Open Call to Mtry, Skeptic, Naysayers, and ABXers

[magictooth]

Let me state from the outset that I am neither naysayer nor yeasayer. I want to come to my own conclusions about how different DVD players sound. I've tried to post a methodology that would allow me to be able to A/B different players at my home with as little fuss as possible. This methodolgy, however, has not met with the satisfaction of some members.

I realize that the title was perhaps misleading. Instead, I should have written, "Please judge my methodology and PROPOSE ANY REASONSABLE SOLUTIONS THAT CAN BE EASILY IMPLEMENTED AT HOME." I don't have access to an ABX machine, I have no access to a voltage attenuator at home although I do have a voltage reader. My amplifier is an Audiomat Solfege Reference. This unit has an analog knob for volume control and a switch for mute. That's it and that's all. There are no notches to be able to accurately level match the inputs when they get changed.

Before I detail once again the methodology that I am proposing, I have a question for MTry, Skeptic, Naysayers, and other ABXers. A simple yes/no answer in your reply is greatly appreciated. The question is as follows:

HAVE YOU EVER DONE AN A/B COMPARISON BETWEEN CD OR DVD PLAYERS YOURSELF?

I'm interested in the above question because I would like to have replies from people who have actually practiced what they preach. If you have done an A/B comparison personally, what methodology did you use? How did you completely eliminate bias? If you haven't done A/B tests personally, I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that all well designed CD/DVD players sound exactly the same, and that you shouldn't spend over $XXX.00 dollars on a machine.

The methodology that I am proposing is as follows:

1) 2 identical discs with a variety of material.
2) 2 separate players running in synchronous time (as much as I can allow) with displays covered.
- the units that I have right now are Integra Research RDV-1 (($1000/$3000), Classe DVD-1($1300/$3500), Toshiba SD-1600 ($20/$250), Toshiba SD-3950 ($NA/$80) The prices are (NEW/USED).
3) Identical cables running into the integrated amplifier (Audiomat Solfege Reference).
4) I will listen to the music until I can identify which DVD player is playing.
5) The wife will click the mute switch and do the following: 1) She will change the volume knob or she will leave it the same. 2) She will change the input switch or she will leave it the same. In both cases, I will not have any idea of whether she changed volume or inputs or whether they stayed the same. I also won't have any idea if she changed one variable and left the other as is.
6) After an interval of between 10-15 seconds, the wife will turn the volume back on. This should eliminate any bias that there is any discrepancy in the synchronization of the units.

I would appreciate any help in trying to find a SOLUTION if this methodology is deemed poor. Comments that YOU MUST level match to within .1dB are not useful by themselves. A useful comment would be "this is how you attain good level matching by doing these easy steps...."

[Thomas_A]

Yes I've made tests.

In one trial there was four persons listening. The equipment is described here:

http://hem.bredband.net/b113928/nyabilder.htm

We tested a Marantz CD6000, a cheap Toshiba SD-220E DVD player and an Audiolab player. All players were tested against a Musical Fidelity X24-K DAC. The players and the DAC were in this test not level-matched, but the sync problem was not there because of the DAC/CD combo. After some extensive listening, two of the listeners gave up to find any difference. Two of them, including me, were able to discern a slight difference but this was most likely due to the level difference (?0.4 dB or so).

In a second trial using another system and the two persons that heard a slight difference tested another DAC, Enlightened Audio Designs DSP-1000 MkII, + the X-24K + the internal DAC of an expensive Classé HT preamplifier. The CD drive was a TEAC VRDS, and pre/power amp was high quality DIY projects (I've never heard so low noise levels from an amp, e.g. the Classé had much more noise in comparison). Speakers were high-quality DIY with very flat frequency response curve. In this case were were able to calibrate the levels better using the Classé preamp (close to 0.1 dB) using a scope. We listened but could not hear any difference.

A a third trial I published AIFF files from a song coming from three different DACs/players on an internet HiFi forum. Although this is not an optimal test, errors from the players should be additive and if there are differences, it should be able to be heard. No one could say which file that originated from which DAC/player.

Some more trials, in which one succeded:

http://www.jrsaudio.se/dbtoncdplayers.htm

Some strange measurements:

http://hem.bredband.net/b113928/CD_players.htm

T

[Thomas_A]

Regarding level matching, if there is no way of level match there is no good way of making any AB blind test. A separate DAC should be used for the record/sync problem.

One way that is more easy to do at home without level matching (but which is far more difficult to hear differences between players) is that the tester reduce the volume to zero, do the switch on the input and then inrease the volume slowly again until the listener is satisfied (by spoken commands from the listener only, e.g. "stop", "increase volume", "decrease", "switch"). There can be an agreement before the trials that each trial always starts using the "CD" input and then a switch to "Tuner" and back to "CD" etc. There must be no sound or spoken word from the test control leader during the entire procedure, meaning that the listener must keep track of the input that he/she is listening to. Also if possible visual contact should be avoided by e.g. having the test leader behind the listener during the trials. This can be repeated until the listener has determined which player that is connected to inputs "CD" and "Tuner".

The listener must then exit the room and the test leader makes the switching of cables at the inputs. Even if there is no switching according the the predetermined random scheme, the cables should be removed and put there again so there is no obvious time difference between each trial. The test leader says "ready" and then listener enters the room and the next trial starts.

Repeat 15 times and compare the result against the random scheme.

Far from a perfect test, but anyway.

T

[skeptic]

The best way to perform an AB comparison IMO is to listen to the same musical passages on each in fairly rapid succession. The there should be a wide variety of musical selections showing different aspects of the kind of music you like to listen to. There should be a wide variety of dynamics, instruments, diffferent combinations, and the recordings should be of high quality. The levels must be exactly matched. The selected passages should be long enough for you to get a flavor of each sample but not so long as to forget what the previous sample sounded like. All other variables should be ruled meaning that the tests should be repeated on a wide variety of equipment.

For a cd player, this means two identical discs synchronized between the players, a variable output with a volume control on at least one of the players, the louder of the two, A-B repeat, and several sound systems to try them out with. Synchronizing cds is probably easier than with any other program source except FM radio. If you want to make the test scientifically fair, someone else should do the switching and you should have several listeners with a large number of samples.

I have never done any such test myself. However, I have determined to my own satisfaction that there are subtle audible differences between some players. This was done by a much less formal process where I did the switching myself. I was curious to see how a very highly rated JVC 1 bit unit I bought for my parents stacked up against a 4 times as expensive 20 bit Denon uint I had bought for myself several years earlier. At that time, I concluded that the differences were slight having to do with the relative high frequency balance and what I call steeliness of violin strings, slight on the Denon, non existant on the JVC. The JVC was also slightly brighter. That was about 13 years ago. Ironically, this year, the Denon unit finally failed and I decided not to repair it but to replace it with the JVC unit. Slight adjustments to the high end response made the JVC sound about identical as to what I remembered from the Denon. Not scientific but adequate for my purposes.

