Different Definitions of Quality

[JeffW]

On the other hand, simply feeding the output of a surround processor into the Aux input of a high quality preamp isn't that big of a hassle and keeps things pure when you want purity.

Yeah, I thought that's what he was asking. Guess I missed the question.

As for opinions... I don't think gobs of watts are all that important. AVR's amps are generally pretty poor sounding and using an outboard amp will help, but I think the line level and DAC circuits are where most of the grain and general ick comes from.

Widget

The amps I'm using for LF/RF are actually rated at less that the rated per channel value of the onboard amps of the AVR. I did it that way not so much for "high quality" of the LF/RF signals, but so I could run the same speakers as LF/RF on the surround and 2 channel music without having to swap any wires. It's a lot easier to let the 2 ch preamp do the swapping and for watching TV in stereo mode I don't even have to mess with the AVR remote. Not sure any of it's "high quality", but it's sure handy.

[tomt]

seems that to whatever extent technology has progressed to,

how much can a person actually get would be a consideration.

and by that i mean -

first, how much can a person understand about technology,

(the science of physics)

would/could be a limitation on their sound system.

like the basic electricity lesson,

what happens when a electrical current is passed through a wire?

and the answer is -

a magnetic field is created.

those that aren't able to remember this, or can't understand,

how this interacts with a 'signal' might feel that cable differentiations

aren't real.

hence the calls of 'snake oil' and the like.

second.

the amount of money for better quality parts

could also be a factor.

if we haven't access to better quality parts,

how would we make our system(s) better ,

when built to a certain price point?

mechanical stability in capacitors,

is an area where much improvement is made.


duelund and mundorf brands make no small note of their efforts to reduce microphonics.





in a car stereo -




http://www.google.com/search?q=Duelu...AqGJiALS2IGoBw

[Allanvh5150]

Ah yes, the old capacitor on the car stereo trick. I am pretty sure that there is no capacitor that you can buy "off the shelf" that will perform the same as you average car battery.

Allan.

[timc]

Ah yes, the old capacitor on the car stereo trick. I am pretty sure that there is no capacitor that you can buy "off the shelf" that will perform the same as you average car battery.

Allan.

Perhaps, but you would need to buy a second battery, and place it close to the amplifier(s). Anyway, that is a way cheaper option

[Allanvh5150]

Probably not. I have a vehicle with 1400 watts in the boot. Fed with 2 x 16mm cables. No capacitors in site and no brown out to be sure.

Allan.

[Mr. Widget]

I guess you guys are just drifting into auto audio speak... the photo that tomt posted has nothing to do with capacitive storage etc. it is showing a low end Peugeot with an uber high end speaker crossover... the caps (the flat black rectangles) are several hundred dollars each and the coils (the round cardboard tubes) are a couple of hundred to well over a grand each depending on value. The resistors are hollow graphite tubes that cost $25 bucks or more... are they worth it? I have no idea, but in a car???? I hope that image was some sort of joke.


Widget

[SEAWOLF97]

.
as AE said "its all relative"

quality depends on who you are, your expectations, where you are , when you are, your age...etc

Ian is in a place where Bose & CALI are considered top quality gear
K2's sound quality prolly isn't good in the middle of Yankee Stadium
In the late 60's , I thought Pioneer was great quality
The under 30 crowd hears quality different than older folks
The MP3 generation thinks pods are fine quality
Wud guess that 1920's tinny sound was quality to them

all implied in SW's theory of relativity/quality ...

[DS-21]

I routinely alternate powering my 96dB efficient speakers off of my high-end amps (using a Pass Labs XP-20 pre) and a $4K Denon AV receiver with Audyssey. No one would suggest, after careful listening, that the Denon is in the same league. As much as we'd like it to be the case, it just ain't so.

That's probably true. If it was calibrated competently, the Denon isn't in the same league as a dumb analog box - it's better.

Turn the processing off, and with such sensitive speakers the only possible difference may be induced noise from the interconnect in the separates system...

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you've never even bothered to listen with levels matched, let alone blind. Most often, when somebody hears a difference between two audio electronics chains, assuming no signal processing, the difference is one actually heard by the listener. However, the listener misattributes it to something other than its actual cause, which is more often than not merely a slight level difference.

These modern AVRs and processors do a lot of amazing things, but for pure audio enjoyment, I doubt anyone would pick one of them over an all analog high end piece.

