It all sounds the same

[Greg Williams]

This is a philosophical question. I'm curious about the thought process of
the hard core objectivist regarding this crazy hobby of ours. I am being
completely sincere and would appreciate thoughtful replies.

The extreme end of the objectivist position dicates that if an audible
difference can not be measured in an component, that it most likely does not
exist.

For example, we know that we can not measure differences that would account
for audible improvements in several things that people claim to be able to
hear dramatic differences in.

The three primary categories of component that measure similar within each
category include:

CD Players
Amplifiers (besides obvious power handling differences)
Cables

That would mean that things that make a difference are:

Speakers
Room Acoustics / Interactions
Preamp
Crossovers

Does that mean that the logical move for a beginner would be to buy a
competent yet economical CD player and Amp with stock cables, while
investing the majority of their budget in speakers, room treatments and the
preamp?

Thanks!

[johnebravo836]

"Greg Williams" > wrote in message
...

[snip]

> The extreme end of the objectivist position dicates that if an audible
> difference can not be measured in an component, that it most likely does
not
> exist.

It's just a suggestion, but there's another way of formulating an
"objectivist" position that has absolutely nothing to do with measurability,
but only with discernability under DB conditions. That is, unless a
difference can be reliably discerned under DB conditions it most likely does
not exist (of course, there's *lots* to iron out there about how many trials
would be necessary, what degree of successful identification would be
required in order to conclude that a difference was being "reliably"
identified, etc.). Looked at this way, measurability of the sort you have in
mind is irrelevant and completely unnecessary.

[Greg Williams]

Yes, I should have included listening as a criteria. I think that my
original questions still holds up. Aren't CD players, amps and cables the
same types of components that can't easily be differentiated under DBT?


> It's just a suggestion, but there's another way of formulating an
> "objectivist" position that has absolutely nothing to do with
measurability,
> but only with discernability under DB conditions. That is, unless a
> difference can be reliably discerned under DB conditions it most likely
does
> not exist (of course, there's *lots* to iron out there about how many
trials
> would be necessary, what degree of successful identification would be
> required in order to conclude that a difference was being "reliably"
> identified, etc.). Looked at this way, measurability of the sort you have
in
> mind is irrelevant and completely unnecessary.

[Arny Krueger]

"Greg Williams" > wrote in message


> This is a philosophical question.

Having read it, all I have to say is: It's a philosophical question if you
say so!

> I'm curious about the thought
> process of the hard core objectivist regarding this crazy hobby of
> ours. I am being completely sincere and would appreciate thoughtful
> replies.
>
> The extreme end of the objectivist position dictates that if an audible
> difference can not be measured in an component, that it most likely
> does not exist.

This is either a fallacious claim or a highly over-simplified claim because
there are no known measurements for audible differences. All known audio
measurements are for measurable differences. If you are interested in
audible differences then you are pretty much obliged to do listening
test(s).

> For example, we know that we can not measure differences that would
> account for audible improvements in several things that people claim
> to be able to hear dramatic differences in.

This time there seems to be a confusion as to what people report is that
they are hearing something, or whether what they report is a claim that they
are hearing something. If you want to know if you hear something, then you
obviously and logically do a test that is based only on hearing something.
If you wish to merely report a claim, then you may support and/or
characterize that claim by any logical or illogical means that you choose.
In audio, many people seem to be in the habit of supporting or
characterizing their claim by a wide variety of illogical means.

> The three primary categories of component that measure similar within
> each category include:

> CD Players
> Amplifiers (besides obvious power handling differences)
> Cables

> That would mean that things that make a difference are:

> Speakers
> Room Acoustics / Interactions
> Preamp
> Crossovers

This pervious items seem to be so irrelevant or poorly explained that I
can't see where they are headed or coming from.

> Does that mean that the logical move for a beginner would be to buy a
> competent yet economical CD player and Amp with stock cables, while
> investing the majority of their budget in speakers, room treatments
> and the preamp?

All reliable evidence points in this direction, previous OP comments
notwithstanding. IOW not only is it good advice for newbies, its good advice
for anybody who still counts there money instead of just spending it as if
it were an inexhaustible resource.

[Arny Krueger]

"Greg Williams" > wrote in message


> Yes, I should have included listening as a criteria. I think that my
> original questions still holds up. Aren't CD players, amps and
> cables the same types of components that can't easily be
> differentiated under DBT?