I am extremely suspicious when someone says one cd player blew another one away. From what I can tell, the differences are always subtle. If you will not take any steps to change the frequency response of a sound system other than to experiment with expensive cables or reposition your loudspeakers, then the sonic signiture of one cd player due to its deviation from flat frequency response can add or detract from deviations inherent in the rest of a sound system to the benefit or detriment of overall sound differently from another unit. If that's what makes some people think brand x is better than brand y and therefore justifies 5x or 10x the cost, then let them pay the high price. Most of todays so called high fidelity loudspeakers suffer from being too bright in many rooms and a cd player with a slight high end rolloff may sound better. BTW, the current unit in my second system is a 5 year old 5 disc RS 1 bit carousel unit and it sounds just fine. My chief conmplaints, it has no volume control, no AB repeat, and won't display remaining time per track.

[mtrycraft]

Let me state from the outset that I am neither naysayer nor yeasayer. I want to come to my own conclusions about how different DVD players sound. I've tried to post a methodology that would allow me to be able to A/B different players at my home with as little fuss as possible. This methodolgy, however, has not met with the satisfaction of some members.

I realize that the title was perhaps misleading. Instead, I should have written, "Please judge my methodology and PROPOSE ANY REASONSABLE SOLUTIONS THAT CAN BE EASILY IMPLEMENTED AT HOME." I don't have access to an ABX machine, I have no access to a voltage attenuator at home although I do have a voltage reader. My amplifier is an Audiomat Solfege Reference. This unit has an analog knob for volume control and a switch for mute. That's it and that's all. There are no notches to be able to accurately level match the inputs when they get changed.

Before I detail once again the methodology that I am proposing, I have a question for MTry, Skeptic, Naysayers, and other ABXers. A simple yes/no answer in your reply is greatly appreciated. The question is as follows:

HAVE YOU EVER DONE AN A/B COMPARISON BETWEEN CD OR DVD PLAYERS YOURSELF?

I'm interested in the above question because I would like to have replies from people who have actually practiced what they preach. If you have done an A/B comparison personally, what methodology did you use? How did you completely eliminate bias? If you haven't done A/B tests personally, I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that all well designed CD/DVD players sound exactly the same, and that you shouldn't spend over $XXX.00 dollars on a machine.

The methodology that I am proposing is as follows:

1) 2 identical discs with a variety of material.
2) 2 separate players running in synchronous time (as much as I can allow) with displays covered.
- the units that I have right now are Integra Research RDV-1 (($1000/$3000), Classe DVD-1($1300/$3500), Toshiba SD-1600 ($20/$250), Toshiba SD-3950 ($NA/$80) The prices are (NEW/USED).
3) Identical cables running into the integrated amplifier (Audiomat Solfege Reference).
4) I will listen to the music until I can identify which DVD player is playing.
5) The wife will click the mute switch and do the following: 1) She will change the volume knob or she will leave it the same. 2) She will change the input switch or she will leave it the same. In both cases, I will not have any idea of whether she changed volume or inputs or whether they stayed the same. I also won't have any idea if she changed one variable and left the other as is.
6) After an interval of between 10-15 seconds, the wife will turn the volume back on. This should eliminate any bias that there is any discrepancy in the synchronization of the units.

I would appreciate any help in trying to find a SOLUTION if this methodology is deemed poor. Comments that YOU MUST level match to within .1dB are not useful by themselves. A useful comment would be "this is how you attain good level matching by doing these easy steps...."

Your muting duration should eliminate sync problems.
Changing volumes randomly to random discs may or may not be an issue. Hard to say without testing this methodology itself. Try it. It seems that you have a willing assistant? :D

Your muting duration will hinder your acoustic memory for small details between the two if there are any.

Not playing and comparing the same musical passages will hinder you as well.

Do a large number of trials, at least 20. She shoule either flip a coin or find a random table or the decimal digits of pi, they are random, as either even or odd and swith to A or B.

Make sure you keep a score card and your wife does too. Compare after the test only.
No, I have not compared CD players DBT; no reason for me to do.

[996turbo]

No, I have not compared CD players DBT; no reason for me to do.
__________________

All the more reason to get together.

Only a fool follows

[skeptic]

CD players are easy to sync using the cue function buttons <- ->. However, with two cd players set for AB repeat, even that is not necessary. With both players set to A-B repeat the same passage, all you have to do is reset one to the beginning of the AB segment <<-- while the other is playing. It is not a fair test if the two players aren't playing the same passage IMO.

I don't know what this would prove. That one player sounds different from the other is about all you would likely discern. That one player sounded better but not necessarily more accurate playing one disc on one sound system. I still don't understand what conclusions you would come to.

Early players had gross distortions. All 16 and 18 bit units as late as 1989 reproduced violins with a metalic steely sound. The 20 bit Denon was far better in this respect. By 1991, the single bit chips changed all that. The JVC unit convinced me and by 1992, a portable Sony car Discman 808DK ($300) sounded just as good. Minor frequency response differences if they are at audible at all do not concern me.

The mechanical "quality" build of the expensive Denon player was not translated into greater reliability. It had nothing but problems almost from the start. Three trips to the nearest authroized service about 20 miles from home to repair the misaligned clamper arm were fruitless and in the end, I had to shim it myself to get it to work properly on all discs. The metal parts in the transport while heavy and well machined proved no better in use than the much cheaper plastic units. No other transport was as troublesome. The first time I disassembled it, I found out that most of the weight didn't come from the transport or a large oversized power transformer but sheet steel plates on the top and bottom. Like many other "early" high quality electronics products such as the $1500 Panasonic VCR I once owned, it served its purpose in its day but it won't be missed. It had a lot of useless features as well that I never used.

[magictooth]

Well, thanks to you three for your insights and anecdotes. I will try to do some A/Bs with your tips in mind. I'll leave the room for input and volume changes and I'll have the wife leave so that there's no visible cues at all. Of course we won't be comparing while the tests are going on - only afterwards.

[Thomas_A]

As a first try, it would not be nessecary to move from the room during the trial. If you sit in the sofa/chair and state the commands, e.g. switch:

And your wife lowers the volume to zero make the switch from CD to Tuner input and raise volume again until you say "stop". She can adjust the volume if you say higher or lower, but it is important that you make the choices, not she.

At the next command "switch" from you, she repeat the procedure but switch bac to CD. And this can continue for some time, until you write down what is on "CD" and on "Tuner". You can make notes during the time so you don't mix up the inputs and are free to listen for how long time you want.

When you leave the room, that is the signal for your wife to switch cables according to a random scheme. When she is ready, trial number 2 starts.



T

[mtrycraft]

No, I have not compared CD players DBT; no reason for me to do.
__________________

All the more reason to get together.

Only a fool follows


Why, for what reason? You have credible evidence that there is a need? No, your story is not credible evidence of anything, just a unreliable story.

[996turbo]

All I am saying Mtrycraft is that personal experience is important. One can read things in books and take them for fact. Have you ever experienced things in real life that were different than what you read or expected? Think about all the advancements in life that would never have occured if we blindly followed. I have read how wonderful or on the contrary bad something could be but was suprised when I finally experienced it.

All I am asking is for you to open your eyes and at least try and experience what the other side is experiencing. You may be suprised, or is that what you are concerned about?

I tell my 6 year old daughter all the time to try something that you do not like you may be suprised and like it. You know what sometimes she does and sometimes she does not but at least she has the experience to prove that she did or did not.

[Thomas_A]

996turbo,

likewise, experience from many open and blind tests would be experience too, don't you agree? And "obvious" differences that disappear as soon as the test shifts to blind conditions, that is experience isn't it?

