"I'm going to paraphrase your position as I interpret it. Please correct me if I misinterpreted what you were saying. I believe you are suggesting that a properly functioning modern AVR such as your Denon AVR-4308ci when set in an uncalibrated mode with all tone controls defeated and set to a specific amount of signal gain will sound indistinguishable from any other audio device or collection of devices in proper working order (say an analog preamp and power amp) with exactly the same gain and similarly free of equalization, dynamic compensation, calibration etc. Is that correct?"
How can that be? Would it not depend, a little bit at least, on what is being driven(speaker)? I tried that with my JBL 1400 Array with a McIntosh MC402 and Marantz MA9S2 mono-blocks. Not only was the sound totally different, the McIntosh could not 'drive' the woofers as well as the Marantz. They sounded different in the whole spectrum of music. I like the somewhat lush presentation of the McIntosh and the very detailed, tight response in the bass of the Marantz. Those are a couple of differences I perceived.
There MUST be something I do not understand. Honestly, with this hobby, there is a lot I don't understand but it is a bit hard to learn if people contradict each other. No matter, I am happy.
I will take my leave of you now.
I have not been following this thread until quite recently but in review of the in initial post I feel the definition used "fidelity" is presumptious and in the context here is inappropriate and leads to only willful abuse of the term.Some say that in the world as it stands at the end of 2011, if both are properly set up, a $10k Pass amp will be markedly lower in fidelity than a $2k A/V receiver. Why? The latter will have sophisticated and useful room correction processing, such as Audyssey MultEQ XT32. Considering this is the JBL forum we're talking about fairly efficient speakers. A 96dB/W/m speaker (like my 12" Tannoys) doesn't need a kilowatt in a domestic living room. 100W is more than enough
If used in an advertisement there would no doubt be a legal issues but on the internet .......pigs fly.
For example what does " will be markedly lower in fidelity " mean to the user and how does it apply or how should it apply?
Moreover what is the real intent of Audyssey MultEQ XT32 or similar inbuilt systems in home entertainment multi channel amplifiers?
In what instances is there real benefit from a premium two channel amplification system?
Are either approaches necessary in all instances of audio reproduction or are they best suited to specific applications like hi end listening rooms with premium quality loudspeakers or most useful for general home entertainment such as multichannel audio movie playback?
If you look at the application of both the above mentioned equipment categories and take the time to understand the design concepts of each a direct comparison in the manner used above is absurd.
But then again people use such absurd and sensationist statements in the media to control opinions and discussions on the pretext that they are telling you how to think because its suits their agenda.
This all precludes the inevitable discussions of any direct comparisons which has been largely the content of the posts here.
I can make a direct comparison between running my HT with and without Audyssey. I run without. As far as I am concerned my all analog option sounds better. So much for all the hype. In this case this statement:This all precludes the inevitable discussions of any direct comparisons which has been largely the content of the posts here.
Is simply wrong.Some say that in the world as it stands at the end of 2011, if both are properly set up, a $10k Pass amp will be markedly lower in fidelity than a $2k A/V receiver. Why? The latter will have sophisticated and useful room correction processing, such as Audyssey MultEQ XT32.
"I could be arguing in my spare time"
I can draw a conclusion on my preference toward analogue over a digitally processed sound .
My previous system , bi-amped 4345 with TAD up-grade , using DEQX for room correction and a crossover , Small class A mono blocks on thew HF and SS mono blocks on the LF . My first impression was overwhelming ,but as time went by I began to miss the warm presentation of the previous set up .
All of my system was either DIY or pre-owned gear ,none of it let me down mechanically .
My new set up : DIY speakers , DIY amps , a humble ,but eloquent DAC and a Bryston 4 pre . The amps are a Pass designed circuit , class A XA 160's ( I was referring to the engineering of the circuit and not the snobbery factor ). There are a few people world wide that would agree that Pass and JBL pair very nicely . I would not dare to suggest any one set up is better than another . Only that in my experience ,I prefer the un-processed sound I have know to the very clean and very very powerful sound of my previous set up ...
There are a few members that have heard my systems . All would say, that they do some things very well and other things quite well ,but nothing poorly .
The beauty of digital processing is that it makes any room and any gear sound passable to any ear .
There are many schools of thought here on the forum . In a constant state of flux , some of us build our own gear with the help of each other ,but none of us would be arrogant enough to declare perfection for more than that one moment when all the planets align and we find our SUBJECTIVE nirvana.
Quality to me = sound ( that I like ) , build quality ,service and looks. Your speech reads more like an affirmation performed daily in front of a mirror to reverse some deep insecurity .... not saying thats the case ,it just reads that way . Like the kid that shows up first day of term not wearing the right trainers
BTW , what was your point ? Tannoy has its own forum !
