've never seen the Elusive Disc catalog. If there's something in Music
Direct that you find offensive, please provide a specific example.

This 'please provide examples' business can only be coyness on your part.

So, it's "coyness" that I ask you to provide specific examples to
support your renderings here? Do you expect the group to swallow whole
your every assertion?

[Arny Krueger]

"c. leeds" wrote in message


Steven Sullivan wrote:

In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such
auditions are prone to sighted bias effect.

It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because
a dubious result is possible.

One important lesson of our early days with ABX (now 30 years ago) was that
when auditioning modern non-acoustical gear, as most audiophiles and
reviewers do, biased or random results are *certain*.

I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and
room treatment. It stands to both reason and practice
that choice of loudspeaker, and attention to room
conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in sound
quality.

Agreed.

It really is just that simple, once you
jettison all the nonsense promulgated by audiophile
culture.

Both recordists and live sound professionals tend to use the word audiophile
as a perjorative. Synonym with clueless and opinionated.

You don't cite an example, so I don't know what
"nonsense" you're talking about.

It is true that there is so much nonsense that is widely accepted as
revealed truth, that one might not know where to start. Here's a good
starting point:

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

It's certainly
nonsensical to buy audio equipment without listening.

That might be a good candidate for the 11th lie. Choosing gear that can
logically be expected to sound alike, based on a listening test is certainly
nonsensical. The belief in universal audible differences among pieces of
good audio gear is nonsensical.

But, some people buy a new car without driving it first,

Been there, done that and just about a year ago. Specifically, I bought a
Mercury Milan based only on a driving experience with a Ford Fusion.
Furthermore, the two cars differed in terms of a number of signficiant
pieces of optional equipment. The basis for doing this is called by some
"abstract reasoning". I recommend it when possible.

others buy clothes without trying them on.

Hence the hi8storic popularity of clothing retailers such Lands End.

There's simply no accounting for preference, which is all that you are
stating.

There is no rational reason to prefer one audio component over another based
on sound quality when they cannot be distingushed based on sound quality.

[Arny Krueger]

"Randy Yates" wrote in message

writes:

Actually, it's not guesswork at all. The series
resistance the voice coil dominates, and unless the
other series resistances are pathologically large and
the so-called damping factor is larger than 10-20, the
amplifier's output resistance will have NO appreciable
effect on
the damping of the system.

You're speaking in static, DC terms.

Agreed, that the statement was couched in static terms, but it applies
equally well to the dynamic properties of a loudspeaker.

What about dynamically?

Because the loudspeaker is a dynamic system, its AC properties differ from
its DC properties. However, the dynamic properties of a loudspeaker enhance
Mr. Pierce's argument. Because a loudspeaker is a passive system, its AC
impedance is *always* higher than its DC impedance.

Simple math shows that increasing the impedance of a load minimizes the
effects of the impedance of the source.

Therefore, the effects of the amplifier's output impedance are less in the
audio band than they are at DC.

For example, when the voice-coil is
traveling and the back-emf is opposing the amplifier's
output voltage?

The back-EMF increases the impedance of the loudspeaker. Therefore, in some
sense it decreases the importance of the source impdedance of the amplifier.
In practice, it is the variation between the ranges where the speaker's
impedance is high and low that makes us prefer power amplifiers that provide
a low source impedance.

Yes, there is still the DC resistance of
the coil in series, but the amplifier is working harder than under DC
conditions.

Actual laboratory observations show otherwise. If you observe an amplifier
*working*, you can externally determine that it is drawing power and making
heat. In some cases the output devices and some internal inductors may even
*sing* a little. These effects are almost always maximized when driving a
resistive load that is equal or approximate to the DC resistance of the
speaker. A counter-example would be a capacitor with low ESR, but in
practice these are rarely hung across the output terminals of a loudspeaker
without some series resistor in place.

When you hook up the speaker, these effects are usually appreciably
lessened. Similar effects can be observed when you monitor voltages and
currents inside the amplifier's circuitry. Therefore, a resistive load whose
resistance is the same or approximates the DC resistance of a loudspeaker is
generally, across the audio band, a tougher load for an amplifier to drive
than the speaker itself.

