|
Post by peterk on May 2, 2013 17:32:52 GMT -5
I always recommend if at all possible for someone to try to borrow an amp with the power rating being considered and see if you notice an improvement. Even a high dollar one. I am a fan of Emotiva's products so don't take this wrong. For my old Elite VSX-49TX that is rated 130 watts per channel all driven and tests out around 120 watts all channels driven, adding the 200 watt XPA-3 netted me absolutely no detectable sound change. Even after running it powering the front 3 speakers for 2 -3 years and then disconnecting the amp and running just on the receiver recently gave no detectable audio difference. Surely on a receiver that only really produces 50-60 real watts I would expect to hear a change but not for the higher end units. Just don't automatically think adding an amp will give an improvement.
So my next comment will make no sense at all after what I just said above---- Now I am a big fan of MORE POWER and am considering purchasing an XPR-5 just for the heck of it to be future proof. :-) Logic has nothing to do with it. So if you want an amp, just purchase it!! Of coarse as soon as you get an XPA-5, you will be wondering if you should have purchased the XPR-5. Just warning you. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Golden Ear on May 2, 2013 17:42:51 GMT -5
^ To play devil's advocate, when I had my old 8ohm speakers powered by the UPA-7, they sounded excellent and I never felt that they would ever clip. When I upgraded to the XPA-3, I actually noticed NO sonic improvement whatsoever. I was kind of disappointed and happy at the same time at how wonderful the UPA-7 really was. You sholdn't because the topology and in house emotiva sound are all same from entry level to their top of the line. As you go higher in series, you get more power and dynamics for power hungry speakers. ;D
|
|
|
Post by billmac on May 2, 2013 18:01:37 GMT -5
Your point sounds good in theory, and I appreciate that you seem to be the lone ranger to champion the "only add an amp when needed" mantra, but even you yourself have not bothered testing your Denon equipment without an amp. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if memory serves the 4311 is rated as a 4ohm capable 140wpc AVR. There must be a reason you completely bypassed testing your speakers on the Denon. Why exactly was this? In this case, how exactly can you be so sure that at low level volumes (non-clipping as you stated), the performance would be identical to having an amp? By the way, you do a superb job of telling people their Emotiva equipment shouldn't (in theory) increase performance in their system. Which Emotiva gear do you personally have that you experienced no sonic improvements with? I had my BA A7200 amp long before I bought the 4311. I decided to use the 4311 as a prepro waiting for the arrival of the XMC-1. So that is why I have never run the 4311 without an amp. I know several people that are using the 4311 without external amps without issues. One actually sold his external amp as he felt it wasn't needed with his Salk 4 ohm speakers. This was after doing extensive comparisons with and without the amp. This is a person that measures the performance of his system in his room quite often. So he is well aware of how to do such comparisons. I have had numerous amps in my system over the years including Emotiva's LPA-1. I have compared past AVRs from Denon, Onkyo and Pioneer with and without external amps. What I found was the SQ was only effected when my system was pushed to very high volume levels. At lower to moderate volume levels I did not experience the SQ improvements you have mentioned. By the way I never said adding an Emotiva amp "shouldn't (in theory) increase performance in their system". What I'm saying is that I do not understand how the SQ can be effected so much by adding an external amp at lower to moderate volume levels. If one has an AVR that is not powering their speakers to the volumes they wish in say a large room then an Emotiva amp is most certainly going "increase the performance" of their system. As the "Lone Ranger" of advocating trying an AVR first before adding an external amp I have to ask you a simple question. What is so hard about trying an AVR first to see if it has sufficient power in ones system? Bill
|
|
|
Post by Golden Ear on May 2, 2013 19:31:48 GMT -5