And there are many people shifting from one side to the other when they have been conducting such tests, and realizing that they previously had been imagining the differences they heard during open conditions. That is being open minded isn't it?

To have "open eyes" means performing critical tests (sighted and blinded) and draw the conclusion from their results. The work by Floyd E. Toole is a good starting point.

T

[okiemax]

996turbo,

likewise, experience from many open and blind tests would be experience too, don't you agree? And "obvious" differences that disappear as soon as the test shifts to blind conditions, that is experience isn't it?

And there are many people shifting from one side to the other when they have been conducting such tests, and realizing that they previously had been imagining the differences they heard during open conditions. That is being open minded isn't it?

To have "open eyes" means performing critical tests (sighted and blinded) and draw the conclusion from their results. The work by Floyd E. Toole is a good starting point.

T

Excuse me for butting in, but how do you know "there are many people shifting from one side to the other." Do you have a number in mind, and if so, how did you arrive at it?

[996turbo]

I could not agree more. One must perform the test to know if a difference occurs. I personally did a test a few weeks ago comparing a Wadia 861 to my SCD-777es. It was a sighted test but we did level match as it is possible on my Spectral. We found that the Wadia sounded better than SACD. This was a suprise and not what was expected.

All I am asking for is for some people to open their eyes and see for themselves.

[Thomas_A]

okiemax,

many of my HiFi friends including me made a lot of experimenting and tweaking when we were younger, claiming better performance. If you want % per year in the world I cannot give any.

T

[okiemax]

okiemax,

many of my HiFi friends including me made a lot of experimenting and tweaking when we were younger, claiming better performance. If you want % per year in the world I cannot give any.

T

Maybe you and your friends were working with mid-fi gear which wasn't responsive to tweeking. The listening rooms also could have been limiting factors. I use an old Kenwood reciever with Rado Shack speakers in my computer room, which is not the best size and shape for good sound, and this system is not responsive to anything I have tried other than changes in speaker placement.

[mtrycraft]

All I am saying Mtrycraft is that personal experience is important.


Not if it is based on flawed and unreliable testing protocols. Might as well not have them; has no meaning. No extra credit.

One can read things in books and take them for fact. Have you ever experienced things in real life that were different than what you read or expected?

All depends on the book. Magic books? Fiction? Or real science books?

Think about all the advancements in life that would never have occured if we blindly followed.

Think of all the time wasted trying to reinvent the wheel.

I have read how wonderful or on the contrary bad something could be but was suprised when I finally experienced it.

Totally situational. Maybe it was placebo at work.

All I am asking is for you to open your eyes and at least try and experience what the other side is experiencing.

Oh, my eyes are very open. What others are experiencing have not been deomnstrated to be a fact as far as audible differences we are yalking about. So, those exepriences are only a singular reality, fantasy in another word.

You may be suprised, or is that what you are concerned about?

Not at all.

I tell my 6 year old daughter all the time to try something that you do not like you may be suprised and like it.

Ah, this isn't a dislike of tastes, or anything. This is something that can be tested properly which you have not, so your claims are baseless.

[mtrycraft]

It was a sighted test but we did level match .


Hence it is unreliable and has no meaning for anyone.

[Thomas_A]

okiemax,

or maybe midfi gear does not need tweeking. Maybe some expensive units have flaws and need to be corrected. I've e.g. read about people buying expensive players that do not accept all CDs. Sent back several times for correction, but still not accepting discs. Discs that are easily accepted on cheap players. How about older Wadia and Pioneer players, adding high frequency distortion to "extend" the frequency response which was not there on the CD? Green pens that did nothing? Cables that do nothing except when there is very long cables and passive units (impedance match)? The list can be made long.

T

[skeptic]

Mid Fi is a derogatory term invented by extremely stupid snobs who want to justify the outrageous prices they paid for equipment that may be no better in many, most, or all usable respects than far cheaper equipment. One guy's ultra high end is another's mid fi. The ultra high end of today is the mid fi of tomorrow and the mid fi of today was the cutting edge of yesterday. The rationale for buying much of the most expensive equipment on the market has nothing to do with usable performance. People who think that there is a lot which can't be measured and therefore doesn't show up in tests and specifications are mostly kidding themselves. Such differences if and when they exist are generally extremely subtle if they can be heard at all. And what you consider high end, I consider a joke. Examples? A $10,000 audio amplifier that can only produce 10 watts of power. A pair of $3000 loudspeakers which cannot reproduce the lowest octave or two of audible sound. A phonograph cartridge that costs hundreds of dollars and needs 1 1/2 grams of force to track most records. Cables costing hundreds of dollars for which not one shred of evidence exists that they perform any better than Home Depot wire except in the fantasies of the guys who bought it. To me that's all Low Fi. Low Finance that is. A total waste of money on useless oversold junk. See, it's a matter of perspective.

[996turbo]

You are correct in saying that everybodyhas their perspective. I have some of that expensive junk you are talking about. What you fail to realize that if I feel I got good value out of it who else cares. I have yet to have a person sit in my chair and not be amazed. Alot of them have systems. They always say man I thought what I had was good but this stuff is amazing.
I did not buy any of my gear to imnpress others though I bought it for myself. I am proud of it and when people ask about it I demonstarte its abilities. I rarely tell people what it cost as I feel that it really does not matter to get into that discussion with them. I usually just say I bought alot of it used and got pretty good deals on it.
I would like to know how you know what my rationale in buying this gear was when you obviously have never bought it yourself. I would prefer you keep opinions about other peoples motives to yourself. AS if you have never walked in my shoes how do you know what went through my mind when I bought that gear.
There are alot of fine things in life that people can spend their recreational dollars on. I personally think boats are a waste of time and money. I do not tell my friends with 30k or more in a bass or sking boat that they are kidding themselves that that bass boat will help them catch any more fish.
Or how about an expensive piece of Jewelry am i a fool for going to Tiffany's and spending money there when I could go to walmart and buy a piece of jewelry there.
I know there is a difference and I am not kidding myself. The vast majority of people who have experienced a true Hi end system are impressed. You are talking about inteligent and affluent people who buy these systems. Do you think they got to where they are with out having a concept of value. The people who buy that gear are the movers and shakers of society they did not get ther by kidding themselves.

[Resident Loser]

...of only adding to your opinion of me but, are you really that naive?

First, you take all this bull far too personally. I don't see where skeptic singled you out. As I have stated previously, there is a "stereo"type that exhibits the traits he alludes to.

Friends say a lot of nice things to friends, because that's what they do.

There was no comment on YOUR rationale, he was speaking to the type...you however have made an unwarranted assumption about him, stating: "...you obviously have never bought it yourself.." You don't know that about him or anyone else who posts here...Ever hear "been there, done that"...that pesky thing called experience. I know...I've "been there, done that"...Excellent performance can be had for a fraction of the cost of high-end stuff, from what the "type" would call "mid-fi" gear.

Anyone can choose to spend whatever on their particular hobby, that's a given...but I have some news for you, better gear CAN improve your skills; fishing, photography, hunting or whatever and I don't think audio falls in line with the same interactive mechanics required. The former can produce definitive, demonstrable, physical results...can the same be said for the latter?

If you could purchase the same watch or ring or? at Wal-Mart, buying it at Tiffany's would simply be an ego-stroke to provide you with bragging rights and a little blue box complete with white ribbon.

"...The vast majority of people who have experienced a true Hi end system are impressed..."