I say almost always only because there are a few loudspeakers that present a
high impedance to DC. Such speakers usually have built-in series capacitors
that can act to enhance low frequency performance in some cases.

Very few people have operated power amplifiers under maximum output
conditions into a loudspeaker, and not been in the acoustical field of the
loudspeakers. The acoustical field of the loudspeaker operated under these
conditions tends to distract most people.

[Arny Krueger]

"jeffc" wrote in message

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
. I
used to believe that objective measurements alone were
all that one needed, and I still believe that objective
measurements can tell us most of what we need to know
about a system or component.

Well, try looking objectively at a chess board at the
beginning of a game and determine who will win - black or
white.

This is relevant how?

For one thing, the two sides of a chess board are stipulated to give equal
chances to the competitors. They are designed to be functionally identical
when it comes to predicting the outcome of the game.

In contrast the two pieces of equipment are different from each othe, they
are different designs.

For another thing, the outcome of a chess game is dependent on the players,
not the board.

This example would die a certain death if presented in a 101-level middle
school class about rhetoric!

Objective computers measurements can't figure out that one either.

Actually, they can especially when the differences are sufficiently large to
matter.

Here again we have an attempt at proof by means of a pair of ludcrous
assertions.

There is a lot in this world that isn't known or
understood, trust me.

True, but relevant how?

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" wrote in message


Some amplifiers sound different, some don't, depending on
what they are connected to.

Actually, all amplifiers sound different as typically evaluated by
audiophiles and high end reviewers.

The differneces are a consequnece of the absence of experimental controls
that have been repeatedly and reliably shown to make big differences.

Don't get hung up about
others opinions and blind tests, there is no definitive
answer.

Actually, there are many definitive answers. One of them is that listening
tests in audio salons are designed to make amplifiers sound different.

Select a few well regarded units to audition and
make up your own mind. With those speakers, the
differences between amps will be subtle compared to a
speaker upgrade.

Agreed that speakers have a strong tendency to sound different. But among
speakers of a given quality level, the differences due to the differences in
the acoustics of various listening rooms are even stronger.

Reasonably good speakers of a kind, for example competitive bookshelf
speakers, sound more like the rooms they are listened to in, than they have
a characteristic sound of their own.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


The point here is that I don't care that others say it's
my imagination. I know it isn't.

This statement can be distinguished from a statement of religious faith how?

I maintain that anybody
who says that MP3 is as good as the uncompressed original
simply can't hear.

Given the lack of reliable evidence to back this up, and the goodly volumes
of reliable information that denies it...

Some of you guys talk as if double-blind ABX tests are so
easy to set-up and perform that one would think that you
hold such tests regularly.

ABX tests of lossy-compression products and their parameters are among the
easiest listening tests there are to set up and perform. I daresay that
anybody who can't set one up and run it well has indicted their abilities to
use a computer effectively.

It's a three step process, easy as 1-2-3

(1) Compress .WAV file by whatever means you wish to evaluate

(2) Uncompress lossy-compressed file back into a .wav file.

(3) Compare pre-compression .wav file with post-compression .wav file using
readily-avilable DBT test software.

They are not easy to set-up or
perform and they require considerably more than one
person to perform them.

What's easier than 1-2-3?

They simply aren't practicable in most situations.

Agreed - and their lack of predictability is part of their charm. Why do a
test if the outcome is so easily predicted by you?

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"c. leeds" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such auditions are prone to
sighted bias effect.

It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because a dubious result
is possible.

I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment.
It stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in sound
quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the
nonsense promulgated by audiophile culture.

You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're talking
about. It's certainly nonsensical to buy audio equipment without
listening. But, some people buy a new car without driving it first, others
buy clothes without trying them on. There's simply no accounting for
preference, which is all that you are stating.

Except that Steven is very quick to accuse anybody who claims to hear what
they think is better sounding electronic gear of fooling themselves.