Why not?

I think the question for anyone who doesn't have a pecuniary interest in the sale of audio gear is, rather, "why would one want a stack of ugly power-hog analog boxes when with levels matched and biases as to price/brand taken out of the picture, when one can get superior functionality out of a single box?"

(There are exceptions, of course. For instance, such devices typically don't have pre-out/main-in loops that would allow the use of all their features (i.e. the built-in amps) even with active-crossover biamped speakers. So for that kind of thing one does need separates anyway. Though at least the new Denon AVR's allow one to disengage the amps when not using them. That saves energy, though IMO a better solution would be the aforementioned pre-out/main-in loop.)

FWIW, I have close to zero interest in TV/movies. As long as the dialog's reasonably clear and the picture visible, I'm happy.

Modern audio technology improves the fidelity of music reproduction. That is IMO its only utility.

Which Tannoy model do you have?

System 12 DMT II guts in closed-box cabinets designed to minimize diffraction (something that, unlike many of the different boxes discussed on this thread, is actually audible and deleterious), but with the same baffle dimensions. I thought about modifying the crossover, but couldn't come up with something that struck a more appropriate balance than the stock one. (Same baffle dimensions, remember. Just much larger roundovers on all surfaces.)

What I did find was that some mild room treatment the apparent audio playback reproduction of both the Pioneer and the Passlabs improved beyond differences made by the Pioneer room correction.

That makes sense. You might also have more headroom with the Pass amp, given that they probably have about twice (3dB) the power, if your speakers are voltage hogs.

100 watts per channel does not seem to cut it on the 2245H woofers. Hence the statement would appear invalid

In John Eargle's book Sound Recording that calculated minimum power in an example of a JBl monitor is 150 watts per channel bi amped

For what use? I would think that depends on the size of the room.

That said, given that the discussion was impliedly about mains (AVR v. separates) and not about subs, it's worth noting that different rules apply when deep bass is involved. Speakers get less efficient, so they need more voltage drive.

I was expecting more thoughts or debate on this. Not quite as many as in the "high cost wire and cord" thread, but at least a couple more.

There's one point to which all reasonable and knowledgable people analyzing the data in good faith must agree, for if they don't they are either unreasonable or analyzing the data in bad faith (often with said bad faith analysis driven by pecuniary interests):

To date, with levels matched and preconceived biases removed from the equation, nobody has yet been able to reliably distinguish a difference between two non-broken audio electronics chains of sufficient bandwidth and gain, assuming enough power to adequately drive the loudspeakers to the intended SPL.

And one corollary that should be obvious: signal processing changes things. If done well, it can sometimes be an improvement. That it can also make a complete hack of things if not done competently based on competently-acquired in situ measurements should also be clear.

Reasonable people will accept that and move on to discussing things on which gear actually differs that matter, such as wide vs. narrow patterns, and the desirability of pattern control down through the lower mids and upper bass.

That's not, of course, to say "it's all the same so buy the cheapest stuff." One makes one's own choices based on any number of variables on which any two actually parts differ (looks, warranty, brand appeal, ergonomics, expected resale value, feature set, etc.). But "sound," unless one's talking about expressly low-fi gear, such as amps with non flat frequency response, cannot reasonably be one of those factors.

(Now, if someone prefers the signal processing inherent in an SET or whatever, which is technically a low-fidelity device in that it is not a straight-wire-with-gain, that's a perfectly valid choice.)

[JeffW]

That said, given that the discussion was impliedly about mains (AVR v. separates) and not about subs, it's worth noting that different rules apply when deep bass is involved.

The 2245H is the woofer in his mains, not a sub.

[Mr. Widget]

To date, with levels matched and preconceived biases removed from the equation, nobody has yet been able to reliably distinguish a difference between two non-broken audio electronics chains of sufficient bandwidth and gain, assuming enough power to adequately drive the loudspeakers to the intended SPL.

Are you the son, grandson of Julian Hirsch?

Seriously, I will assume you are not simply being provocative for the sake of "shit stirring" to use the common parlance and give your lengthy post the answer it deserves. But first, please let me know what equipment you own or at least regularly listen to. I think a point of reference is needed here.


