Different Definitions of Quality

[timc]

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.

Widget

As a "measuring person" I would strongly disagree with this. It might be true for frequency response into an apropriate load for preamps. Simliary it might be almost true for the frequency response of power amplifiers when driving a purely resistive load.

Lets take the preamp section first:
In addition to frequency response you have to measure Harmonic spectrum (Not only THD), intermodulation, and general noise levels. I can gurantee that the Pass and the Denon wil be different. I'm not saying anything about wich is best.

For power amps you have to meaure the same things, but in addition you have to measure it's performance with a dynamic load. A resistive load poses no real challange for almost any ok built amplifier. Throw in some capacitive and inductive load, that varies with frequency and a lot can happen. Another thing is that all the other parameters like Harmonics, intermodulation and such will also change when driving dynamic loads. Meaning that the dynamic performance can be quite different from the static (steady) state performance.


What affects all these parameters is another discussion. And a bloody complicated one.......

[Ian Mackenzie]

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.


Originally Posted by brett_s
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.

We dont have pecking order for top dog on such discussions so I see no sense in a shit stirring.

Be that as it may on the question of power for the 2245H or the 2235H I it come down to 30 years of experience with large format monitors and knowing only too well the sound the a 100 watt amp clipping while trying to keep up with the mid / high array.

With such systems the distortion products and bandwidth are such that apparent volume levels running 250 watts + aside even in domestic setting are irrelevent and that is where dynamic headroom is so important. I have a Yamaha 800+800 watt amp on ice waiting for recently re coned 2245Hs. That and the Passlabs X250.5 on the mid / highs should be really excellent.

I am not sure of your live unamplified sound experience but MOST domestic audio systems cannot re produce a Piano or a trumpet at typical levels without gross distortion. The laws of physics are self explanatory.

A Muso living in the same building at my previous address asserted this when he thought I was practising!

On the later statement again it comes down to practical experience or being ignaminius.

Either way you have been deprived.

My woman who has been selling pro audio for years remarks that a new bit of audio equipment for a hifi buff is like watching the emperor with new clothes but she repects the JBL sound done right without compromises because its in different league.

Once you experience hi end amplification like the Passlabs/ Bryston and ML there is no going back after using a Flame Linear.

That does not mean to say I dont enjoy the convenience of the wonderbox for suround sound.

But like so many things in life what you don't have you don't miss.

I thank Nelson Pass for personally helping me build my first Aleph class A amp about 10 years ago.

Those guys have a large following with JBL users and dealers because of what those amps do for these kinds of systems.

[JeffW]

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,

It always comes down to the faceplates, never even an outside chance that what's behind the faceplate might be the important part.

[Mr. Widget]

As a "measuring person" I would strongly disagree with this. It might be true for frequency response into an apropriate load for preamps. Simliary it might be almost true for the frequency response of power amplifiers when driving a purely resistive load.

I don't disagree, but .1, .01, .001... -.2dB @ 20KHz, -.5dB@50KHz etc. Is there a difference? I'm not sure there is. Now with amps, certainly you can put complex loads and see much greater differences and perhaps that is a significant contributor to why they sound different, but I hear similarly great differences between line level gear driving very benign loads. I'm not saying that there are sonic differences, see my long post, but the standard measurements that are significantly different? Significant difference from a purely scientific point of reference... I'm not so sure.


Widget

[timc]

I don't disagree, but .1, .01, .001... -.2dB @ 20KHz, -.5dB@50KHz etc. Is there a difference? I'm not sure there is. Now with amps, certainly you can put complex loads and see much greater differences and perhaps that is a significant contributor to why they sound different, but I hear similarly great differences between line level gear driving very benign loads. I'm not saying that there are sonic differences, see my long post, but the standard measurements that are significantly different? Significant difference from a purely scientific point of reference... I'm not so sure.


Widget

Maybe you missinterpreted me. What you refer to here, i agree is not necesarily that important. The distribution of the harmonics and intermodulation on the other hand......... This is present in sources/line level equipment as well, and will influence what we hear (subjectively).

My point was that Frequency response and THD isn't enough to say anything defenite. Add in all other measurable parameters, and we can say quite a lot. However, if you were refering to the specs normally provided by the manufacturers i totally agree. It says next to nothing.

[Titanium Dome]

I'm sure in individual ways, we're all competent to write both about our subjective and objective opinions. (See how I made them both subjective there? )
In the end though, it's just a different kind of faith: faith in experience or faith in science or faith in cognitive dissonance.

As a real genius quipped: Not everything that can be measured matters; not everything that matters can be measured. That's paraphrased, of course, because even the memory of Einstein-ian quotes is subject to interpretation.