Positively oustanding.The beauty of digital processing is that it makes any room and any gear sound passable to any ear .
I wonder if an ear with a cloth surround is a good as a foam surround or does it need Eq?
Very funny discussion overall. Original vs digitally enhanced. Pretty much the same discussion could be started about silicone-enhanced breasts. Many parallels can be drawn, if you know what I mean...
Rich you are not the 1st to make is statement.There are a few people world wide that would agree that Pass and JBL pair very nicely .
I while back (1999) I discovered the low power compression and spatial dymanics of JBL were a good marriage with class A amplifiers..
Kent English has also had similar feedback.
This is a bit OT but here but for a long time the traditioanal JBL with the slot and fog horn were regarded as bright and hardly accurate..even around here.
The a few of us started messing different amps and upgraded systems (improved passive crossovers, diaphragms) etc) and superior active crossovers like the DX1.
The rest is history in that many of these classic systems have been sleeping giants waiting for a refresh and some nice amplification.
The fact that GT has also posted about some of these systems and the upgrades is an endorsement that there is potential for improvement.
My comments are far from the snob factor as most of my amplifcation is with a couple of excpections diy
In reference to my later comments about comparisions I fee there is a method in the madnesss.
While we all talk of A/B comparisons and blind tests I feel the more incumental approach is more rewarding.
It is useful to understand the playback system has many links like a chain.
Perhaps a better analogy is an audio signal being a light source . The original light source being of absolute purity and intensity.
Before the source reaches our ears it must be amplified and this is usually done in several stages.
If the amplifer is azoom lense that magifies the signal consider the effect of an imperfect lense and the impact on the image much like a camera.
Typically a zoom lense is a complex affair if 10-15 glass elements. Some of the glass elements are there just to correct distortions while others magnify the light source and image.
When such optical lense are tested they measure what is lost (detail) and what is added (distortions such as diffraction, ghosting)
Typcially but not always a prime lense will perform better because it is not being asked to perform a miracle and there are fewer glass elements.
If we take this a step further and add filters to the front of the lense we can add deliberate modifiications to the image.
However of the filter is of poor quality ie the glass is not flat and multicoated what goes on after that cannot be recovered.
This a very useful concept when assessing or deciding on upgrading the audio signal path
Quite a while ago (2006) I was asked by Porschedpm to build an external passive crossover as part of the upgrade for is much loved 4343 that were to become 4344s.
Ed was very pleased with the externa crossovers and was happy with the improvement.
At the time Ed was using the Ashley active crossover to biamp the speakers. As I recall he was using an X1 Pass preamp, an X 250 power and anoher amp.
In am email I suggested to Ed that he switch to full passive option and bypass the Ashley active crossover to assess the impact on the signal.
Initally Ed rejected the suggestion sighting it would not sound as good but in the end I won Ed over and he ageed to the change of objectivity grounds.
I got a glowing email the next day to advise he had been up all night listening and concluded that while the bass lost some definition the sound quality overali was significanly better in full passive mode. A discrete class A acive crossover was then providied abd this improved the bass clarity in biamp mode.
My point here is audio quality is not a blanket issue and when seen a system or a process it comes down identifying specfiics and what is important.
Someone mentioned earlier spliting up the pre processer and the power amps and that is perhaps the non compromise scenario if you feel you must have a processor engine operating in the signal path.
There are perhaps 3 outomes.
No change in audio signal quality
A reduction in audio signal quality where a more transparent power amp disciminates prior processing distortions .
An improvment in audio signal quality where the power amp provides improved tansparency of the original signal.
These days I fee the best outcome is with a linear approach to balancing quality throughout your audio system.
An expensive amp alone or loudspeaker is not going to allow the full potential of the investment
Rich nailed the wonderbox scenario : The beauty of digital processing is that it makes any room and any gear sound passable to any ear .
Never liked the feel of silicone ...... Ironic , "Stop talking to my breasts" and " do they look real ?" usually from the same mouth !
I fully appreciate the benefits of digital processing for multi-channel HT ,but for 2 channel critical listening , I find "less is more "
Nice to hear you Macca.
The beauty of digital processing is that it makes
any room and any gear sound passable to any ear .
lets just face the fact.
bose is best.
Oprah said so.
why would Oprah lie?
don't watch this with a mouth full of cornflakes, unless you want said cornflakes all over your laptop ....
Thanks Tom ,just the ticket for a grey rainy day in London
ROTFL!... so damn true.
Yeah well, that's just, ya know, like, your opinion, man.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)