Different Definitions of Quality

[timc]

I basically think there are two types of quality. Objective, meaning technical performance. Subjective, meaning how you experience things.

The objective one is easy and quite self explanatory imo.

The subjective bit is a bit more hairy. My view is that regardless of the amount of placebo, snakeoil, and other mumbo jumbo involved, an individual's experience can not be questioned. It might be that you're imagening things, but the experience is no less real. A lot of people is not interested in how things work, and how the flare ratio of a horn does "something". They are after a good musical experience, and even if they cash out alot of money on seomthing that doesn't really do anything, it might just give them the experience they are looking for.

PS: I'm somewhere in between those two, with emphasis towards the first.

[Mr. Widget]

Thanks for the post Tim... I think I am in the same camp, I try to be objective as much as possible, and as to the perception mumbo jumbo... I agree, if you believe it, it is "real".

We are in fact trying to fool ourselves that a musician, a band or an orchestra are in our homes. We want to be fooled.


Widget

[gferrell]

Thanks for the post Tim... I think I am in the same camp, I try to be objective as much as possible, and as to the perception mumbo jumbo... I agree, if you believe it, it is "real".

We are in fact trying to fool ourselves that a musician, a band or an orchestra are in our homes. We want to be fooled.


Widget

You are right Mr. W, My wife plays her piano and my thousands of dollars worth of equipment could never reproduce that sound in the same room. However music is recorded for us to enjoy when we can not be there live. I really enjoy both.

[DS-21]

This post is going to ramble a bit, but there's a point to it. Promise.

I left this topic in December for one reason: the Denon receiver I was using when the thread started crapped its digital board during the course of the discussion. Not much fun to talk about something when it's dead.

Yes, when it worked it was audibly superior to any five-figure Pass or even Bryston or McIntosh or whatever electronics in my room, because I took advantage of the thing good room correction software does best (compensating for boundary-loading issues in the upper bass) and optimized my speaker placement for both aesthetics and sonics. (I am of the general belief that audio is best heard and not seen.)

But with a dead digital audio board, Audyssey's processing was unavailable, and the Denon was lowered to being merely as good as a five-figure Pass or whatever setup. That is, it was limited to 2 channels of output, drawing only from analog inputs. Which is to say, it was not acceptable to me. And since it was a few months (!) out of warranty, Denon thought it was appropriate for someone who had spent $2k+ on one of their boxes to pony up an additional $550-650 to repair it - IF the part was available, which their local authorized repair center did not know.

As I was not about to pay >500USD to fix a <3 year old AVR, I replaced it with an AVR that cost half as much (Anthem MRX 300), in the process giving up some functionality I never used anyway (control over the home wireless network, HD radio, that second HDMI output for the second TV I don't have or want, probably other things too) but gaining more advanced room correction software, a more compact and lighter package, and backing from a "higher end" company that I suspect will have less abysmal after-sales support than Denon does. (It was close between an Onkyo box and the Anthem, but I picked the Anthem based on the ARC hardware/software and my perception of superior customer support.)

The Anthem's audio hardware is unexceptional. Just standard Chinese commodity parts, likely made in the same Chinese factories using the same subassemblies as startlingly similar (except for the room correction software) AVR's from two other mid-level boutique brands, Arcam and Cambridge Audio. But ARC is a very good room correction system. I could write more on my subjective thoughts about Audyssey vs. ARC, but this post is going to be long enough as it is. ARC is good enough for Greg Timbers…

(Someone else earlier made an assertion about a Pioneer part's room correction system. I didn't reply to that at the time because I didn't know how far behind the market leaders Pioneer's room correction was. Ditto Yamaha's. Now that I've been forced to research the market a bit, I do. MCAAC or whatever may not have worked well for that person, but it's very primitive in what it can do compared to the more serious systems in the market: Audyssey, ARC, Trinnov, Dirac Live, and RoomPerfect.)