Some are, some aren't. Good CD players, good amp and good cables are
difficult or impossible to be differentiated in any listening test that is
solely based on listening. This includes DBTs.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>> Does that mean that the logical move for a beginner would be to buy a
>> competent yet economical CD player and Amp with stock cables, while
>> investing the majority of their budget in speakers, room treatments
>> and the preamp?

>All reliable evidence points in this direction, previous OP comments
>notwithstanding. IOW not only is it good advice for newbies, its good advice
>for anybody who still counts there money instead of just spending it as if
>it were an inexhaustible resource.

So no fancy multichannel jobs.

I'll be counting my money for a long time.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>> Does that mean that the logical move for a beginner would be to buy
>>> a competent yet economical CD player and Amp with stock cables,
>>> while investing the majority of their budget in speakers, room
>>> treatments and the preamp?
>
>> All reliable evidence points in this direction, previous OP comments
>> notwithstanding. IOW not only is it good advice for newbies, its
>> good advice for anybody who still counts there money instead of just
>> spending it as if it were an inexhaustible resource.

> So no fancy multichannel jobs.

I admit it. In my audio systems collection it's 2-channel 5, multichannel 1.

> I'll be counting my money for a long time.

Me, no doubt always, as long as I can count...

[Powell]

"Greg Williams" wrote

> Does that mean that the logical move for a beginner would
> be to buy a competent yet economical CD player and Amp
> with stock cables, while investing the majority of their budget
> in speakers, room treatments and the preamp?
>
It is difficult to intellectualize the equipment selection
process. Your budget, room size and music preference
will be the greatest factors influencing your equipment
selection process. It’s all about balance.

[whosbest54]

In article >, says...
>
>This is a philosophical question. I'm curious about the thought process of
>the hard core objectivist regarding this crazy hobby of ours. I am being
>completely sincere and would appreciate thoughtful replies.
>
<snip>

See my RAO user guide.

whosbest54

--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/rmb.html

[Bruce J. Richman]

Greg Williams wrote:


>Yes, I should have included listening as a criteria. I think that my
>original questions still holds up. Aren't CD players, amps and cables the
>same types of components that can't easily be differentiated under DBT?
>
>
>> It's just a suggestion, but there's another way of formulating an
>> "objectivist" position that has absolutely nothing to do with
>measurability,
>> but only with discernability under DB conditions. That is, unless a
>> difference can be reliably discerned under DB conditions it most likely
>does
>> not exist (of course, there's *lots* to iron out there about how many
>trials
>> would be necessary, what degree of successful identification would be
>> required in order to conclude that a difference was being "reliably"
>> identified, etc.). Looked at this way, measurability of the sort you have
>in
>> mind is irrelevant and completely unnecessary.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Indeed, individual biases and expectations play a significant role in the
decisions we make every day, whether in purchasing audio equipment - or even on
who to support or, unfortunately in many cases, smear on RAO. For better or
worse, people generally listen to their systems either while seeing them, or at
the very least, *knowing* what brands they have. To the extent that certain
brand identifications have subjectively
*better* reputations than others - in the minds of some listeners - it's
probably inevitable that biases will contribute to both positive and negative
listening evaluations.

As regards double blind testing, it may or may not be a valid experience for a
given individual, dependent on quite a few variables that contribute to the
test (e.g. number of trials, practice effects, length of individual listening
trials, hearing acuity, accuracy of ancillary components being used with the
device under test (DUT), etc. So it may or may not be an effective control for
biases in a specific individual's case. Also, as Dr. Mirabel has accurately
pointed out, it's quite fallacious and misleading to generalize from DBT's
conducted on relatively small sample sizes, with a relatively small number of
trials to arrive at broad conclusions about differences in audibility.

Another real-world problem is that in most cases, the prospective purchaser of,
for example, a CD player or amplifier, probably does not have the practical
ability to perform DBT's on a particular piece of equipment he's considering
for purchase in comparison with another piece of equipment that, in theory,
might be theorized to be equivalent.



Bruce J. Richman

[Trevor Wilson]

"Greg Williams" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is a philosophical question. I'm curious about the thought process
of
> the hard core objectivist regarding this crazy hobby of ours. I am being
> completely sincere and would appreciate thoughtful replies.