Highly debateable on any number of levels...

"...You are talking about inteligent and affluent people who buy these systems..."

Again, highly debateable...

"...Do you think they got to where they are with out having a concept of value..."

Quite honestly and in many cases, my answer is: YES! A great many wear their wealth on their sleeves...Value? Some folks love to show off, and only the "best" will do...

"...The people who buy that gear are the movers and shakers of society they did not get ther by kidding themselves..."

Actually, they probably "got there" by being cheap, slimey, SOBs.. and why are they thought of as "movers and shakers"? Could outward appearances play any part?

jimHJJ(...simply beaing a realist...)

[996turbo]

I understand where you are coming from I know he was not speaking directly to me only a group. I was just speaking out as a member of that group.
You make alot of presumptions in your post as I did I guess that is a downfall of both sides in any discussion.
I have never met you and would reserve judgement on you until I have experienced you in person. I am sure you are a very interesting person and not how you come across occasionally on this board(as I would think you would say of me)
I will reserve my opinions on things until I have experienced them.
I guess it is like a person who never votes in an election and then *****es about who is in office or what is going on.

[okiemax]

Mid Fi is a derogatory term invented by extremely stupid snobs who want to justify the outrageous prices they paid for equipment that may be no better in many, most, or all usable respects than far cheaper equipment. One guy's ultra high end is another's mid fi. The ultra high end of today is the mid fi of tomorrow and the mid fi of today was the cutting edge of yesterday. The rationale for buying much of the most expensive equipment on the market has nothing to do with usable performance. People who think that there is a lot which can't be measured and therefore doesn't show up in tests and specifications are mostly kidding themselves. Such differences if and when they exist are generally extremely subtle if they can be heard at all. And what you consider high end, I consider a joke. Examples? A $10,000 audio amplifier that can only produce 10 watts of power. A pair of $3000 loudspeakers which cannot reproduce the lowest octave or two of audible sound. A phonograph cartridge that costs hundreds of dollars and needs 1 1/2 grams of force to track most records. Cables costing hundreds of dollars for which not one shred of evidence exists that they perform any better than Home Depot wire except in the fantasies of the guys who bought it. To me that's all Low Fi. Low Finance that is. A total waste of money on useless oversold junk. See, it's a matter of perspective.

The term "mid-fi" may be derogatory if you feel a need to be defensive about owning audio gear you suspect is mid-fi. I certainly didn't mean to be derogatory in using the term. At times, mid-fi gear was all I owned, and I didn't feel that made me less of a person. I still use mid-fi gear in my computer room. It's much better than what came with the computer, which I would call low-fi, if I can use that term without being accused of snobbery.

Your seeing "mid-fi" in print launched you into a tirade. I don't understand why you react with such strong emotion to the fact that some people believe they can improve their listening enjoyment by buying better components. In what way have they harmed you?

[Resident Loser]

...looking at things from my own perspective, them dang biases are obviously at work...however, what seemed presumptive on my part?

jimHJJ(...just curious...)

[okiemax]

okiemax,

or maybe midfi gear does not need tweeking. Maybe some expensive units have flaws and need to be corrected. I've e.g. read about people buying expensive players that do not accept all CDs. Sent back several times for correction, but still not accepting discs. Discs that are easily accepted on cheap players. How about older Wadia and Pioneer players, adding high frequency distortion to "extend" the frequency response which was not there on the CD? Green pens that did nothing? Cables that do nothing except when there is very long cables and passive units (impedance match)? The list can be made long.

T

I gave the mid-fi explanation as a possibility. I don't know what you heard. And I'm not saying you need to spend more to get greater enjoyment. If you are happy with what you have, why spend more? Unless you are a child or are insane, you have the right to make your own decisions. This is something many naysayers on this Forum can't seem to accept.

I

[Resident Loser]

...I believe you are quite mistaken...In this arena, the term is usually used as one of derision and is hardly the result of some sort of self-loathing, contrary to your opinion.

I, for the most part, usually use the term as sarcasm in correspondence with the "golden-eared" among us who use it, with regularity, as some sort of arbiter of hearing ability...

One can achieve excellent results with well-chosen "mid-if" stuff and for a fraction of the price of the "salon" gear, new or used.

"...Your seeing "mid-fi" in print launched you into a tirade..."

Hardly a tirade IMO, seems a reasonable estimate of the genre, albeit a startlingly frank one...

"...I don't understand why you react with such strong emotion to the fact that some people believe they can improve their listening enjoyment by buying better components. ..."

"...believe they can improve their listening enjoyment..." Which opens a whole 'nother can of worms...and brings us right back to square one, beliefs and facts may be mutually exclusive and there is no accounting for what may seem to "improve their listening enjoyment"...

" In what way have they harmed you?"

That's not the point, skep and the rest of "us" know better...however there are those who don't!

jimHJJ(...both sides of the story and all that...)

[996turbo]

"Quite honestly and in many cases, my answer is: YES! A great many wear their wealth on their sleeves...Value? Some folks love to show off, and only the "best" will do..."

"Actually, they probably "got there" by being cheap, slimey, SOBs.. and why are they thought of as "movers and shakers"? Could outward appearances play any part?"


I would think as you are not that person you are presuming that the reasons above are fact.

[Resident Loser]

...these statements are based on firsthand observation...empirical evidence if you will...

I had asked earlier if you were that naive...

jimHJJ(...I think I may have my answer...)

[DMK]

[QUOTE=Resident Loser]...these statements are based on firsthand observation...empirical evidence if you will...QUOTE]

Firsthand observation... a major "nay-nay" of the naysayer camp, nay?

[okiemax]

...I believe you are quite mistaken...In this arena, the term is usually used as one of derision and is hardly the result of some sort of self-loathing, contrary to your opinion.

I, for the most part, usually use the term as sarcasm in correspondence with the "golden-eared" among us who use it, with regularity, as some sort of arbiter of hearing ability...

One can achieve excellent results with well-chosen "mid-if" stuff and for a fraction of the price of the "salon" gear, new or used.

"...Your seeing "mid-fi" in print launched you into a tirade..."

Hardly a tirade IMO, seems a reasonable estimate of the genre, albeit a startlingly frank one...

"...I don't understand why you react with such strong emotion to the fact that some people believe they can improve their listening enjoyment by buying better components. ..."

"...believe they can improve their listening enjoyment..." Which opens a whole 'nother can of worms...and brings us right back to square one, beliefs and facts may be mutually exclusive and there is no accounting for what may seem to "improve their listening enjoyment"...

" In what way have they harmed you?"

That's not the point, skep and the rest of "us" know better...however there are those who don't!

jimHJJ(...both sides of the story and all that...)

The term "mid-fi" is not in any dictionairy that I can find. Regardless of how it might usually be used on this Forum, the word in itself clearly is not derogatory. A Google search confirmed the word usually is used to describe a level of quality, and that is the way I used it. Certainly, "mid-fi" could be used in a deragatory way, such as in .....

Ignore the advice of the meter readers, they only know mid-fi.

Hey tin ears, ditch that mid-fi garbage and get some real gear!

Double blind yourself, you mid-fi moron!

I would expect statements such as these to provoke an angry response. However, I only used "mid-fi" in reference to performance differences in components. Perhaps the mere suggestion of performance differences provokes anger.