Widget

[Ducatista47]

Are you the son, grandson of Julian Hirsch?
Widget

[DS-21]

Seriously, I will assume you are not simply being provocative for the sake of "shit stirring"

No, I am simply stating facts that frankly in 2011 should be obvious to everyone. At this point, the only ways they could not be are:
(1) simple ignorance of the relevant data (though that might have been more an excuse in 1998 than it is in 2011)
(2) unreasonableness
(3) bad-faith dealing (often to defend pecuniary interests)

But first, please let me know what equipment you own or at least regularly listen to. I think a point of reference is needed here.

Current reference system:

Measurement gear: MacBook running OSX Lion, FuzzMeasure Pro 3, M-Audio FireWire Solo, Velodyne SMS-1 and MIC-5, 6x calibrated Behringer ECM-8000 clone (came with Velodyne SMS-1 and Velodyne MIC-5 spatial averaging kit, but I had them each professionally calibrated.)

Sources: MacBook media server (optical digital), Oppo BDP-83 SACD/DVD-A/etc disk player (HDMI single-wire connection), AppleTV (HDMI single-wire connection) (Also a B&O RX-2 TT in storage, but I had a local shop digitize all my vinyl into AIFF files several years ago, which I have since losslessly compressed)

Pre-Pro-Mains amp: Denon AVR-4308ci with Audyssey DynamicEQ feature upgrade. It runs in LFE+Main mode, which allows

Mains (LCR): aforementioned low-diffraction Tannoy System 12 DMT II, crossfired ahead of and above the listening position.

Surrounds (5.1-channel; I've never seen a 7.1-channel SACD or DVD-A so don't see the use of back channels): bespoke based on Tannoy 2046 (System 800, etc.) 8" Dual Concentric, mounted high (above the listening position) and to the sides, firing straight up (hey, that's what subjectively worked best in this room).

Subs: Geddes-style mode-smoothing array with four subs, using the amps' controls for level/phase-delay and a Velodyne SMS-1 for global level, EQ, and line drive. Main sub is an M-Design Eleganza Godfather (Aurasound NS15-992-4A + 1kW Class G amp in a giant cherry-and-piano black pie wedge), the two other floor subs are each being M-Design Eleganza Bellas (Aurasound NS12-794-4A + 500W Class G amp in a cherry-and-piano black end-table looking cabinet), and the high sub a DIY unit using the Aurasound NS10-794-4A in a 15L closed box, powered by a Dayton HPSA-1000R.

Headphones: Apple dual-driver IEM, Denon D2000, Sennheiser HD-580.
Headphone amps: HeadRoom Total AirHead, HeadRoom Micro (pre- and post- 2007)

Electronics not in current use (non-exhaustive list): Sonic Frontiers Line-3 tube preamp, Marantz AV-600 pre-pro, Adcom GFA-5800 amp (proved in a blind, level-matched test indistinguishable from a Class CA-300 on Martin Logans), Classe CAP-101 (I think) integrated (240V - in my Salzburg apartment), Panasonic XR55 AVR, Audiolab 8000P integrated, B&O RX-2 TT with their second-best cart (MMC2?), Adcom 535II 2-ch amp, Adcom 2535 4-ch amp, AudioControl PCA-3 crossover/subharmonic synth, cheap Samsung DVD player that proved indistinguishable from a Meridian 508.20 factory-upgraded to 508.24 spec blind and with levels matched.

JBL drivers not in current use: 2x 2235H, 1x W15GTi.

[Mr. Widget]

Hi DS-21,

Thank you for your very thorough answer to my question. I'll give you an equally thorough reply. Unfortunately I am currently working and will need some time to compile the data necessary to properly respond.


Widget

[tomt]

the photo that tomt posted has nothing to do with capacitive storage etc. it is showing a low end Peugeot with an uber high end speaker crossover... the caps (the flat black rectangles) are several hundred dollars each and the coils (the round cardboard tubes) are a couple of hundred to well over a grand each depending on value. The resistors are hollow graphite tubes that cost $25 bucks or more... are they worth it?
I have no idea, but in a car???? I hope that image was some sort of joke.


Widget

as the duelund caps are designed with resistance to vibration

as a primary goal,

auto sound might be an ideal place for these.

how much can the average consumer can appreciate?

to be able to say, my xover cost more than $... ,

might come in handy at spl competitions.

how many people know anything about part quality?

for instance -

That's probably true.
If it was calibrated competently,
the Denon isn't in the same league as a dumb analog box - it's better.

depends on what you mean by 'better'.

perhaps you could explain what would be 'better'.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you've never even bothered to listen with levels matched, let alone blind. Most often, when somebody hears a difference between two audio electronics chains, assuming no signal processing, the difference is one actually heard by the listener. However, the listener misattributes it to something other than its actual cause, which is more often than not merely a slight level difference.

anyone can assume whatever,

would it be fair to say you've never even bothered to try different

components in the same circuit?

ever modify your equipment?

ever built your own equipment?