**Good luck.

>
> The extreme end of the objectivist position dicates that if an audible
> difference can not be measured in an component, that it most likely does
not
> exist.

**Correct. All differences can be quantified, using test equipment. HOWEVER,
many measurements are either not included in a product's specs, or are
considered unimportant by many comentators.

>
> For example, we know that we can not measure differences that would
account
> for audible improvements in several things that people claim to be able to
> hear dramatic differences in.

**Nonsense. What we know, is that most comentators consider that some specs
are not relevant to listening. EVERY audible difference is measurable. Every
single one. Most equipment is not completely and fully specified.
[ASIDE] A bunch of years ago, I picked up a handbook for a pair of Duntech
speakers. The specifications ran to around 22, A4 pages. It was the most
completely specified audio product I have ever seen. Those 22 A4 pages were
insufficient to fully demonstrate all the meaningful characteristics of the
speakers.

>
> The three primary categories of component that measure similar within each
> category include:
>
> CD Players

**Similar, but not identical. There are audible (and measurable differences
between players)

> Amplifiers (besides obvious power handling differences)

**Ditto. Speakers are rarely specified into real speakers. They are mostly
specified into resistors. BIG differences can be measured.

> Cables

**Cables can make a difference, depending on the load.

>
> That would mean that things that make a difference are:
>
> Speakers

**Absolutely.

> Room Acoustics / Interactions

**Very much so.

> Preamp

**See amplifiers.

> Crossovers

**Part of the speaker.

>
> Does that mean that the logical move for a beginner would be to buy a
> competent yet economical CD player and Amp with stock cables, while
> investing the majority of their budget in speakers, room treatments and
the
> preamp?

**Speakers and room treatment, are the biggies.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Matthew Weigel]

In article >,
(Bruce J. Richman) wrote:

> the very least, *knowing* what brands they have. To the extent that certain
> brand identifications have subjectively
> *better* reputations than others - in the minds of some listeners - it's
> probably inevitable that biases will contribute to both positive and negative
> listening evaluations.

You know what though? People can *change* their biases. They can
discover for themselves that, indeed, brand X speaker sounds better than
they expected, and therefore, they now like brand X speaker more than
they used to.

Developing biases that, when double checked with better information,
lead to correct conclusions is a hallmark of intelligence. Developing
biases and clinging to them despite better information is...not.

The bias should not be pandered, but examined.

> Another real-world problem is that in most cases, the prospective purchaser
> of,
> for example, a CD player or amplifier, probably does not have the practical
> ability to perform DBT's on a particular piece of equipment he's considering

Which is when they ask other people.

Deciding to whom they listen is once again exercising bias, and can once
again be double checked by other claims those people make.

> that, in theory, might be theorized

Work on your hifalootin' writing style. It sucks.

--
Matthew Weigel
the email address is real
the contents of the post are not

[Nousaine]

The Milkman wrote:

"Greg Williams" > wrote:
>
>>
>>This is a philosophical question. I'm curious about the thought process of
>>the hard core objectivist regarding this crazy hobby of ours. I am being
>>completely sincere and would appreciate thoughtful replies.
>>
>>The extreme end of the objectivist position dicates that if an audible
>>difference can not be measured in an component, that it most likely does not
>>exist.

I resemble that remark but I'm not an objectivist as is often characterized. I
believe that any "difference" that cannot be heard with listening bias controls
employed is not an acoustical difference (or one worth worrying about.)

"Differences" are easy to measure even between channels in a 2-more channel
device or a subsequent measurement of the same device. Whether those
'differences' exceed the threshold of hearing is a different matter.

>>
>>For example, we know that we can not measure differences that would account
>>for audible improvements in several things that people claim to be able to
>>hear dramatic differences in.
>>
>>The three primary categories of component that measure similar within each
>>category include:
>>
>>CD Players
>>Amplifiers (besides obvious power handling differences)
>>Cables

So far no one has ever been able to demonstrate a reliable condition with
listening bias controls that shows there are reliably significant audible
differences between nominally competent devices in those categories.