No, not 'anybody'.

It is
a very hypocritical position to take, it seems to me, for someone who
doesn't even bother to listen, yet claims to know that others can't hear
what he doesn't even bother to listen to or for.

You apparently keep failing to understand the logic behind it. Even
after all this long time.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

Serge Auckland wrote:
"c. leeds" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such auditions are prone to
sighted bias effect.

It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because a dubious result
is possible.

I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment.
It stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in sound
quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the
nonsense promulgated by audiophile culture.

You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're talking
about. It's certainly nonsensical to buy audio equipment without
listening. But, some people buy a new car without driving it first, others
buy clothes without trying them on. There's simply no accounting for
preference, which is all that you are stating.

Why is it nonsensical to audio equipment without listening first? There's
only a point in listening to electromechanical transducers that "can" sound
different, and then, in the case of loudspeakers, only in one's own
listening room. Electronics of modern competent design do not sound
different so why listen?

Regarding clothes, do you try on underwear, shirts, knitwear before buying?
Suits need to be fitted to the person so should either be made to measure
and fitted, or if bought ready-made then at least tried, and other items
like overcoats may need to be tried for comfort, but there's no analogy that
I can see between audio equipment and clothes. Cars, like outer garments,
will need checking for comfort and fit, i.e. do the seats adjust
comfortably, is the visibility suitable etc, so a test-drive is appropriate,
but again, what is the analogy between cars and audio equipment? A better
analogy perhaps is wine, as the suitability of wine is entirely subjective.

Though critical comparisons of wine, of course, are often done blind.
And then there's the stories of 'connoisseurs' who could be fooled by
simple label switches....

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:40:47 -0800, c. leeds wrote
(in article ):

Steven Sullivan wrote:

It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the nonsense
promulgated by audiophile culture.

I answered:
You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're
talking about.

Steve responds:
...'nonsense' would include neary every 'review' ever published
in the audio press, or on the interwebs, regarding the 'sound' of different
audio cables. Add to that the numerous reviews claiming striking , even
soul-changing
differences between amplifiers and disc players.

"Soul-changing" differences????? Examples, please! And - what is the
"interweb?"

Not to mention the 'effects' of
risible 'tweaks' such as the 'LP demagnetizer' touted by your fellow
vinylphile Michael
Fremer,

Mr. Fremer is not a "fellow vinylphile" of mine and we are not
associated in any way. Neither am I familiar with the 'LP demagnetizer,'
so I don't know what you are talking about.

Mr. Sullivan is talking about that portion of the audiophile community known,
lovingly, as the "lunatic fringe" - it seems that every hobby has them. In
the case of audio, its that section of the audiophile community who believe
that lifting their speaker cables off the floor will improve the sound, or
that $2000 for a 1-meter length of interconnect will buy them much better
reproduction than would a $30 interconnect or that expensive blocks of
myrtlewood sprinkled magically amongst their components will make the
resultant sound more REAL. And let's not forget to run a green Magic Marker
pen around the periphery of each of our CDs to absorb "laser scatter".

Where he and Mr, Kruger err here is to assume that those audiophiles who
differences in amps, preamps and CD players also subscribe to the tomfoolery
outlined above. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of us realize
that there is an awfully lot of snake-oil being peddled in high-end audio and
most of it is bunk.

Most of us seem to buy decently made quasi-balanced interconnects, and
speaker cable of sufficient wire size to carry the current to one's speakers
and that's about it. The rest is snake-oil and patent nostrums.

...or the 'Intelligent Chip' that has so excited certain excitable parties
on Audio
Asylum.

Again, I'm not familar with the 'Intelligent Chip,' so I don't know what
you're talking about.

Or, hell, just page through the gear catalogs of Elusive Disc or Music
Direct

I've never seen the Elusive Disc catalog. If there's something in Music
Direct that you find offensive, please provide a specific example.

This 'please provide examples' business can only be coyness on your part.

So, it's "coyness" that I ask you to provide specific examples to
support your renderings here? Do you expect the group to swallow whole
your every assertion?