Truth be told, when I first hooked up the Anthem, it sounded much worse than I remembered the Denon sounding. The upper bass was horribly boomy, in particular. Of course, that was prior to running ARC, and as mentioned I leverage modern technology to improve the aesthetics of my living room without compromising on sonics. With Audyssey zeroed out on my second-room AVR, a Denon AVR-3808ci (subsequently sold on craigslist and replaced with a second MRX 300, as after my experience with Denon's customer service I wanted nothing more to do with them) and ARC not yet set up, with levels matched at the speakers' binding posts the two parts sounded absolutely identical.

Now, I'm sure I could've forced them to sound different, by using less efficient speakers and listening so loudly as to make explicit the Denon's considerable headroom advantage. Home Theater Magazine benched the Denon at ~180W/8Ω/2ch, 240W/4Ω/2ch, and 120W/8Ω/5ch for the larger and much heavier Denon. By contrast, on their bench the Anthem MRX 300 did 90W/8Ω/2ch, 135W/4Ω/2ch, 70W/8Ω/5ch. But at my normal (practically 7th-row-center-at-the-Musikverein) listening levels in my living room, the headroom advantage of the Denon simply did not come into play.

But here's where it perhaps gets amusing. After having the MRX 300 in my main system for about a month, I for a number of reasons decided I want to take out the passive crossovers in my front three mains and go with a miniDSP-based biamplified setup. (OK, the main reason for that was that miniDSP announced they'd be making an "in-a-box" version of their 8x8 board. I've been playing with one of their 2x4 units to set levels/delays/EQ on my multisub system, and I love how they work.) So I started looking at multichannel amps, and zeroed in Rotel unit that was nice and compact, cool-running and energy efficient due to the Icepower amp modules, good-looking, had 6 channels for three front 2-way mains. So I went to a local Rotel dealer to pick one up. I returned it shortly thereafter, because it failed my self-noise test. I hook up a cheap Eminence APT tweeter on a small horn - not a high-fidelity device, but very efficient and thus resolving of small differences in amplifier noise floor - to each channel, and listen for noise with no source connected, and if it passes that, I listen with a source connected. If I hear anything at all from the driver with the horn mouth more than an inch or so away from my ear, the amp isn't good enough for me.

Instead of opening up a second one to see if the first was merely defective (I brought the APT tweeter with me), I ended up coming home instead with an NOS Sherwood Newcastle A-965 the dealer had found in some dark recess of his warehouse and recently lugged out to a corner of his shop to clear out. The A-965 is an 80lb, dual-transformer Class AB, gigantic amp.




It came in a box so large it took some contortions to get it in (and out!) of my fiancee's Civic sedan. While the Sherwood's shipping box has hand-hold cutouts, the amp itself unfortunately lacks handles. They would make it easier to move around, though it's already so deep that I'm not sure they're worth the required real estate.

The Sherwood was offered at a very fair price, and a quick in situ investigation on my iPhone showed that one of the few audio reviewers worth a damn, Dr. David Rich, wrote a glowing review of the A-965's circuit design for The $ensible Sound* when it amp was newly-shipping product. I was very impressed with the amp when I did my "self-noise" test, and came up with total blackness. I've had that results from other amps (Bryston, McIntosh, Anthem Statement) but it's very rare in my experience to have such a low noise floor.

*Dr. Rich, being intelligent and of high character, did not lower himself to writing fanciful "listening impressions" of the amp. He limited himself to discussing things that actual vary between amps: the circuit layout, build quality, electrical safety certifications, and so on.

Yet, when I first plugged it into my system to test for ground loops, 12V trigger functionality, and so on, and re-ran ARC, I thought I heard "differences" compared to my memory on a few disks and tracks, including the awesome new Wish You Were Here 5.1-channel SACD, Adele's Live at Royal Albert Hall 5.1-channel lossless Blu-Ray, "You Are the Everything" on R.E.M.'s Green 5.1-channel DVD-A, "Separator" on Radiohead's King of Limbs in Apple Lossless on my music server, and Vladimir Ashkenazy's read of Shostakovich 5 with the Royal Philharmonic, also in Apple Lossless on my music server.

It was a rub-my-eyes kind of thing, because my brain knew that such differences were toweringly unlikely. But…on all of the cuts, highs seemed a bit more crisply rendered, and images on the periphery of the soundstage seemed to take on tighter definition.