>>That would mean that things that make a difference are:
>>
>>Speakers
>>Room Acoustics / Interactions
>>Preamp
>>Crossovers

Scratch Preamp and Crossovers for the reasons above; assuming the crossover is
part of a finished system. Crossover topology and implemenation make a
difference in speaker performance BUT how many people employ a crossover
separate from the speaker? Bass Management .... sure but that's an entirely
sepearte question.

>>Does that mean that the logical move for a beginner would be to buy a
>>competent yet economical CD player and Amp with stock cables, while
>>investing the majority of their budget in speakers, room treatments and the
>>preamp?
>>
>>Thanks!

If you're going for the economy buy a receiver.

>
>Some of the less inhibited nerds admit that, whilst they hold the
>belief that certain components are audibly inseparable, especially
>whilst looking at the spec sheets, their internal perceptual
>mechanisms belie any devotion to the all-things-sounding-the-same
>doctrine.

What did he say?-).

[Nousaine]

(Bruce J. Richman) wrote:

>Greg Williams wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, I should have included listening as a criteria. I think that my
>>original questions still holds up. Aren't CD players, amps and cables the
>>same types of components that can't easily be differentiated under DBT?
>>
>>
>>> It's just a suggestion, but there's another way of formulating an
>>> "objectivist" position that has absolutely nothing to do with
>>measurability,
>>> but only with discernability under DB conditions. That is, unless a
>>> difference can be reliably discerned under DB conditions it most likely
>>does
>>> not exist (of course, there's *lots* to iron out there about how many
>>trials
>>> would be necessary, what degree of successful identification would be
>>> required in order to conclude that a difference was being "reliably"
>>> identified, etc.). Looked at this way, measurability of the sort you have
>>in
>>> mind is irrelevant and completely unnecessary.
>>

>
>Indeed, individual biases and expectations play a significant role in the
>decisions we make every day, whether in purchasing audio equipment - or even
>on
>who to support or, unfortunately in many cases, smear on RAO. For better or
>worse, people generally listen to their systems either while seeing them, or
>at
>the very least, *knowing* what brands they have. To the extent that certain
>brand identifications have subjectively
>*better* reputations than others - in the minds of some listeners - it's
>probably inevitable that biases will contribute to both positive and negative
>listening evaluations.

It's entirely unlikely that any bias positive or negative will affect a bias
controlled listening test.

>
>As regards double blind testing, it may or may not be a valid experience for
>a
>given individual, dependent on quite a few variables that contribute to the
>test (e.g. number of trials, practice effects, length of individual listening
>trials, hearing acuity, accuracy of ancillary components being used with the
>device under test (DUT), etc. So it may or may not be an effective control
>for
>biases in a specific individual's case.

For reference by the early 90s there had been over two dozen bias controlled
listening tests tests published on power amplifier. which covered several
thousand trials and several hundred listeners. There were no cases where
listeners were able to reliably identify amplifiers, with two exception both of
which used high output impedance amplifiers.

I have also two published wire comparion articles and conducted a few others
and have yet to find an individual who was able to reliably identify
interconnects and speaker cables (this includes the "designer" of one
regionally distributed wire brand.)

Also, as Dr. Mirabel has accurately
>pointed out, it's quite fallacious and misleading to generalize from DBT's
>conducted on relatively small sample sizes, with a relatively small number of
>trials to arrive at broad conclusions about differences in audibility.

While that may be true in a limited context one must also ask himself that IF
the amp/cable/bit differences, as night and day or subtle as they might be,
exist then why has no manufacturer of any of those products produced a single
bias-controlled demonstration or replicable experiment that shows these
differences exist and make a demonstrable improvement in sound quality?

God knows I've done my share of experimentation.

>
>Another real-world problem is that in most cases, the prospective purchaser
>of,
>for example, a CD player or amplifier, probably does not have the practical
>ability to perform DBT's on a particular piece of equipment he's considering
>for purchase in comparison with another piece of equipment that, in theory,
>might be theorized to be equivalent.

This is true. But the same complaint can be used for every product decision one
must make. Just because I haven't performed personal experiments about gas
mileage on current cars does that mean there is no comparative data that is
useful to me?

IMO the work others have done is very useful.

[Greg Williams]

In your experience, what is the sweet spot for CD players (based on price)?
Does a $500 NAD sound the same as a $3000 Wadia?

I read an earlier post of yours where you touted the Benchmark DAC-1 ($950).
Is this unit pretty much as good as it gets?