Here, try these for a start: AudioPrism "Quietline" filters, "CD Stop-Light",
"Cable Elevators", Shakti Audio "Hallograph" stands. Cardas Audio Myrtlewood
blocks. "FryBaby Cable Burn-in tool, Shunyata Antares 1-m interconnect pair,
Nordest "Valhalla" speaker cables ($7000 for a 2-meter pair!) AudioQuest
"MontBlanc" speaker cables at $1800/8 ft pair. etc. The Musicdirect catalog
is full of this worthless mousemilk. They also sell some nice gear and some
fine recordings.

[Steven Sullivan]

c. leeds wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Who says I 'forsake listening'? I said I forsake auditioning gear.

Exactly. In my opinion, it's silly to buy audio equipment without
auditioning it first.

In my opinion, it's silly to act as if one's 'ears' are always right...
when one is rarely using just one's ears.

Because it's not often *certain* that gear intrinsically sounds
different, even when your 'ears' suggest it does.

So, you throw the baby out with the bathwater and dispense with
auditioning equipment entirely.

Indeed, I usually do. But I don't dispense with *all* forms of research.

What I *am* stating, which audiophiles like you tend to gloss over, is that *preference for
sound* is not necessarily the result of the qualities of the *sound*.

No, I do not gloss over this simple fact. I simply prefer to listen
before I buy. From this preference you have built a whole construct of
reasoning that is based on your fantasy.

In addition to this being yet another 'glossing over', this is also
remarkably incoherent of you.
First you mention *your* preference -- which is demonstrably error-prone,
based on the 'simple fact' you acknowledge to be true -- then for some
reason claim that *my* reasoning is based on a 'fantasy'.

As I said, some people will buy a car without driving it first; others
buy clothes without trying them on. So you are hardly alone in your
preference for selecting products without first evaluating them as they
will be used.

But as I'e explained, -- and you've glossed over -- buying without
trying is NOT always reasonable. It just happens to be, for much
audio gear.

And thus it's
often self-delusional to be CERTAIN about it based on sighted comparisons.

Of course, I never made any such assertion about certainty. I simply
prefer to try before I buy. It's a preference.

You're entitled to your preference. That we don't agree doesn't make me
"self-delusional," no matter how noisy your objection.

And mine's not based on a 'fantasy' then, is it?

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

c. leeds wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the nonsense
promulgated by audiophile culture.

I answered:
You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're
talking about.

Steve responds:
...'nonsense' would include neary every 'review' ever published
in the audio press, or on the interwebs, regarding the 'sound' of different
audio cables. Add to that the numerous reviews claiming striking , even soul-changing
differences between amplifiers and disc players.

"Soul-changing" differences?????

Would you prefer 'danceable' cables?

Examples, please! And - what is the
"interweb?"

It's a joke.

Not to mention the 'effects' of
risible 'tweaks' such as the 'LP demagnetizer' touted by your fellow vinylphile Michael
Fremer,

Mr. Fremer is not a "fellow vinylphile" of mine and we are not
associated in any way. Neither am I familiar with the 'LP demagnetizer,'
so I don't know what you are talking about.

...or the 'Intelligent Chip' that has so excited certain excitable parties on Audio
Asylum.

Again, I'm not familar with the 'Intelligent Chip,' so I don't know what
you're talking about.

So, it's *your* ignorance of audiophile claims, not mine, that we're dealing with here?

Or, hell, just page through the gear catalogs of Elusive Disc or Music Direct

I've never seen the Elusive Disc catalog. If there's something in Music
Direct that you find offensive, please provide a specific example.