Although "mid-fi" may not have a dictionary definition, "tirade" does, and here is the one from Cambridge Dictionaries Online .... "a long angry speech expressing strong disapproval." Sketic's speech was long, angry, and expressed disapproval. And his calling people stupid certainly is derogatory.

Why not address the reason for the anger underlying Skeptic's tirade? Anger usually stems from fear of being hurt or from having been hurt. Obviously, he has strong feelings about isteners who claim to hear differences in components. I'll ask the question again. In what way have they harmed you?

[996turbo]

You used the term probably. From our past discussions I will assume you are aware of the definition of that word. You are casting a stereotype. You can not make that broad of a comment about a single group.

Certainly you are not so nieve to believe that all people among a group are the same.

And once again why do you have to come off like such an @$$.

[skeptic]

I have never said that some equipment isn't better than other equipment. Exactly the opposite. However, the term mid fi would make that distinction based on an artificial caste system and the term was invented for exactly the same reason that all caste systems are invented. Caste systems exist to promote the notion that worth is not an objective measurable attribute but is related to the mystique imbued into certain products to elevate their position far beyond their intrinsic worth at the expense of better products which do not have the same cache. Most so called high end audio equipment today falls into that category. Even where so called high end equipment outperforms so called mid fi equipment, it usually does it very marginally. The only thing that isn't marginal is the vast difference in price. The good news is that the so called mid fi of yesteryear is not in great demand because of ignorance and therefore much of it is available on the used market for far less than it would otherwise be worth.

[E-Stat]

...most expensive equipment on the market has nothing to do with usable performance.
Please define "usable performance". I've yet to hear a system better than mine where the audible improvements were not "usable".

rw

[Thomas_A]

Please define "usable performance". I've yet to hear a system better than mine where the audible improvements were not "usable".

rw

Define your view of audible improvement. Is it to reproduce the chain without audible coloration of the signal, or to your own personal taste? (Since it is impossible to reproduce the exact situation of every recording studio in the world, the perfect recreation of the signal as it was heard in the recording studio is not possible.)

[skeptic]

"I've yet to hear a system better than mine where the audible improvements were not "usable"."

Why don't you define better. Does better mean more expensive? Does it mean those guys over at Stereophile Magazine gave it a higher rating, A minus instead of B plus.

What is usable? A turntable with lower wow, flutter, and rumble is usable improvement up to a point. Once those are below the threshold of audibility, further improvements no longer matters. When rumble is minus 100 db, it won't sound any quieter if it gets down to minus 1000 db.

How about a cartridge which tracks at lower pressure and less distortion. That's usable. A lot of cartridges track at a gram and a half to two grams, have a high frequency peak, are hand made in small batches so no two are quite alike, and cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Do you call that usable? I don't. Some even have bodies made of wood, the worst conceivable material for manufacturing phonograph cartridges.

How about amplifiers which put out a few miserable watts so that the user is restricted to about three percent of the loudspeakers on the market yet these amplifiers cost thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. Is that usable performance? Or what about amplifiers that cost thousands that don't offer any benefit in terms of distortion, frequency response, bandwidth, or power output over amplifiers which only cost hundreds.

How about a $3000 pair of loudspeakers consisting of one or two 8" woofers and a 1" tweeter in a pair of 200 pound cabinets which can't reproduce the bottom two octaves of audible sound and if you say Mr. manufacturer what about it, he tells you to spend another $1500 on a subwoofer and figure out yourself how to integrate it with the rest of the system. What kind of crap is that?

Why does this stuff sell? Because it has cache. It's high up on the rank of "recommended equipment" in some Audio geek magazine. It's got prestige in the caste system which puts it above "mid fi." Funny thing is, you'd think if it was half as good as people claim it was, they wouldn't constantly be coming here to find out what kind of cables to buy because when you put it all together it sounds too bright or doesn't have enough of this or too much of that. And not one control incorporated by the manufacturer of any of it to help the end user adjust for unknown variables it will confront in its installation. Not a tone control, not a tweeter or midrange level control. Just a bunch of little spikes to rip up your carpet or scratch up your oak flooring. For an industry that has come so far, the state of the art in many ways is pathetic. And why? Because many of the people who buy this stuff have lost all sense of perspective. They know what everything costs, but have no idea of what it's worth. That's also a matter of perspective.

[DMK]

[QUOTE=Thomas_A]Define your view of audible improvement. Is it to reproduce the chain without audible coloration of the signal, or to your own personal taste? QUOTE]

That question has been posed before and it always makes me think and/or wonder. The answer to it is, of course, both! In a perfect world, components that are measured as transparent would also sound good and those that sound good would measure properly. The fact that neither is an absolute true statement across the board makes me wonder if sonic neutrality/transparency is really what I'm after with a stereo rig.

I've listened to systems that measure nearly perfectly. With even stellar recordings, they sound flat and distorted - nothing at all like live music, which I go hear at every opportunity. I'm aware of the length of sonic memory but I believe that once one has the sound of an instrument in his head i.e the sound of a piano, guitar, violin, that this sound is ingrained - at least his hearing of it. These perfectly measuring systems are so far away from the sound of live music (let's say, a solo violin for simplicity) that I would not own one as my main rig. I'm not just talking about cheap receivers with their infintesimal THD numbers, I'm also talking basic solid state from the likes of Krell and Classe, to name two. Tubed amps, which measure worse, sound much closer to a live instrument, whether is because of their measured distortion or in spite of it. Vinyl, also, communicates this sound much better than CD in most cases.

It's not enough to offer an either/or - either transparent or euphonic. There needs to be a third choice as an audible improvement in MY system occurs when my system takes a closer step towards the sound of live music. It's a subjective ideology, of course, but so is music itself. It's when I try to place music and its reproduction into neat, quantifiable categories that make sense on paper, that I lose sight of the enjoyment of it. My current system has been in place for several years with the exception of my phono cartridge. When it is time to upgrade, it's not going to be the component with the best measurements that I purchase - unless reality somehow meets theory and it's the best sounding piece!

[DMK]

[QUOTE=skeptic
"Why don't you define better. Does better mean more expensive? Does it mean those guys over at Stereophile Magazine gave it a higher rating, A minus instead of B plus."

With a few exceptions, I seriously doubt anyone at Stereophile has heard the components I own and certainly none of their writers have heard the whole shebang together.

"What is usable? A turntable with lower wow, flutter, and rumble is usable improvement up to a point. Once those are below the threshold of audibility, further improvements no longer matters. When rumble is minus 100 db, it won't sound any quieter if it gets down to minus 1000 db."

True but there are other factors that make turntables sonically different from one another.

"How about a cartridge which tracks at lower pressure and less distortion. That's usable. A lot of cartridges track at a gram and a half to two grams, have a high frequency peak, are hand made in small batches so no two are quite alike, and cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Do you call that usable? I don't. "

I don't, either. Consequently, I only enjoy MC cartridges that do NOT have high frequency peaks. The only cartridge I've listened to with much regularity that tracks at very low pressure sounds very flat and unlifelike i.e more distortion from a sonic viewpoint. There's that personal taste again.

"How about amplifiers which put out a few miserable watts so that the user is restricted to about three percent of the loudspeakers on the market yet these amplifiers cost thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. Is that usable performance? Or what about amplifiers that cost thousands that don't offer any benefit in terms of distortion, frequency response, bandwidth, or power output over amplifiers which only cost hundreds."