Thank you.

> Some are, some aren't. Good CD players, good amp and good cables are
> difficult or impossible to be differentiated in any listening test that is
> solely based on listening. This includes DBTs.
>
>

[Greg Williams]

Are you sure about the preamps? I will agree on you with amps. I've tried
different amps and am usually dissapointed that they sound pretty much the
same. I did have an Adcom GFA-555 amp that sounded "rough" at higher
volumes though.

High end preamps do seem to be better than mid-fi preamps. I guess that the
word that would best describe the improvement that I hear is "transparency".

> Scratch Preamp and Crossovers for the reasons above; assuming the
crossover is
> part of a finished system.

[Jacob Kramer]

"Greg Williams" > wrote in message >...

> The three primary categories of component that measure similar within each
> category include:
>
> CD Players
> Amplifiers (besides obvious power handling differences)
> Cables
>
> That would mean that things that make a difference are:
>
> Speakers
> Room Acoustics / Interactions
> Preamp
> Crossovers
>
> Does that mean that the logical move for a beginner would be to buy a
> competent yet economical CD player and Amp with stock cables, while
> investing the majority of their budget in speakers, room treatments and the
> preamp?

A long time ago someone posted a message here that said the sound was
something like amp 20%, CD player 5%, cables 1%, and the rest was the
speakers. About eight years later this still seems to me like a
pretty good rule of thumb, although there are obviously other factors
that can't be captured by these raw percentages. Also, speaker
positioning is probably the single greatest impact on the sound--and
usually the worst aspect--in just about every setup I have seen.
Throw in the rest of the features of the room, and you're dealing with
a big impact.

[Arny Krueger]

"Greg Williams" > wrote in message

> In your experience, what is the sweet spot for CD players (based on
> price)? Does a $500 NAD sound the same as a $3000 Wadia?
>
> I read an earlier post of yours where you touted the Benchmark DAC-1
> ($950). Is this unit pretty much as good as it gets?

So are units costing only a fraction of the price pretty much as good as it
gets.

[Arny Krueger]

"Greg Williams" > wrote in message


> Are you sure about the preamps?

Hood preamps are generally far easier to design and build than amps.

> High end preamps do seem to be better than mid-fi preamps. I guess
> that the word that would best describe the improvement that I hear is
> "transparency".

How are you controlling level-matching and personal bias during your
listening evaluations?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jacob Kramer" > wrote in message
om

> A long time ago someone posted a message here that said the sound was
> something like amp 20%, CD player 5%, cables 1%, and the rest was the
> speakers.

They left out the most important part - the room.

[Greg Williams]

I haven't tested any preamps blind - that's why I was asking you folks to
share your experiences (I assume that you have tested them blind). Of
course I will try to test any future component blind in my own environment
before purchasing.


> > Are you sure about the preamps?
>
> Hood preamps are generally far easier to design and build than amps.
>
> > High end preamps do seem to be better than mid-fi preamps. I guess
> > that the word that would best describe the improvement that I hear is
> > "transparency".
>
> How are you controlling level-matching and personal bias during your
> listening evaluations?
>
>

[Greg Williams]

With this logic, does the 20% for the amp include the preamp?


> A long time ago someone posted a message here that said the sound was
> something like amp 20%, CD player 5%, cables 1%, and the rest was the
> speakers. About eight years later this still seems to me like a
> pretty good rule of thumb, although there are obviously other factors
> that can't be captured by these raw percentages. Also, speaker
> positioning is probably the single greatest impact on the sound--and
> usually the worst aspect--in just about every setup I have seen.
> Throw in the rest of the features of the room, and you're dealing with
> a big impact.

[Greg Williams]

Thanks for you reply. So, in your opinion, would purchasing a Benchmark
DAC-1 basically be a waste of money then? That unit seems to be getting a
lot of hype this year.


> > I read an earlier post of yours where you touted the Benchmark DAC-1
> > ($950). Is this unit pretty much as good as it gets?
>
> So are units costing only a fraction of the price pretty much as good as
it
> gets.

[Arny Krueger]

"Greg Williams" > wrote in message


> Thanks for you reply. So, in your opinion, would purchasing a
> Benchmark DAC-1 basically be a waste of money then?