Easily done from the *front page of their website*:

http://www.musicdirect.com/
//

CABLE ELEVATORS PLUS (SET OF 8)
Keep all your audio cables off the floor with our best-selling, reviewer-recommended Cable Elevators. These really work
wonders and come with our 100% Money Back Guarantee

here's what you learn when you click to the link
'Elevate' your musical experience with the best cable supports on the market! You can gain significant improvements in
the sound of your audio or home theater system by elevating your speaker and power cables off the floor. The
improvements you will hear in detail and dynamics are not subtle. Many of you have already reported tremendous
increases in clarity, tonal accuracy, and dynamics with Cable Elevators in place. Produced by a leading manufacturer of
porcelain isolators, Cable Elevators are then coated with a non-conductive glaze to further reduce noise and a special
non-slip foot for added stability with today's heavier cables. Cable Elevators are a simple, affordable tweak greatly
enhancing the sonic presentation of your entire system and helping with cable management.

'The damn things do lower noise, increase dynamics, remove haze, and open up the top octaves. Once you listen to their
effects, even a skeptic like me has to admit that it is hard to take them back out of the system. Music sounds more
like music with the Cable Elevators in place. I recommend them strongly, especially given their price!' Jonathan
Valin, The Absolute Sound

$159.99
//

That's laughable NONSENSE, sir.

This 'please provide examples' business can only be coyness on your part.

So, it's "coyness" that I ask you to provide specific examples to
support your renderings here? Do you expect the group to swallow whole
your every assertion?

Well, let's ask 'the group'.

'Group' -- can *you* think of what claims I might be talking about when I refer to
'audiophile nonsense'?

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:38:31 -0800, Serge Auckland wrote
(in article ):

"c. leeds" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such auditions are prone to
sighted bias effect.

It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because a dubious result
is possible.

I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment.
It stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in sound
quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the
nonsense promulgated by audiophile culture.

You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're talking
about. It's certainly nonsensical to buy audio equipment without
listening. But, some people buy a new car without driving it first, others
buy clothes without trying them on. There's simply no accounting for
preference, which is all that you are stating.

Why is it nonsensical to audio equipment without listening first? There's
only a point in listening to electromechanical transducers that "can" sound
different, and then, in the case of loudspeakers, only in one's own
listening room. Electronics of modern competent design do not sound
different so why listen?

A point of view not supportable. I say that electronics of modern, competent
design DO sound different. The only question is do those differences mean
anything to you, personally? If not, fine, but to many they mean a great
deal, your scoffing notwithstanding.

Regarding clothes, do you try on underwear, shirts, knitwear before buying?
Suits need to be fitted to the person so should either be made to measure
and fitted, or if bought ready-made then at least tried, and other items
like overcoats may need to be tried for comfort, but there's no analogy that
I can see between audio equipment and clothes. Cars, like outer garments,
will need checking for comfort and fit, i.e. do the seats adjust
comfortably, is the visibility suitable etc, so a test-drive is appropriate,
but again, what is the analogy between cars and audio equipment? A better
analogy perhaps is wine, as the suitability of wine is entirely subjective.
One might buy a bottle without tasting, but would you buy a crate? However,
the analogy with wine only applies to those components, like loudspeakers,
that *do* have a subjective component to their suitability, it fails in the
case of electronics that, excluding a few outre components like SET
amplifiers, don't have a subjective component to their suitablity.

Perhaps you just can't hear that "subjective component".

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:44:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"c. leeds" wrote in message


Steven Sullivan wrote:

In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such
auditions are prone to sighted bias effect.

It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because
a dubious result is possible.

One important lesson of our early days with ABX (now 30 years ago) was that
when auditioning modern non-acoustical gear, as most audiophiles and
reviewers do, biased or random results are *certain*.

I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and
room treatment. It stands to both reason and practice
that choice of loudspeaker, and attention to room
conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in sound
quality.

Agreed.

It really is just that simple, once you
jettison all the nonsense promulgated by audiophile
culture.

Both recordists and live sound professionals tend to use the word audiophile
as a perjorative. Synonym with clueless and opinionated.

You don't cite an example, so I don't know what
"nonsense" you're talking about.