Amps with a "few miserable watts" may sound more like live music. Wattage in and of itself isn't "usable performance", at least not in my lexicon. Some of the foulest sounding amps out there have more power than most of us would ever need. Conversely, some of the finest sounding amps have 25 watts or less - which consequently is more than I need. It's all about sound.

"How about a $3000 pair of loudspeakers consisting of one or two 8" woofers and a 1" tweeter in a pair of 200 pound cabinets which can't reproduce the bottom two octaves of audible sound and if you say Mr. manufacturer what about it, he tells you to spend another $1500 on a subwoofer and figure out yourself how to integrate it with the rest of the system. What kind of crap is that?"

How about the myriad of sub-$1000 loudspeakers (or even more expensive) that CAN give you the bottom two octaves but sound like cats fighting in the treble, or like singers are holding megaphones in the midrange, or bass that hangs in your room and sounds like thumpy syrup? Based on your posts over the years, you buy components based on sound rather than pure numbers. So what's with THIS post???

"And not one control incorporated by the manufacturer of any of it to help the end user adjust for unknown variables it will confront in its installation. Not a tone control, not a tweeter or midrange level control. " .[/QUOTE]

Agreed. The argument is that we have to suffer through bad recordings. The problem is we may also have to suffer with certain anomalies in the room. Some user adjustments are often necessary.

[E-Stat]

Why don't you define better.
Brings me closer to the musical event.


Does better mean more expensive?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I don't look at pricetags first.


Does it mean those guys over at Stereophile Magazine gave it a higher rating, A minus instead of B plus.
I don't use their categories as a point of reference. I use my own experience.


What is usable? A turntable with lower wow, flutter, and rumble is usable improvement up to a point.
True. That point, however, is significantly higher than you will find with your Dual. I find larger differences in the tonearm - cartridge combination. As in ones that create a rock stable image with subterranean bass and clear, extended high frequencies.



How about amplifiers which put out a few miserable watts so that the user is restricted to about three percent of the loudspeakers on the market yet these amplifiers cost thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars. Is that usable performance?
Since I am not a fan of horns, I have not heard any of the SET amps. Not my thing.


Or what about amplifiers that cost thousands that don't offer any benefit in terms of distortion, frequency response, bandwidth, or power output over amplifiers which only cost hundreds.
I'm not interested in those. I am, however, interested in those that typically do cost thousands of dollars that leave the "hundreds of dollars" category in the dust in terms of image specificity, timbral accuracy, and power.


How about a $3000 pair of loudspeakers consisting of one or two 8" woofers and a 1" tweeter in a pair of 200 pound cabinets which can't reproduce the bottom two octaves of audible sound and if you say Mr. manufacturer what about it, he tells you to spend another $1500 on a subwoofer and figure out yourself how to integrate it with the rest of the system. What kind of crap is that?
Good question. I'm not a fan of box speakers at that budget.


Funny thing is, you'd think if it was half as good as people claim it was, they wouldn't constantly be coming here to find out what kind of cables to buy because when you put it all together it sounds too bright or doesn't have enough of this or too much of that.
Or choice "B", like any high performance machine, one can reach higher levels of audible performance with matched components.


And not one control incorporated by the manufacturer of any of it to help the end user adjust for unknown variables it will confront in its installation. Not a tone control, not a tweeter or midrange level control.
Here again you are not citing the components I choose. My 'stats have a high frequency level control on the transformers. The best speakers I've heard, the Alon Grand Exoticas, offer level controls via the active crossover.

There are a number of high end components that don't match your rant.

rw

[E-Stat]

Define your view of audible improvement. Is it to reproduce the chain without audible coloration of the signal, or to your own personal taste? (Since it is impossible to reproduce the exact situation of every recording studio in the world, the perfect recreation of the signal as it was heard in the recording studio is not possible.)
You have a mastery for stating the obvious. I have, however, participated in one very nice Telarc recording by the ASO. I do know how that sounded. I know how that hall sounds having been there many a time.

To an extent, the answer to your leading question is some of both: I seek accuracy to the original - subject to my listening priorities given an imperfect world. I will happily give up some performance at the frequency extremes to achieve the most natural midrange.

rw

[Thomas_A]

E-Stat,

one problem with your subjective method is that IF there are true audible differences in your tested players, there is no way you know if you are preferring players with some flaws that are otherwise compensating for any other flaw in the system (e.g. treble level). Thus claiming any superiority of certain expensive players with differences in frequency response may just be plain wrong when it comes to reproducing the original signal.

[E-Stat]

E-Stat,

one problem with your subjective method is that IF there are true audible differences in your tested players, there is no way you know if you are preferring players with some flaws that are otherwise compensating for any other flaw in the system (e.g. treble level). Thus claiming any superiority of certain expensive players with differences in frequency response may just be plain wrong when it comes to reproducing the original signal.
Indeed. I'm a firm believer in system matching and synergy. That is why I have posted details of my system (and my listening biases) so that a reader may put my comments in perspective. That is why the audio reviewers I respect compare a given component on more than one system or use more than one set of cables to get a feel for that component in a different environment. It is not perfect, but neither are "objective" measurements-only-on-test-tones based reviews.

rw

[Resident Loser]

...other than firsthand observation?

As we are often told re: cable synergies, science doesn't know eveyrthing...after all, there is, at this time, no test equipment to measure the operating parameters of obnoxious pr!ck$...

jimHJJ(...although a micrometer or calipers could be used to measure the thinness of skin...)

[996turbo]

There you go again Loser.

You talk about thin skins but you seem to be the one who makes the combative comments time and time again.

I ask you who is the obnoxious pr!ck?

Is ridicule the only tool you have available to you?

[Resident Loser]

...there are countless words and phrases in the English language which are innocent by themselves, but take on a completely different connotation when used in specific contexts...surely, I needn't explain THAT...

As I stated, IMO, a "tirade" it was not...It wasn't all that long and it wasn't all that angry..."frank" was the word I chose...Did it become a "tirade" to you when costs vs. performance issues were cited? Not nearly as farfetched as some "performance" and "improvement" claims I've witnessed...Also, I recall only "snobs" being referred to as "stupid"...

Anger? Wasn't it Dick Nixon who said something to the effect of " in order to be angry with someone, you have to respect them"? IMHO, he quite simply doesn't suffer fools easily...

In what way have they harmed you?

None. Again, that's not the point. In fact, I could give neither feather nor fig about how anyone spends their money...most have more money than brains...however, anecdotal postings should and will continue to be treated as they have thusfar...

jimHJJ(...both sides of the story and all that...)

[Thomas_A]

Indeed. I'm a firm believer in system matching and synergy. That is why I have posted details of my system (and my listening biases) so that a reader may put my comments in perspective. That is why the audio reviewers I respect compare a given component on more than one system or use more than one set of cables to get a feel for that component in a different environment. It is not perfect, but neither are "objective" measurements-only-on-test-tones based reviews.

rw

I think we should limit ourselves to the active electronic devices and the loudspeakers/rooms in this discussion. But in essence your philosophy dictates that any player, regardless of price or performance, could be a high-end player using a suitable "compensating" (or "EQ") surrounding equipment?!

[Resident Loser]

...subtle sarcasm IS lost on you!

"...you talk about thin skins but you seem to be the one who makes the combative comments time and time again..."