It's not a total waste. It's worth as least as much as the lowest cost
alternative that can't be sonically differentiated from it.

Then you have tangible added value in terms of quality of construction,
versatility of interfaces, projected live, vendor support.. The lowest cost
alternative isn't going to necessarily be built to Benchmark Media
standards. I've used some of their mic preamps, and they are very nice.

Then you have intangible added value in terms of bragging rights, confidence
in its sonics, etc.

> That unit seems to be getting a lot of hype this year.

I have no reason to disbelieve the technical claims that are made for it.
What is not known is what increment of audible performance it provides over
a carefully-chosen lower cost alternative.

>>> I read an earlier post of yours where you touted the Benchmark DAC-1
>>> ($950). Is this unit pretty much as good as it gets?
>
>> So are units costing only a fraction of the price pretty much as good as
>> it gets.

[Arny Krueger]

"Greg Williams" > wrote in message


> I haven't tested any preamps blind - that's why I was asking you
> folks to share your experiences (I assume that you have tested them
> blind). Of course I will try to test any future component blind in
> my own environment before purchasing.

The deal with preamps is that the product category has two major different
uses, depending on whether you are going to play vinyl or not. Head amps and
RIAA amps provide additional opportunities for sonic differences.

For me, the quality of the volume control can be a biggie, because a cheap
volume control can be audibly deficient in terms of channel balance which
can affect soundstaging. I have a CJ, a Dyna , and a Apt/Holman preamp. The
volume controls in the Apt and the CJ are things of beauty.

The switches in the Apt/Holman basically have to be checked and cleaned
before every use. I haven't had the Dyna for very long, but I don' expect
its controls to be perfect every time I use it, based on past experience.
The CJ just works.

[Jacob Kramer]

"Greg Williams" > wrote in message >...
> With this logic, does the 20% for the amp include the preamp?
>
>
> > A long time ago someone posted a message here that said the sound was
> > something like amp 20%, CD player 5%, cables 1%, and the rest was the
> > speakers. About eight years later this still seems to me like a
> > pretty good rule of thumb, although there are obviously other factors
> > that can't be captured by these raw percentages. Also, speaker
> > positioning is probably the single greatest impact on the sound--and
> > usually the worst aspect--in just about every setup I have seen.
> > Throw in the rest of the features of the room, and you're dealing with
> > a big impact.

I would think so--20% for amplification overall. Although I have very
little experience with preamps so I can't break it down any further.

Also, I should mention that the differences may be more or less
important within those percentages. For instance, I found that
changing my speakers altered the sound vastly more than changing my CD
player, but my old CD player had a grainy sound that was so unlikable
that changing just that one component caused the whole system to cross
an important threshold from not really that enjoyable for many kinds
of music to very enjoyable for most kinds of music.

Changing the amp also seemed to help on music with a wide dynamic
range (like Baroque music with a continuo or jazz with quiet
portions), where before I couldn't play it loud enough to hear the
quieter parts without the louder parts being jarring. With a
different amp the quieter parts seemed more audible and the louder
parts less harsh. But further improvement in this respect happened
with better speakers.

However the largest improvements from the speakers came in terms of
detail (including the complexity of individual sounds, not just
instrumentation) and imaging.

So I guess in addition to different proportions, different components
affect the sound in different ways.

[Howard Ferstler]

Greg Williams wrote:
>
> This is a philosophical question. I'm curious about the thought process of
> the hard core objectivist regarding this crazy hobby of ours. I am being
> completely sincere and would appreciate thoughtful replies.
>
> The extreme end of the objectivist position dicates that if an audible
> difference can not be measured in an component, that it most likely does not
> exist.

It also will probably not be audible when a comparison is
done double blind. If it cannot be heard that way, it does
not exist in any way that matters - except to those for whom
the whole meaning of the hobby is to have audible
differences exist. This is not to say that something that is
not heard does not exist at all. It may be measurable.

> For example, we know that we can not measure differences that would account
> for audible improvements in several things that people claim to be able to
> hear dramatic differences in.

What measurements are you talking about? I am curious about
what cannot be measured that can be heard by people. Sure,
some of those people claim they hear differences (for
reasons that may be psychological or related to commerce, or
both), but if there are no measured differences it is very
likely that with a double-blind comparison those differences
will also not be audible. Yeah, some people do not like DBT
comparisons, but that is because such procedures undermine
belief systems or undermine commerce in exotic hardware.