It is true that there is so much nonsense that is widely accepted as
revealed truth, that one might not know where to start. Here's a good
starting point:

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

Thanks for the reference. I agree with virtually EVERYTHING Peter says in
that article. The exceptions? Tubes vs transistors. I think tube amps sound
more like live music than solid-state. Digital vs Analog. We've been through
this before. The best recorded sound I've ever heard comes from vinyl, not
CD. No sense to rehash the argument here. Nothing will be served by it. I
also don't believe that double-blind or ABX testing is of much use in
comparing electronics. Certainly not in the way its usually done. One of my
projects this year is to build myself an ABX switching box and try to
correlate the results of long-term listening tests (like I do now) with ABX
testing where I have no pressures or boundaries inflicted upon me by outside
sources such as time constraints, peer pressure, unfamiliar ancillary
equipment (like speakers) and sources, etc. I really want to know.

Other than that he is spot-on. I've always maintained that anyone with the
interest can develop themselves a pair of "golden-ears" as it's merely an
educated way of listening. I also agree that cable peddlers are just one step
up from child molesters, or would be except for the phrase Caveat Emptor.
Adults buy this stuff and nobody holds a gun to their heads. While (as the
article says) it is important to choose quality connectors and conductors and
insulation, NONE of these have the slightest effect on the "sound", only upon
reliability and the integrity (perhaps) of the connection. Physics ensures
that, not any manufacturer's guarantee. Essentially, any $30 pair of Monster
interconnects provide the quality of quasi-balanced cables needed to assure a
good, trouble-free connection with minimum interference from other sources.
One needn't spend more than that (unless one wants to, that is).

But Mr. Aczel did not say that all electronics sound alike. Anywhere.

It's certainly
nonsensical to buy audio equipment without listening.

That might be a good candidate for the 11th lie. Choosing gear that can
logically be expected to sound alike, based on a listening test is certainly
nonsensical. The belief in universal audible differences among pieces of
good audio gear is nonsensical.

Sorry, but if one doesn't accept your premise (...gear that can logically be
expected to sound alike...) then one can hardly be expected to accept your
conclusion (that your expectations are self fulfilling).

But, some people buy a new car without driving it first,

Been there, done that and just about a year ago. Specifically, I bought a
Mercury Milan based only on a driving experience with a Ford Fusion.
Furthermore, the two cars differed in terms of a number of signficiant
pieces of optional equipment. The basis for doing this is called by some
"abstract reasoning". I recommend it when possible.

Again, there is more to buying a car than that. The Ford and the Milan are
based on the same platform, are they not? They share the same suspension,
same brakes, etc, In such a case, there is no appreciable difference between
those two cars. It is easy to extrapolate the handling and performance of one
by driving the other when they are essentially the same vehicle.

On the other hand, if one likes certain handling characteristcs, the only way
to find a car that has those is to drive them. Suppose, I'm looking for a car
that is initially neutral, has quick turn-in with plenty of steering feedback
trough the steering wheel, and which can be induced to slight oversteer with
application of the throttle. Suppose further, that I'm looking for braking
performance that doesn't fade under repeated hard brakingbut can be made to
induce understeer or oversteer by judicious application under dynamic
driving situations. Are you going to say that these characteristics can be
gleaned without driving the cars?


others buy clothes without trying them on.

Hence the hi8storic popularity of clothing retailers such Lands End.

There's simply no accounting for preference, which is all that you are
stating.

There is no rational reason to prefer one audio component over another based
on sound quality when they cannot be distingushed based on sound quality.

Again, your conclusions are based on accepting your premise. Those who do not
accept your premise are simply not going to agree with you on this point.

[Steven Sullivan]

Sonnova wrote:

A point of view not supportable. I say that electronics of modern, competent
design DO sound different. The only question is do those differences mean
anything to you, personally? If not, fine, but to many they mean a great
deal, your scoffing notwithstanding.

The real question is whether the 'audible' differences you believe you hear,
are likely to be real, and not just a figment from well-known psychological processes
that you have done NOTHING to rule out.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Except that Steven is very quick to accuse anybody who
claims to hear what they think is better sounding
electronic gear of fooling themselves.

That is an assertion of his that generally will pass a carefully done
real-world test.