There was a time in early hi-fi history when specs mattered a lot. The differences in quality were sometimes huge, and scientists, hobbiests, engineers, and manufacturers used them to point out discernible differences. At a certain point, marketing took over this process and used specs to exploit consumer naivete about what constitutes a quality product. So there might have been multiple ways to give a spec for power output, distortion, channel separation, etc. They'd just fudge the numbers to look better than the competition, then hide the means by which the numbers were generated in a foot note or tech sheet that nobody read.

This kind of baloney still gets practiced today, but more savvy consumers like those who frequent boards like this know how to read the fine print and between the lines, generally speaking. Specs are important enough to me that if I don't see them presented in a straight-forward manner, I will pass up the product. It's a simple test of faith that if a manufacturer is building a quality product, the numbers should be honest and quality-focuesd, too. Otherwise I have no faith in their science.

Nonetheless, there are so many products these days that can produce similarly competent specs--which would be miraculous specs just a few decades ago--that specs can only be one aspect of the measurement of quality. So, I'll put some faith in the science of it all, but I'll also put some faith into the experience of it all.

There are any number of speaker manufacturers that can produce response curves for their products that appear to be the equal of JBL's best products. Some even have nicer looking cabinets or more impressive collections of multiple drivers. Yet, despite the similarities on paper, my experience at audio shows and dealers is usually one of disappointment when listening to these seemingly equally capable loudspeakers. Going to friends' and acquaintances' homes produces much the same experiential let down, and I'm not just writing about a few Bose-loving friends. That's too easy. I'm writing about Sonus Faber, Magico (yes, I wrote Magico), DefTech, and B&W, as examples that I have to listen to more often than I'd like. Most of these speakers are gorgeous to look at, but I enjoy them more when looking than when listening.

Yes, I have a ton of JBLs of varying vintage, design principle, driver complement, and cabinetry, but my experience tells me I can always count on a good experience with any of them, even recent gear that sometimes gets derided in these threads. Yes, companies and products change over time, and there's some inevitability to a decline in quality for most brands, but Harman as an example spends tons of money on research and development, and it still employs engineers and designers who make compelling products with quality in mind. I have a lot of faith in the JBL experience to this point, right up to my most recent JBL purchase.

So there's science and there's experience that inform my quest for quality. Sometimes a combination of the two backs me into an acquisition, like the ATI amps driving the K2s. I was impressed with the build quality, science, and engineering of ATI, but wondered about the experience. Once I discovered that ATI had produced some of my most trusted and favored amps under OEM licenses, I realized I'd already experienced ATI quality, longevity, power, and sonic neutrality. It became an easy decision, without the influence of billeted front plates.

(All the really expensive amps got sent back. Yay! )

So how about the cognitive dissonance bit? That's the belief that even though what you believed to be true hasn't actually come true, you still believe it could become true in the future if you just keep believing it. (That's most major religions in a nutshell, BTW.)

If one believes that 300W coming out of a Lexicon silver-faced, billeted amp would be of higher quality than 300W coming out of an Outlaw black-faced, nonbilleted amp, the science would simply defy that belief, despite the difference in price of $1000s. One could say, "But my experience informs me that it truly does sound better; I've head them both." Yet in blind listening, one would fail miserably to distinguish between the two. Then one's response would inevitably be, "I still know it's true, and someday there will be a fair test that proves that I was right." Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

Some genius will chime in, "But it's probably the room where you heard those speakers, or the equipment they were hooked up to, or the source material, ." I'll just call right now. Most of us have been around long enough and worked these issues often enough that we know these things already, so just be quiet about them. I didn't just make this stuff up today. Lordy, I've got quite a few different rooms, different audio chains, and different source materials in my own house to have quite a lot of practical experience, and plenty of folks (some from this forum) have been over for testing, calibration, listening, critiquing, placement assistance, you name it, so it's not like available science wasn't applied. These same things are true of the acquaintances I visit in some of the audio and video groups I hang out with. We have endless, interesting, and mostly productive discussions about how to optimize everyone's gear, including swapping out amps, treating rooms, changing components, and using different source material.

So when it comes to "defining quality" I think it helps to know whom you are talking to.

Is it someone who values science, measurements, and precision above all?

Is it someone who values experience, tradition, and familiarity?

Or is it someone who's waiting for a Second Coming to justify and glorify their beliefs and punish all the doubters at the same time?

I think you can have parts of all three and that you can have a productive discussion with all three. You cannot assume that someone who fanatically adheres to one over the others will be reasonable and polite, however. It's just not part of some folks' social skill set. I'm happy to see everyone more or less behaving thus far.

[SEAWOLF97]

Specs are important enough to me that if I don't see them presented in a straight-forward manner, I will pass up the product. It's a simple test of faith that if a manufacturer is building a quality product, the numbers should be honest and quality-focuesd, too. Otherwise I have no faith in their science.

as I recall , JBL did NOT publish frequency response specs on consumer speakers.