> The three primary categories of component that measure similar within each
> category include:
>
> CD Players
> Amplifiers (besides obvious power handling differences)
> Cables

For the most part, these are appliances. Heck, cables are
not even that much.

> That would mean that things that make a difference are:
>
> Speakers

For sure.

> Room Acoustics / Interactions

For sure.

> Preamp

Sure. I mean, you can adjust the tone controls to make them
sound all sorts of ways.

> Crossovers

For sure.

> Does that mean that the logical move for a beginner would be to buy a
> competent yet economical CD player and Amp with stock cables, while
> investing the majority of their budget in speakers, room treatments and the
> preamp?

Yep. Actually, I would pass on the separate preamp and power
amp and just get a good, strong AV receiver. That way you
get a free tuner and more channels.

Howard Ferstler

[Howard Ferstler]

Sander deWaal wrote:
>
> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
> >> Does that mean that the logical move for a beginner would be to buy a
> >> competent yet economical CD player and Amp with stock cables, while
> >> investing the majority of their budget in speakers, room treatments
> >> and the preamp?
>
> >All reliable evidence points in this direction, previous OP comments
> >notwithstanding. IOW not only is it good advice for newbies, its good advice
> >for anybody who still counts there money instead of just spending it as if
> >it were an inexhaustible resource.
>
> So no fancy multichannel jobs.
>
> I'll be counting my money for a long time.

Attention Mr. Ferstler?

Well, I did catch the initial post and did manage to post my
reply. Thanks for running up the flag, even though I caught
the first part of the thread before I read your message.

Howard Ferstler

[Greg Williams]

Could you please recommend some CD players or DACS to audition that are
under $1000? Thanks.

[Arny Krueger]

"Greg Williams" > wrote in message


> Could you please recommend some CD players or DACS to audition that
> are under $1000? Thanks.

I'd like to see a DBT between your choice of high end transports or CD
players driving the Benchmark DAC, as compared to a Apex AD-1200 .

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Greg Williams" > wrote:

> Could you please recommend some CD players or DACS to audition that are
> under $1000? Thanks.

Arcam CD73

[Greg Williams]

So would I. Is there a DBT methodology that is somewhat standardized for
testing audio gear? Perhaps I will order one of these from Audio Advisor
and return it within the 30 day window if I can't pick it out in a DBT.


> > Could you please recommend some CD players or DACS to audition that
> > are under $1000? Thanks.
>
> I'd like to see a DBT between your choice of high end transports or CD
> players driving the Benchmark DAC, as compared to a Apex AD-1200 .

[paul packer]

>The switches in the Apt/Holman basically have to be checked and cleaned
>before every use.

Bummer.

[Arny Krueger]

"Greg Williams" > wrote in message


>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message


>> "Greg Williams" > wrote in message
>>

>>> Could you please recommend some CD players or DACS to audition that
>>> are under $1000? Thanks.

>> I'd like to see a DBT between your choice of high end transports or
>> CD players driving the Benchmark DAC, as compared to a Apex AD-1200 .

> So would I. Is there a DBT methodology that is somewhat standardized
> for testing audio gear?

You might want to check the archives for these Stereo Review CD player tests
which describe their procedures in detail:

Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?",
Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)

The most relevant document from an international standards organization is:

http://www.itu.int/rec/recommendation.asp?type=folders&lang=e&parent=R-REC-BS.1116

Examples of this kind of testing can be found at
http://www.tnt.uni-hannover.de/project/mpeg/audio/public/w2006.pdf (ca.
1998) and http://www.revelspeakers.com/i/listening_lab.pdf (ca. 1993).

Please also see "Subjective Evaluation of State-of-the-Art Two-Channel Audio
Codecs" by Gilbert A. Soulodre, Theodore Grusec, Michel Lavoie,and Louis
Thibault , JAES Volume 46 Number 3 (March 1998) and "A Method for Training
Listeners and Selecting Program Material for Listening Tests" by Sean Olive
AES Preprint 3893 (AES Convention 97 in 1994).

> Perhaps I will order one of these from Audio
> Advisor and return it within the 30 day window if I can't pick it out
> in a DBT.