It is a very
hypocritical position to take, it seems to me, for
someone who doesn't even bother to listen,

One does not need to bother to listen - we listen to various alternatives as
a matter of simply living in the modern world.

yet claims to know that others can't hear what he doesn't even bother
to listen to or for.

It's simple. Every time I or just about anybody else subject exceptional
claims about electronic audio gear to careful (non-casual) examination, they
evaporate. At this point, thosands or tens of thousands of people have
experienced this for themselves. Hence cultural icons such as the ASA, MPEG,
AES, SMWTMS, Hydrogen Audio Forum, etc.

My evaluation methodolgy clearly indicated many years ago that SACD and
DVD-A so-called high resolution formats should fail in the marketplace
because they offered nothing that was reliably audible. At this point the
general wisdom is that they failed. QED.

[Serge Auckland]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:38:31 -0800, Serge Auckland wrote
(in article ):

"c. leeds" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such auditions are prone to
sighted bias effect.

It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because a dubious
result
is possible.

I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment.
It stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in
sound
quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the
nonsense promulgated by audiophile culture.

You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're
talking
about. It's certainly nonsensical to buy audio equipment without
listening. But, some people buy a new car without driving it first,
others
buy clothes without trying them on. There's simply no accounting for
preference, which is all that you are stating.

Why is it nonsensical to audio equipment without listening first? There's
only a point in listening to electromechanical transducers that "can"
sound
different, and then, in the case of loudspeakers, only in one's own
listening room. Electronics of modern competent design do not sound
different so why listen?

A point of view not supportable. I say that electronics of modern,
competent
design DO sound different. The only question is do those differences mean
anything to you, personally? If not, fine, but to many they mean a great
deal, your scoffing notwithstanding.

How can they? What aspect of modern design allows for a sound quality
difference? Is the difference between distortion figures sufficient to cause
a sound quality difference? Is the difference in frequency response
sufficient to cause a sound quality difference? Is the difference in
residual noise sufficient to cause a sound quality difference? I suggest
not, as the differences in all these is well below the threshold of hearing
for modern well designed equipment. If it's not any of those, then what can
it be? If there's a difference, then it has to be quantifiable, otherwise
it's down to imagination.

S.

--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

[willbill]

Sonnova wrote:

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 21:02:31 -0800, willbill wrote

agreed/disagreed?
If you mean that F/R/C is Front/Rear/Center,
i screwed up (and did it a 2nd time below!)

i meant the 3 front speakers: L/R/C

In that case, yes the front speakers are the most important, but surround
seems to work better when the rear speakers are at least RELATED to the front
ones - like being smaller versions of the same make that share a similar
sound signature.

they're all cone speakers, and yes they're very
well "related" in that the sound field isn't
striking in any way

...if anything my rear speakers (PSB Alpha B1's)
are likely the standout, and even though somewhat
small (7/9/12" W/D/H, with a rear port), they
have adequate bass for "small" *rear* speakers

Bass in the rear speakers is not as important as it is in
the front because surround signals are often purposely limited in low
frequency response.

fwiw, i've listened to more than a few movies
with some large low frequency rear response

2. of a tube preamp vs. tube amps, my best
guess is that tube amps driving the F/R/C
speakers is the best payoff for using tubes

agreed/disagreed?
Yeah. Tube amps are probably more important (to the tube listening
experience) than is the preamp, although, I'd try to go with both.

does a 5.1 tube AVR even exist?

I dunno. I haven't seen one. But one could do it with individual tubed
components.

anyway my view is it's down to 3 choices for my next
improvement: 1) tube amps for the front 3 speakers,
2) room sound treatment, or 3) better front L/R speakers

bill

and what does it cost?

if anything, a SS AVR with 5.1 preamp
outputs (which don't all have to be used)
is almost surely the high volume choice
(meaning lowest cost; meaning that it could be
used with it's own SS amp power for rear L/R,
together with a stereo tube amp (for front L/R)
together with a mono tube amp (for front center)
is likely the low cost way of getting back
into tubes)