The "differences" were startling and real enough to me to require further investigation. So I did a small sighted test. I matched voltage between the standalone MRX 300 and the MRX 300 + A-965 at the speaker's binding posts with test tones and a multimeter. Thus compared, I could find no differences in switching between them. What my senses first told me, at least a little bit (that a much more powerful amp with basically nonexistent distortion and a silent noise floor that weighed more than twice as much as the whole AVR and had clearly better circuitry, sounded better) turned out not to be the case when the slightest effort was made to institute controls.

The lesson there, obviously, is that most people are too lazy (or technically incompetent) to institute even the most rudimentary controls when comparing things, so they let flights of fancy get the better of them.

[DS-21]

[me]f both are properly set up, a $10k Pass amp will be markedly lower in fidelity than a $2k A/V receiver.[/me]

I have a new Pioneer Home threatre amp 83 model 2nd from the top.

While the in built equ and room correction is not exectly the same as Audyssey MultEQ XT32 the end use is the same.

By "not exactly the same," you mean markedly inferior in concept and execution, from measurement to processing.

After doing some research into room correction software after my last AVR blew, I came away shocked that Pioneer and Yamaha are still so far behind. Pity, because I wanted to like the Pioneer offerings due to their cool-running and energy-efficient Class D amplification. If the Pioneer units had a good room correction system, I would've gone that route.

With the Pass labs set running stand alone there is an impovement in overall fidelity that quite obvious.

From that I can only assume you've never bothered to do a level-matched comparison, let alone a blind one.

You are, I assume, aware of the instance in the late 1990s when a (now dead) Miami area audio salesman named Steve Zipser was unable to tell the difference between his own painstakingly assembled reference electronics chain, on his reference own speakers set up in his own home, with his own wires and whatever "vibration damping" or other tweako nonsense he was using with the electronics...and a cheap Yamaha integrated amp Tom Nousaine and Steve Maki flew to Miami. Mr. Zipser's reference electronics were all Pass Labs, BTW...

how many people know anything about part quality?

I don't think it matters what one "knows." It matters what can be heard, when bias is controlled for. To me, it doesn't matter if painting an amp blue makes it sound better. If an amp painted blue can be consistently and reliably identified by sound rather than by sight from the identical amp painted black with levels matched, then there's clearly something that the blue paint is doing to the sonics. "Why" is something interested people can determine later. But for an audio consumer like me, the "why" is ultimately less interesting than the result.

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.

Fair enough, but it would be inappropriate to also rule out that some have judgment clouded by pecuniary interests, given that a couple people who make their living in "high end" audio have posted here. That's not an insult by any means, simply a statement reflecting the reality that in a given debate, anyone with a pecuniary interest in the outcome will by human nature find reasons to influence the outcome in a direction favorable to said interest.

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.

The unbroken line of "no difference" found in controlled listening tests between competently designed and assembled audio parts operating within their intended design parameters. Such tests date back to before David L. Clark's 1983 JAES article, but it's reasonable to assume that anyone who is actually interested in what is audible and what is not is familiar with that article, subsequent replications, and the consistency of their findings.

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?

Yes.

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

I don't think that's so cut and dried. I wouldn't be so sure that Nelson's box actually has the stouter PS. Comparing the Stereophile tests of the Pass integrated and the Home Theater tests of the Denon AVR, I also couldn't help but note in Stereophile's measurements of the Pass part that "With both channels driven into 2 ohms, the rear-panel 4A fuse blew after just 15 seconds of continuous running at powers greater than 100W."

That's just sad, for a $7k audio part. My $500 NHT A1 monoblocs offer superior performance!

EDIT: I just read the fluff part of the review, and came upon something else I consider utterly unacceptable about the Pass integrated you mention at $70 let alone $7000:
"Slightly bothersome was some mechanical hum from the INT-150's transformer, as well as some barely audible ground buzz coming through my speakers. I tried various power cords and different outlets in my room, but the INT-150 always wanted to make a little noise. This was barely audible at my listening seat between tracks, but I still would have rather not heard it at all."