That statement actually made sense to you before, during and now after you've posted it? "Combative"? I rarely engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed...

I ask you who is the obnoxious pr!ck?

And I ask you, "Are we not men?"...or perhaps "You want flies with that?"...

Is ridicule the only tool you have available to you?

No, but it's right there on the top tray of my toolbox and easy to get at and I always use the right tool for the job at hand and...

jimHJJ(...now lessee, where was your other post what needed some re-toolin'?...)

[Resident Loser]

You posted: "...The people who buy that gear are the movers and shakers of society they did not get ther(sic) by kidding themselves..."

And I responded: " Actually they probably "got there" by being cheap, slimy SOBs..."

"...You used the term probably..."

Yes, I certainly did, as it is well within the realm of reasonable thought that most did not aquire the "M&S" status by being nice guys...just as most politicians get to where they're going with the help of "connected" friends and/or relatives and how some "celebrities" are accorded near "god-like" status for no reason other than the way they look, dress or the cars they drive..."outward appearances" ring a bell?

"...From our past discussions I will assume you are aware of the definition of that word..."

Yes I am...that's why I used it...

"...You are casting a stereotype..."

And I suppose you are of the opinion that they(stereotypes) have absolutely no basis in fact?

"...You can not make that broad of a comment about a single group..."

Yes I can...I just did and will probably do so again...

"...Certainly you are not so nieve(sic) to believe that all people among a group are the same..."

That would be unfair...but you have to start somewhere...

"...And once again why do you have to come off like such an @$$..."

Probably because of your blinkered viewpoint...

jimHJJ(...but then again, that's just me...)

[okiemax]

...there are countless words and phrases in the English language which are innocent by themselves, but take on a completely different connotation when used in specific contexts...surely, I needn't explain THAT...

As I stated, IMO, a "tirade" it was not...It wasn't all that long and it wasn't all that angry..."frank" was the word I chose...Did it become a "tirade" to you when costs vs. performance issues were cited? Not nearly as farfetched as some "performance" and "improvement" claims I've witnessed...Also, I recall only "snobs" being referred to as "stupid"...

Anger? Wasn't it Dick Nixon who said something to the effect of " in order to be angry with someone, you have to respect them"? IMHO, he quite simply doesn't suffer fools easily...

In what way have they harmed you?

None. Again, that's not the point. In fact, I could give neither feather nor fig about how anyone spends their money...most have more money than brains...however, anecdotal postings should and will continue to be treated as they have thusfar...

jimHJJ(...both sides of the story and all that...)

Now that you are the official lexicographer for the AR Forums, I hope we will be seeing an AR Forums Dictionary soon. It may be difficult dividing your time between this project, and your full-time job of telling people what they can and can't hear, but an authoritive reference is long overdue. I trust other members will be eager to contribute their own unique interpretations of word meanings.

You say audiophiles haven't harmed you, and in reference to their buying expensive components, you say "I could give neither feather nor fig about how anyone spends their money." If you haven't been harmed and don't fear being harmed by audiophiles, and you don't care how they spend, what motivates your attacks on their anecdotal postings?

[Resident Loser]

"...the official lexicographer for the AR Forums..."

Like the judge says "...ignorance of the law is no excuse..."

Your unfamiliarity with the connotation of the phrase used is your problem, no one elses...your feeble attempt at sarcasm is just that...

"...telling people what they can and can't hear..."

I said this? When was that? I always tell folks to listen for themselves...but, to be aware of the potential biases involved. Also, I try to familiarize them with the laws of diminishing returns and the perils of deception from without...I make no claims since I cannot replicate all the variables involved in each unique situation...

"...unique interpretations of word meanings..."

Whose?

"...what motivates your attacks on their anecdotal postings?..."

Your choice of the word "attacks" speaks volumes...Reread the paragraph beginning with "I said this?"

jimHJJ(...pay particular attention to the "I make no claims" part...)

[E-Stat]

I think we should limit ourselves to the active electronic devices and the loudspeakers/rooms in this discussion.
Isn't a CD player an active device? I find their static measurements next to useless with providing useful information as to how they sound. Although the audible performance has changed significantly since their introduction, the basic specs are essentially the same.


But in essence your philosophy dictates that any player, regardless of price or performance, could be a high-end player using a suitable "compensating" (or "EQ") surrounding equipment?!
No, you missed my point. Going back to my original issue, "high performance" to me is what returns the highest musical fidelity - as determined by resolution, soundstaging, timbral reproduction, etc. After two decades, the engineers FINALLY figured out how to fix jitter problems and other symptoms of digitalis. It may well be that the differences that remain are simply due to the analog stage performance and vibration control. Skeptic talks about high volume 10 cent opamps. I've yet to hear a good ten cent preamp. Yes, the recordings aren't absolute. Yes, various components can and do affect the end product frequency response. Fine. The system reference is for others to gauge the environment in which it is used. The kinds of qualitative aspects I hear differently from unit to unit do not have to do with frequency response. You have pointed out that my GamuT is down 1 db at 20khz. Given the lack of last octave content in most music, I would suspect that makes little difference to me. Perhaps someone who REALLY likes to listen to a lot of cymbal crashes on exceptional recordings might hear a difference. What I AM saying is that I will forgive such a subtle roll off in order to achieve improved response elsewhere.

rw

[okiemax]

"...the official lexicographer for the AR Forums..."

Like the judge says "...ignorance of the law is no excuse..."

Your unfamiliarity with the connotation of the phrase used is your problem, no one elses...your feeble attempt at sarcasm is just that...

"...telling people what they can and can't hear..."

I said this? When was that? I always tell folks to listen for themselves...but, to be aware of the potential biases involved. Also, I try to familiarize them with the laws of diminishing returns and the perils of deception from without...I make no claims since I cannot replicate all the variables involved in each unique situation...

"...unique interpretations of word meanings..."

Whose?

"...what motivates your attacks on their anecdotal postings?..."

Your choice of the word "attacks" speaks volumes...Reread the paragraph beginning with "I said this?"

jimHJJ(...pay particular attention to the "I make no claims" part...)

Did I mistake you for a naysayer?

[Thomas_A]

Isn't a CD player an active device? I find their static measurements next to useless with providing useful information as to how they sound. Although the audible performance has changed significantly since their introduction, the basic specs are essentially the same.

Yes, you mentioned cables in the system matching. Since cables are discussed in another forum, I would prefer to keep them aside. Static measurements do give a hint of the sound. Less treble can be heard if its enough down.

Additional dynamic measurements can be made too, and I would like to ask you what kind of measurements you would like to see that would reflect their sound? Again, there is no magic involved here, only electrical signals. Looking back at the converter spec of CD1, it's the Crystal 4390 from 1998 or so, same as used in e.g. the original Audio Analogue Paganini player. Regarding one-bit players, they also do have problems with reproducing perfect sin2 pulses, something that multibit players do better. Now mulibit players have quite some more cost due to expensive DAs, so they are seldom seen in CD players these days.