[Mr. Widget]

No, I am simply stating facts that frankly in 2011 should be obvious to everyone. At this point, the only ways they could not be are:
(1) simple ignorance of the relevant data (though that might have been more an excuse in 1998 than it is in 2011)
(2) unreasonableness
(3) bad-faith dealing (often to defend pecuniary interests)

Let's start by giving everyone the benefit of the doubt and rule out unintentional unreasonableness as well as full blown dishonesty and bad faith dealing.

As for "simple ignorance of the relevant data"... I guess you'll need to define relevant data to me... or perhaps I'm simply ignorant.

"I am simply stating facts that frankly in 2011 should be obvious to everyone."

I'm not sure how obvious, I obviously disagree.


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?

If I got that correct, I agree that it may be possible to find two devices or systems that measure essentially identically. From a purely objective measurement standpoint making a comparison on paper I'd expect there to be virtually no differences between two channels of your Denon and say a Pass Labs INT 150. The Pass Labs is an all analog integrated amp with a 150 wpc stereo output. The Pass Labs unit is more robust and will put out full power into a low impedance for a significantly longer time period before thermal shut down and the Pass Labs unit will most likely still be fully operational in 20 years while the Denon most likely will have failed in one of it's many sophisticated digital circuits... HDMI being a prime example, but we are not discussing these aspects. I agree that at a moderate power level of say 10-20 watts, the two units will measure very similarly.

That was the objective comparison. I have heard and sold numerous Denons as well as Marantzs and Integras... both their AVRs and the separate pre/pros. I have set them up for many years in countless rooms. I have also compared them with Parasound Halo, Bryston, Mark Levinson, and yes Pass Labs. They simply do not sound the same. Even with the AVR set at a slightly higher SPL (theoretically giving them the edge) they fail to sound as free of grit, grain, etch... pick the word. No, I have never set up CLIO to level match to within a tenth of a dB... I didn't need to. There is simply no comparison. I can not eloquently explain the unmeasurable... perhaps Nelson Pass can, but I have done a lot of listening and I am open to cheaper sounding better and newer being an improvement.

Let's put it another way. With the typical AVR playing an SACD you have a digital source that is converted in it's onboard DAC into analog. The built in analog section then feeds the analog input of the AVR. The AVR then digitizes the signal, processes it, perhaps 3 or 4 times and then another DAC converts the signal back to analog. Do you think all of these DACs and A to Ds don't have an effect? It is probably measurable, but I am not sure how you would make the comparison with the all analog system that has none of it.

More on measurements... Can I hear a difference between two CD players? Sometimes. Is one clearly better? Almost never. There are frequently piles of data comparing the two... which has lower jitter etc. I simply haven't found that to be a consistent indication of superior sound. Measurements are useful, but in my fairly experienced opinion they don't always tell the whole story.

Lastly on Audyssey and calibration. I have used both the Audyssey and Velodyne SMS-1 systems. I have used the integrated Audyssey in lower end AVRs as well as the stand alone Audyssey processor and the Audyssey Bass Equalizer. I have had mixed results with all of them. Often I find it necessary to override the direction that these automatic calibration devices choose. At Harman, they tested Audyssey as well as several other calibration systems at several price points. I believe they tested five systems and set them all up according to the specific recommendations that came with each unit. They found Audyssey to be the second to the worst in their objective comparisons. I mentioned to the engineer that relayed this info to me that my results have been mixed. His response was that it is possible that Audyssey's assumptions may work better in some rooms than others. So, simply having DSP power is no guaranty of superior sound. It certainly can help, but usually fixing the room, using better speakers, placing things in better locations all are a better fix.

As much as you may want to trust measurements more than yours or anyone else's ears, my suggestion is to keep doing whatever makes you happy, and perhaps be a bit more open to other possibilities. Alternatively if our perception of audio plays a greater roll in our perceived sound quality, then maybe billet machined faceplates are indeed what is necessary for some, and a lot of features at a good price point for others to find audio nirvana.


Widget