So, I revise my position to reflect observed reality: on an absolute basis, even a Denon AVR-4308ci with a dead digital board is a higher-fidelity device than a $7000+ Pass Labs integrated amp. [/edit]

If an amp makes any mechanical noise apart from the click of turn-on relays, in my view it is worthless garbage. In this case, seven thousand dollars of worthless garbage. I demand total blackness from my electronics. And oddly enough, even most $300 AVR's seem capable of providing that, whereas even alleged geniuses like Nelson Pass seem incapable of it for multiple thousands of dollars.

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...

Touche!

Though it's also in that vein worth noting that the Pass integrated amp's effing volume knob failed during Stereophile review of it. Presumably, the review did not last 2+ years. That dovetails with my general experience that "high end" audio is notably slapdash in build quality and quality control.

However, there's another factor a reasonable person will consider here: cost. Let's assume one has to replace an AVR every three years, whereas the Pass part will last 20 years. The Pass unit stickers at over seven grand. Discounting future AVR purchases to present value, over those 20 years one will likely spend about the same, while getting considerably better features and sound (due to improving room correction systems) by simply budgeting for a replacement AVR every 3 years over buying a Pass and keeping it for 20 years.

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.

Again, there's never been a properly controlled test that confirms what your pecuniary interest as an audio dealer compels you to believe.

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?

First, using a modern player and AVR you're simply wrong on fact. There is only one D/A stage, that taking place prior to amplification, in a modern multichannel audio system. (I connect my Oppo BDP-83 to my AVR using a single HDMI wire, doing the DSD->PCM conversion for SACD in the player now, though the Denon did it natively.)

Second, yes multiple (20+) A/D/A loops have been confirmed as audible. Meyer and Moran showed in an extensive Boston Audio Society-sponsored listening test peer-reviewed and published in JAES that a single such loop, even if it cuts resolution down from SACD to Red Book CD levels, is inaudible.

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.

That is fairly common. One needs to having a solid understanding of what a given system can do, and what it can't, in order to leverage its capabilities optimally.

(As an aside, all of them are total hacks when it comes to modern multisub systems. One still has to measure and listen to set them up. JBL's BassQ may be the exception. I'd love to play with one.)

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.

Actually, Audyssey was not second worst but the worst, with the other ones being a single and multiseat calibration Harman's Synthesis system, ARC, and RoomPerfect. The difference between Audyssey and no EQ was also statistically significant. Pretty damning, considering that Harman used a really crappy speaker (B&W N802) for the test.

As much as you may want to trust measurements more than yours or anyone else's ears,

Actually, all I care about is what can actually be heard, when bias is removed. Measurements with no correlation to audibility are of no interest to me.

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.

Measurements are of course not the issue.

Listening tests don't care what the underlying black boxes are, only whether, first, if they sound the same or different, and second, IF they do sound different, which is generally preferred.

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.

Can, perhaps. But my experience is that they do not. At least when one includes polars as well as on-axis measurements. The on-axis sound is such a small portion of what is actually heard in a room. One really needs to see what a speaker does horizontally and to a lesser extent vertically to begin to correlate measurements with fine-grained sonic preferences.

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.

IMO, all of those companies make severely flawed loudspeakers. None of them make any attempt to control the tweeter's directivity at the bottom of its passband, so they have "mushroom cloud" midrange polars. I'd rather listen to an Infinity Primus or KEF Q-series than any of those firms' flagships, and would purchase one of those over any of the marques you named, even if pricing was equivalent.

For example, here is the horizontal response measured by Stereophile of a Magico speaker that I personally heard and found severely wanting.



Compare that hack job to a decent JBL direct radiator, such as the LSR 32/LSR 6332, and...well, there is no comparison. The JBL is heads and shoulders superior.

My experience is that they not only sound different, but quite a lot different.

What controls did you use when arriving at that conclusion?

If none, then you have no conclusion of any relevance to anyone but you.

OK, so the entirely different amp topology (class A vs probably class D or something in the AVR) makes no difference.