No, you missed my point. Going back to my original issue, "high performance" to me is what returns the highest musical fidelity - as determined by resolution, soundstaging, timbral reproduction, etc. After two decades, the engineers FINALLY figured out how to fix jitter problems and other symptoms of digitalis. It may well be that the differences that remain are simply due to the analog stage performance and vibration control. Skeptic talks about high volume 10 cent opamps. I've yet to hear a good ten cent preamp. Yes, the recordings aren't absolute. Yes, various components can and do affect the end product frequency response. Fine. The system reference is for others to gauge the environment in which it is used. The kinds of qualitative aspects I hear differently from unit to unit do not have to do with frequency response. You have pointed out that my GamuT is down 1 db at 20khz. Given the lack of last octave content in most music, I would suspect that makes little difference to me. Perhaps someone who REALLY likes to listen to a lot of cymbal crashes on exceptional recordings might hear a difference. What I AM saying is that I will forgive such a subtle roll off in order to achieve improved response elsewhere.

rw

Everything that comes out as an electrical signal can be measured and can be translated into resolution and soundstage. For example jitter problems, have you heard them and to what extent do you know they are jitter and not something else? The analog stage of the CD1 use OPA2134, a nowadays a quite widely used op-amp. Good spec, yes,and I use them too.

The 1 dB down at 20 kHz for sure has no implication since the audibility of 20 kHz pure tones are low to none. However, 0.3 dB at 10 kHz and 0.1 dB at 5 kHz are more of an issue, especially if these figures are combined with amps with similar drops. A system can then in total perhaps reach -3 dB at 20 kHz if one also add poor cable with 0.2-0.5 dB drop at 20 kHz. So surely, one can find and compose a system where the electrical response is down -3 dB at 20 kHz, -1 dB at 10 kHz and -0.3 dB at 5 kHz.

Also an overly bright system may "blind" your ears and cause a loss of focus of the musical content. If the treble is reduced then the focus on the music comes back. I've done the experiment lots of times by altering the treble response in the loudspeaker filter. There will be a change in the presentation of the details when using higher treble. It might sound detailed in the beginning but the mids will suffer.

So all I am saying, is that details and how the music is "presented" might very well be explained in the final frequency response domain, as well as the dispersion characteristics.

[E-Stat]

Yes, you mentioned cables in the system matching.
Not exactly. What I said was many reviewers vary ALL the related components other than the DUT to minimize any one factor from significantly affecting the outcome.


Static measurements do give a hint of the sound. Less treble can be heard if its enough down.
Agreed. I don't characterize 1 db down at 20 khz as significant.


I would like to ask you what kind of measurements you would like to see that would reflect their sound?
Ones that actually work.


Everything that comes out as an electrical signal can be measured and can be translated into resolution and soundstage.
Great. Which one(s) would they be? They certainly weren't known in the 70s when a host of truly dreadful solid state components came out. The Crown IC-150 preamp distortion spec was "essentially unmeasurable; IM less than 0.01%at rated output with IHF measurement (typically under 0.002%). Why did that preamp sound like fingernails on chaulkboard and my Audio Research SP-9 MKIII not? It's distortion spec is quite similar: "less than .01% at 2V RMS output. (Typically less than .005% in midband). Tell me why the ARC is vastly superior to the Crown. Even skeptic acknowledges that CDPs today as a whole sound much better than when they were introduced. Which specifications did the original engineeers miss? How do you know that they haven't missed any today?



So all I am saying, is that details and how the music is "presented" might very well be explained in the final frequency response domain, as well as the dispersion characteristics.
I suspect there is far more to the puzzle.

rw

[Thomas_A]

Not exactly. What I said was many reviewers vary ALL the related components other than the DUT to minimize any one factor from significantly affecting the outcome.


Agreed. I don't characterize 1 db down at 20 khz as significant.


Ones that actually work.


Great. Which one(s) would they be? They certainly weren't known in the 70s when a host of truly dreadful solid state components came out. The Crown IC-150 preamp distortion spec was "essentially unmeasurable; IM less than 0.01%at rated output with IHF measurement (typically under 0.002%). Why did that preamp sound like fingernails on chaulkboard and my Audio Research SP-9 MKIII not? It's distortion spec is quite similar: "less than .01% at 2V RMS output. (Typically less than .005% in midband). Tell me why the ARC is vastly superior to the Crown. Even skeptic acknowledges that CDPs today as a whole sound much better than when they were introduced. Which specifications did the original engineeers miss? How do you know that they haven't missed any today?



I suspect there is far more to the puzzle.

rw

First there has to be an established audible difference. IF one reach to this point, the explanation is in the measurements. If one does not find the difference, measure again. There are e.g. examples of low distorsion using the 1 kHz THD + noise test, but then the realisation that distorsion in the bass range was very high (which was missed in the standard test). See e.g.

http://www.pi.infn.it/%7Efederico/Immagini/Doner1.jpg

Once there is a high distorsion established the nature of the overtones (even or odd-ordered) will give quite different character to the sound. This is easily demonstrated. Se e.g.

http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/techtalk/dist_sound/index.htm

Another test is to test the frequency response and balance of the specific pot at different settings. See e.g.

http://www.pi.infn.it/%7Efederico/Immagini/trkpot.jpg

These are a few examples that are missing in many standard tests.

There is no "magic", the data is there in the signal.

T

[E-Stat]

Once there is a high distorsion established the nature of the overtones (even or odd-ordered) will give quite different character to the sound. This is easily demonstrated.
Fine. Now tell me exactly the audible result in terms of musical phenomena such as soundstaging and timbre these well known spectral distortion components create.


There is no "magic", the data is there in the signal.
What remains absent is the direct relevance to those differences. Do these distortion plots based upon steady state tones adequately mimic the highly dynamic and overtone rich nature of music? When did engineers finally figure out what you suggest is "easily demonstrated"? I'll ask again. What makes you think that we have all the answers today since history is littered with abject ignorance?

rw

[Thomas_A]

Fine. Now tell me exactly the audible result in terms of musical phenomena such as soundstaging and timbre these well known spectral distortion components create.


What remains absent is the direct relevance to those differences. Do these distortion plots based upon steady state tones adequately mimic the highly dynamic and overtone rich nature of music? When did engineers finally figure out what you suggest is "easily demonstrated"? I'll ask again. What makes you think that we have all the answers today since history is littered with abject ignorance?

rw

First you need to prove that there is a true audible difference from start. Then it is relevant to discuss these phenomena.

T

[E-Stat]

First you need to prove that there is a true audible difference from start. Then it is relevant to discuss these phenomena.
Evidently, you haven't had the distinct displeasure of hearing an IC-150. :D

rw

[Resident Loser]

...on one's definition of the term...which, as presented here by some, is usually incorrect or at very least oversimplified to allow things to get conveniently pigeon-holed...

It seems to be fair to say, middle ground is "listen and decide for yourself"...I share in that notion...I have always said tinkering is really the basis for this hobby. With the "sophistication"(and I use that word with some reservation) and complexity of today's circuitry, for the most part, gone are they days of swapping tubes, or tonearms, or cartridges etc. What used to be commonplace is now relegated to high-end tweakdom...shrouded in mystery, hoodoo and myth.

But I digress. One side relies on subjectivity and the other objectivity...I tend toward the latter. I do not dismiss things out-of-hand, I rely on experience coupled with limited knowledge of simple mechanics or physics or whatever...a great many things I read here and there, make absolutely no sense to me or are simply filled with hype, psuedo-science and wishful thinking. It's painfully obvious to a nimrod like myself and it simply amazes me how many are oblivious to such goings on.

jimHJJ(...but then again, that's just me...)