[JeffW]

So there's science and there's experience that inform my quest for quality. Sometimes a combination of the two backs me into an acquisition, like the ATI amps driving the K2s. I was impressed with the build quality, science, and engineering of ATI, but wondered about the experience.

I could say the same thing about these amps. And how they operate in class A with no global negative feedback. But I'm sure the ATI amps do, too.

It became an easy decision, without the influence of billeted front plates.

Anybody that buys an amp because of what the faceplate looks like is an idiot.

It always comes down to the faceplates, never even an outside chance that what's behind the faceplate might be the important part.

I'm glad that ATI has a faceplate that suits your delicate sensibilities.

If one believes that 300W coming out of a Lexicon silver-faced, billeted amp would be of higher quality than 300W coming out of an Outlaw black-faced, nonbilleted amp, the science would simply defy that belief, despite the difference in price of $1000s. One could say, "But my experience informs me that it truly does sound better; I've head them both." Yet in blind listening, one would fail miserably to distinguish between the two. Then one's response would inevitably be, "I still know it's true, and someday there will be a fair test that proves that I was right." Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

I have a Marantz SR5003 AVR hooked right in alongside the despised billet faceplate amps. It has specs very similar to the Denon AVR that DS-21 is running. My experience is that they not only sound different, but quite a lot different. But you are telling me that it's only because I have amps that happen to have billet faceplates that I want to hear a difference? OK, so the entirely different amp topology (class A vs probably class D or something in the AVR) makes no difference. The lack of feedback vs probably a lot of feedback to get the vanishingly small THD figure of the AVR makes no difference. The 180,000uf of power supply capacitance per channel vs whatever is crammed into the AVR makes no difference (not to mention the AVR probably has a switching power supply).

Only the billet faceplate makes the difference.

Got it.

How about this cognative dissonance, from the flip side? I buy a nice little budget amp. When I first fire it up, I'm underwhelmed, but I WANT to like it so I can tout its merits over and over as a giant killer? I know it's true, and someday there will be a fair test proves I was right!

Sound familiar?

I think you can have parts of all three and that you can have a productive discussion with all three. You cannot assume that someone who fanatically adheres to one over the others will be reasonable and polite, however. It's just not part of some folks' social skill set.

So long as you assume that anyone who owns a Pass amp only bought it because it has a billet faceplate, you are fanatically failing.

[1audiohack]

Sounds like a market opportunity to me! "Ass Labs" billet face plates with lit meters for popular AV components. Do you think the meters would actually have to function for the effect to work?

[4313B]

Anybody that buys an amp because of what the faceplate looks like is an idiot.

So you're saying that beauty is only skin deep?

[SEAWOLF97]

So you're saying that beauty is only skin deep?

and the end of that quote is " and ugly goes all the way to the bone"

didn't Lexicon put fancy face plates on Oppo's and jack the price waayyy up ?

[JeffW]

So you're saying that beauty is only skin deep?

Not at all. Beauty is what's behind the faceplate. And the funny thing is, the billet faceplates on these amps are really very plain. Like high school milling 101 plain. But the fact that they're not stamped tin has become a real point of contention around here. It's unfortunate that they decided to use billet aluminum, really. Some people just can't wrap their head around the fact that there's an amplifier! behind it.

Faceplate, faceplate, faceplate.

But hey, I figure my obsolete Marantz AVR is an amp, and all amps are created equal (save the all important faceplate), so I really should be running that as my front row set up.

Or something.

[JeffW]

Sounds like a market opportunity to me! "Ass Labs" billet face plates with lit meters for popular AV components. Do you think the meters would actually have to function for the effect to work?

You're overcomplicating it!

Don't you see, there doesn't need to be ANYTHING behind the faceplate! Nobody buys this stuff because of how it performs, they only buy it because it has a (really plain) billet faceplate!

Sheesh, try to pay attention.

[Titanium Dome]

Let's not degenerate this into faceplate rant. Widget was pretty clear with his comment that included "maybe" and "for some" in a limited context. My little comment with a wink was a wink back at him. All my Synthesis® amps have nice, scrolled, billeted faceplates on them, and I display them with pride.

So please drop it, or get a sense of humor about it. No one is calling you or anyone else out.

[Mr. Widget]

I'm not sure if all this billet faceplate talk is because I brought it up at the end of my long post... but if so, I was using the term as shorthand for the possible effect on the "perception of quality". I do not damn or praise the use of billet aluminum whether it be in a Lexicon use trying to look the part, or Pass Labs doing it simply because the market paying for uber quality hand built products expects it.

FWIW: I'd covet the Pass Labs gear with or without the meters and massive faceplates.


Widget