Actually, and IMO sadly, most AVR's still use bog-standard class AB discrete amps, rather than more energy efficient units.

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

Yes.

(And, it should be noted, not even the "SE" model, but the standard one!)

Ayre does something similar. They do futz with the power supply, true. And they also charge a whole lot more than Lexicon did.

***If this DS - 21 tried a Pass amp on his Tannoy's he'd shut up !

That's just feckless snob-speak.

First, what makes you think I haven't heard Pass amps?

Second, I refer you to the Zipser saga, supra.

Besides , thats an export Tannoy not made here in the factory .... not like these :[

These came out of Rattlesnake Studios in Battersea. UK studio of Ike and Tina . Photo by the Aussy shit stirrer!

Actually, mine are better than those in every way that matters to me.
First, the driver is better, with a phase plug that maintains directivity better than the old pepper pot.
Second, the cabinet is both stiffer and much lower in diffraction than that large, sharp-edged monstrosity.
Third, the cabinets are sealed for better integration with multiple subwoofers, rather than festooned with multiple vents for maximum group delay (2 "full range" speakers is simply speaking a low-fidelity approach, given that two speakers placed to image will will have 15+ dB swings in the modal region in most rooms).
Fourth, they are physically smaller.
Fifth, there are a proper three of them up front, rather than a mere two.

I think the plausibily of the above statement can be answered in why are not all two channel hi fidelity audio amplifiers equiped with room correction systems?

Without exception the answer is none.

You've never heard of TacT or NAD, I assume. Or, as mentioned above, Harman/Kardon.

Never mind that "two channel" is simply not "high fidelity" in 2012. It's good enough for headphones and maybe cars, but that's about it.

Decent discrete multichannel audio blows the doors off of the best 2-channel. And the best multichannel makes the best 2-channel sound more like Bose than music...

Are there any really good AV amps?

Yes.

There are also some spectacularly bad "high end" ones. Here's an example measured by Stereophile, a (pre-ATI) Theta* amp that has too high output impedance, a quarter-decidel channel imbalance, and other obvious sins. Oh, it's also rated less accurately than most boom boxes, with output closer to 40W/8Ω than the claimed 100W/8Ω. That Theta piece will probably sound different from a $350 Pioneer receiver, with different imaging characteristics due to the channel imbalance - a broadband different of .25dB is definitely audible, though most will describe the difference as something other than a levels problem! - but the $350 Pioneer receiver is actually the higher fidelity part.

*Since that POS left Theta's factories, ATI bought Theta. I would hope that instead of under-engineered and poorly QC'ed dross that Theta amps are now high-quality ATI amps with ugly curved faceplates that for some reason make me think "stingray vagina." Also, ATI recruited Jeff Hipps from Sherwood Newcastle, where he distinguished himself by bringing Trinnov room correction to the consumer A/V market in the well-reviewed R-972 receiver in addition to overseeing good but conventional products like the amp I use, to run Theta. I expect the combination of ATI technology and Mr. Hipps will make newer Theta products pretty good.

Another quality question.

Given the apparent unquestionable superiority of the Speakon connector why is it not used in the current Crop of AV amplifiers?

Because home audio is a very reactionary business, for better or worse. Also, snake oil venders would have less to sell if they couldn't get more gullible customers to "compare" different bananas and spades…

That said, while I don't know the market well, in a recent shopping expedition I noticed some current Rotels do have modern speaker terminals, in addition to the old-fashioned ones:




Perhaps Rotel is not alone.

The subjective bit is a bit more hairy. My view is that regardless of the amount of placebo, snakeoil, and other mumbo jumbo involved, an individual's experience can not be questioned. It might be that you're imagening things, but the experience is no less real.

Agreed. However, in such a case it is also only valid as to that person. Others cannot benefit from it in the slightest, because it's based on nothing but individualized flights of fancy.

[Mr. Widget]

This post is going to ramble a bit, but there's a point to it. Promise.

Damn... that is a lot to get through.

Agreed. However, in such a case it is also only valid as to that person. Others cannot benefit from it in the slightest.