Have fun!

[Sander deWaal]

Howard Ferstler > said:

>> >> Does that mean that the logical move for a beginner would be to buy a
>> >> competent yet economical CD player and Amp with stock cables, while
>> >> investing the majority of their budget in speakers, room treatments
>> >> and the preamp?

>> >All reliable evidence points in this direction, previous OP comments
>> >notwithstanding. IOW not only is it good advice for newbies, its good advice
>> >for anybody who still counts there money instead of just spending it as if
>> >it were an inexhaustible resource.

>> So no fancy multichannel jobs.

>> I'll be counting my money for a long time.

>Attention Mr. Ferstler?

Yup. Got the gist of Arny's advice?

>Well, I did catch the initial post and did manage to post my
>reply. Thanks for running up the flag, even though I caught
>the first part of the thread before I read your message.

Now I have two audio legends giving me different advice.
What's a poor unprofessional audio clown like me gonna do now?

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

[Howard Ferstler]

Sander deWaal wrote:

> >Attention Mr. Ferstler?
>
> Yup. Got the gist of Arny's advice?
>
> >Well, I did catch the initial post and did manage to post my
> >reply. Thanks for running up the flag, even though I caught
> >the first part of the thread before I read your message.
>
> Now I have two audio legends giving me different advice.
> What's a poor unprofessional audio clown like me gonna do now?

Use our info to make your life better.

Howard Ferstler

[Sander deWaal]

Howard Ferstler > said:

>> Now I have two audio legends giving me different advice.
>> What's a poor unprofessional audio clown like me gonna do now?

>Use our info to make your life better.

Well, telling someone which way NOT to take is helpful in a funny kind
of way.

I suppose I must say "Thank you, Howard" now.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

[S888Wheel]

>From: (Nousaine)
>Date: 9/13/2004 5:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>The Milkman wrote:
>
>"Greg Williams" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>This is a philosophical question. I'm curious about the thought process of
>>>the hard core objectivist regarding this crazy hobby of ours. I am being
>>>completely sincere and would appreciate thoughtful replies.
>>>
>>>The extreme end of the objectivist position dicates that if an audible
>>>difference can not be measured in an component, that it most likely does
>not
>>>exist.
>
>I resemble that remark but I'm not an objectivist as is often characterized.
>I
>believe that any "difference" that cannot be heard with listening bias
>controls
>employed is not an acoustical difference (or one worth worrying about.)
>
>"Differences" are easy to measure even between channels in a 2-more channel
>device or a subsequent measurement of the same device. Whether those
>'differences' exceed the threshold of hearing is a different matter.
>
>>>
>>>For example, we know that we can not measure differences that would account
>>>for audible improvements in several things that people claim to be able to
>>>hear dramatic differences in.
>>>
>>>The three primary categories of component that measure similar within each
>>>category include:
>>>
>>>CD Players
>>>Amplifiers (besides obvious power handling differences)
>>>Cables
>
>So far no one has ever been able to demonstrate a reliable condition with
>listening bias controls that shows there are reliably significant audible
>differences between nominally competent devices in those categories.
>

A claim that deeply resembles the one made by creationists regaring proof of
evolution. So long as one is willing to dismiss any evidence that runs contrary
to one's belief one can make this claim about anything.


>
>>>That would mean that things that make a difference are:
>>>
>>>Speakers
>>>Room Acoustics / Interactions
>>>Preamp
>>>Crossovers
>
>Scratch Preamp and Crossovers for the reasons above; assuming the crossover
>is
>part of a finished system. Crossover topology and implemenation make a
>difference in speaker performance BUT how many people employ a crossover
>separate from the speaker? Bass Management .... sure but that's an entirely
>sepearte question.
>
>>>Does that mean that the logical move for a beginner would be to buy a
>>>competent yet economical CD player and Amp with stock cables, while
>>>investing the majority of their budget in speakers, room treatments and the
>>>preamp?
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>
>If you're going for the economy buy a receiver.
>
>>
>>Some of the less inhibited nerds admit that, whilst they hold the
>>belief that certain components are audibly inseparable, especially
>>whilst looking at the spec sheets, their internal perceptual
>>mechanisms belie any devotion to the all-things-sounding-the-same
>>doctrine.
>
>What did he say?-).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>