I've only read the first couple of lines and the last line quoted here. I agree we should take everyone's opinions with a grain of salt, but I certainly doubt most of us, "cannot benefit from it in the slightest"... if we all felt that way, why would we post and why would we waste our time reading other's posts?

I'll come back to your rather lengthy ramble this evening when I have the time.


Widget

[1audiohack]

Damn! Now where is that "axe to grind" emoticon?!?

I will say this, I'm glad your happy with what you have. Truly.

[DS-21]

I've only read the first couple of lines and the last line quoted here. I agree we should take everyone's opinions with a grain of salt, but I certainly doubt most of us, "cannot benefit from it in the slightest"... if we all felt that way, why would we post and why would we waste our time reading other's posts?

First, please see my edited "last line quoted here," because I did not really follow through on my reasoning in version you quoted.

Second, it is a good question why any reasonable, intelligent person would waste an iota of time reading, listening, or posting about the "sound" of a commodity electronic part like a preamp or amplifier or digital source, to say nothing of course a wire, magic stone, green pen, equipment racks, etc. Talking about unicorn sightings is just about as tethered to reality as talking about the "sound" of an amplifier.

That is quite different from discussing a loudspeaker, loudspeaker placement technique, crossover topology, room correction system, etc. Those things actually do differ, and there is much all of us can learn from the experiences of others there in selecting speakers, placing them in given rooms, calibrating complex systems with mains and multiple subs all overlapping in the modal region to smooth out upper bass response, using room correction software, etc.

That's also different from due diligence before an electronics purchase. In the internet era, before sinking a decent-sized sum of money into an audio part, one will likely want to know if, say, other people have reported noise (hiss, ground loops, transformer hum, fan noise, etc.) from that part. Also, one may survey fora and such to determine if people have noted reliability problems, perceived quality issues (loose-feeling input jacks, etc.), ergonomic flaws (non-standard turn-on triggers, for instance), and other such things that are actually real. One may also want to survey owner satisfaction generally, for that specific component and that brand's other products. But the "sound?" That is simply not something a reasonable person considers, because when these parts differ in sound it's because they were poorly engineered from the get go and/or assembled without due care, and/or not subjected to meaningful quality control before shipping out. See, e.g., the above-linked reviews of the $7000+ MSRP Pass integrated with audible transformer hum, audibly poor grounding, and intermittent volume knob; see also the above-linked review of that Theta multichannel amp with its large channel imbalance and tube-like output impedance that will result in frequency response deviations with many speakers.

Now, I'm very explicitly NOT saying one should just buy the cheapest whatever. Just that one is actually picking on something other than "sound," so one may as well display some intellectual honesty in the process rather than deluding oneself that it's all about "sound." Furthermore, there are definitely firms marketing to well-heeled home audio consumers that engineer superb audio electronics, build them to exacting standards of performance and reliability, actually perform quality control on shipping units, and charge a very premium price compared to other products that perform the same core function exactly as ably. To name a few but by no means all of them: Bryston, Boulder, DEQX, Anthem Statement, ATI, ADA, McIntosh, Meridian, TacT, Burmeister, and Quad. A 2-channel 250-300W McIntosh amp won't sound any different from a $400 Crown XLS 1500 DriveCore. In some performance aspects such as energy efficiency, the Crown will be markedly superior to the mighty Mac. However...I think most of us would reasonably prefer to display sweet-looking meters in a solid chassis in our living rooms, rather than a plasticky-looking lightweight little box that looks like it belongs under a wedding DJ's table.

However, one cannot reasonably deny that the rest of the "high end" is all too rife with poor engineering, slapdash-at-best assembly, and risible quality control procedures that fail to prevent boxes with glaring flaws such as channel imbalances and transformer hum from leaving the factory, and so on. We have two examples in this thread of risibly low-fidelity "high end" gear: a $7000+ MSRP Pass Labs integrated amp that suffers from transformer hum and had a component failure during a short review, and a Theta multichannel amp that left the factory with large-enough-to-be-audible channel imbalances and generally was engineered poorly. Such gear will sound different from well-designed and well-made gear, because it is audibly lower in fidelity. For example, compare that Pass amp to any decent mass-market AVR at 1/20 its MSRP, and the AVR will sound better because on ppp passages one won't hear the transformer humming, and one won't suffer listener fatigue from the Pass integrated's ground hum.

Generally, when such piece of "high end" gear sounds different from a mass-market $350 AVR, a smart person will first look to see where the QC or engineering flaws in the "high end" component lie, rather than assuming the more expensive part is sonically superior.

[Mr. Widget]

I really tried, but ened up not having the time to thoroughly explain why your opinions and mine are completely out of phase.


I agree completely that in an AB comparison, it is utterly meaningless if accurate level matching isn't achieved.

I also agree that proper room correction can be a great tool. But I do not agree that it is such a universally powerful tool that it will make up for an otherwise poor sounding piece of gear.


As for my being biased by my pecuniary interest in audio sales? In all aspects of life I strive to be objective, I may or may not always be successful, but that aside, while I have often recommended several pieces of Pass gear that I have used and I recommend the company in general, I do not sell it and have no financial stake in the company. In fact I have stated publicly here on this forum that I preferred the sound of the Pass Labs XA30.5 to a couple of different Mark Levinson amps while comparing them in my system. And we are Levinson dealers.


Widget

[Mr. Widget]

Generally, when such piece of "high end" gear sounds different from a mass-market $350 AVR, a smart person will first look to see where the QC or engineering flaws in the "high end" component lie, rather than assuming the more expensive part is sonically superior.

I am trying to decide if you are sincere or are simply trying to get attention.


I'm going to leave it at: "While we share a hobby, we enjoy it very differently."


Widget

[timc]

DS-21

I find a few faults in your logic.

When it comes to mechanical hum in a Pass Labs:
I have built a few Alephs, and they were all dead silent. I have also listened to a few of the commercial ones, with the same result. Mechanical hum in a transformer can have several reasons. Most hum is caused by some error on the powerlines. Of course some PSU's are more resistant to such things than others, but i have a hard time calling the "non resistent" ones faulty, or bad designed. It shouldn't be necessarry to fix a problem that shouldn't be there.

When it comes to difference in amplifiers I find your view a bit strange. You claim there is no difference between most, and claiming this to be an objective view. On the other hand there is quite a large difference to be seen when the amplifiers are asked to drive a dynamic load. The differences will of course change with how tough the impedance of the loudspeaker is. However, the differences documented by Stereophile (among others), is much larger than that wich have been documented as our thresshold for identifying differences (within the field of music techonolgy).

-Tim

[BMWCCA]

DS-21 Always was an odd duck:

[Lee in Montreal]

DS-21 Always was an odd duck:

Odd perhaps, but way ahead of its time by several decades.

[Ian Mackenzie]

How can you validate your claims using only the Tannoys in your own listening space?

For example if I wanted I could play an unknown cd on every amp on the planet through a set of Bose lifestyle cubes with and without room correction and no doubt the room correction would win thumbs up.

What does this mean to the clear thinker?

No need to digger deeper here but one might ask:

There is no mention of the specific recordings used for the source? Cd's, DVD 5.1, Blue Ray Master Audio, 24/96 downloads, vinyl, Direct disk vinyl.

You have not published the room correction calibration curves or a description of the listening room acoustics.

How recently did you have your hearing checked by a medical professional?

None of these points are trivial and it is surprising how many people regardless of age have some form of hearing deficiency.

Some history of prior audio equipment and usage would be useful.

For example one member here who will remain nameless knowling bashed his ears for years in the college dorm with JBL 100s and thought they were the holy grail until he heard the JBL 4345.

Another member again who will remain nameless admitted bashed his ears senseless with a stack of JBL LE15 just to see how loud it would go and experience the threshold of pain. Then he decided it sounded better outside the house and now later in life considers himself to be an audiophile!

It is therefore unlikely that you will get two people or more to accept a definition of quality let alone a subjective agreement of quality

[BMWCCA]

Odd perhaps, but way ahead of its time by several decades.

Yep, I'm still waiting for a hydraulic suspension . . . that actually works!