Your point sounds good in theory, and I appreciate that you seem to be the lone ranger to champion the "only add an amp when needed" mantra, but even you yourself have not bothered testing your Denon equipment without an amp. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if memory serves the 4311 is rated as a 4ohm capable 140wpc AVR. There must be a reason you completely bypassed testing your speakers on the Denon. Why exactly was this? In this case, how exactly can you be so sure that at low level volumes (non-clipping as you stated), the performance would be identical to having an amp? By the way, you do a superb job of telling people their Emotiva equipment shouldn't (in theory) increase performance in their system. Which Emotiva gear do you personally have that you experienced no sonic improvements with? I had my BA A7200 amp long before I bought the 4311. I decided to use the 4311 as a prepro waiting for the arrival of the XMC-1. So that is why I have never run the 4311 without an amp. I know several people that are using the 4311 without external amps without issues. One actually sold his external amp as he felt it wasn't needed with his Salk 4 ohm speakers. This was after doing extensive comparisons with and without the amp. This is a person that measures the performance of his system in his room quite often. So he is well aware of how to do such comparisons. I have had numerous amps in my system over the years including Emotiva's LPA-1. I have compared past AVRs from Denon, Onkyo and Pioneer with and without external amps. What I found was the SQ was only effected when my system was pushed to very high volume levels. At lower to moderate volume levels I did not experience the SQ improvements you have mentioned. By the way I never said adding an Emotiva amp "shouldn't (in theory) increase performance in their system". What I'm saying is that I do not understand how the SQ can be effected so much by adding an external amp at lower to moderate volume levels. If one has an AVR that is not powering their speakers to the volumes they wish in say a large room then an Emotiva amp is most certainly going "increase the performance" of their system. As the "Lone Ranger" of advocating trying an AVR first before adding an external amp I have to ask you a simple question. What is so hard about trying an AVR first to see if it has sufficient power in ones system? Bill I agree with you Bill. Before, I was using Marantz SR4023 stereo receiver that can push 100 wpc@ 4 ohms to power up my Polk LSi15 and was told need more power to open up at low level. I purchase UPA-2 that can push 185wpc@4 ohms and to my surprise it did not increase any SQ on low level I was seeking. The only thing I got I can listen to higher volume without clipping because of its rated power. For those people who want to increase SQ, I recommend replacing your speaker with higher brand because you will get rewarded better than replacing your amp once your speakers getting all the power it need. Simply put, a 4 cylinder engine will not give you the speed you need even you put 91 octane but if you replace it with 12 cylinder then the only limit is you and the freeway. ;D
|
|
|
Post by billmac on May 2, 2013 19:48:13 GMT -5
For those people who want to increase SQ, I recommend replacing your speaker with higher brand because you will get rewarded better than replacing your amp Golden Eye, Excellent advice, I agree 100% . Speaker upgrades are where I have found the largest gains in overall SQ of my system. Bill
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 2, 2013 20:03:21 GMT -5
Having moved from a 120 wpc rated Denon AVR (tested at 93 wpc with 5 channels driven) to an XPA-5 (200 wpc 5 channels driven) I can confidently state that there was a noticeable improvement in sound quality. Yes even at the same SPL, as per my trusty meter. I never had my Denon AVR anywhere near clipping, even during party time, so it's not a maximum volume question. I can clearly hear sounds with the XPA-5 that were previously inaudible, the sound stage is deeper and taller and the listening fatigue level is drastically reduced. This is not just me, family, friends even the cable repair guy (don't ask), all comment on the improvement in sound quality. More recently I replaced the Denon with a UMC-200 and that was another major step up in sound quality. Sure the UMC-200 doesn't have all the features of the Denon, but I don't really miss them. Some of the features I'm sure I was using just because they were there not because I really needed them. The superior sound of the UMC-200 wins every time. By all means try the Denon on its own, but don't be surprised when the XPA-5 walks all over it. Gary, I certainly respect your opinion as you did a first hand comparison of your Denon without and then with the XPA-5. But my question is what is the XPA-5 doing to "hear sounds with the XPA-5 that were previously inaudible, the sound stage is deeper and taller" that the amps in the Denon are not? If the XPA-5 is an amp that presents a signal in a neutral and uncolored way how can these improvements happen? How can sounds "that were previously inaudible" now be audible? I'm in no way trying to ridicule your thoughts but just trying to understand how this can happen. Bill Hi Bill, I have no problem discussing my views. ask away, challenge, debate, question, it's all OK. I've been doing this hifi thing for a very long time, I even did professional sound in concert environments to pay for university. So, even without acoustic qualifications, I've developed opinions based on my experiences. I can relate audio in some ways to cars, top speed to me is like SPL level and the rate of acceleration is relevant to an amplifier's wattage. The top speed (SPL level) may be the same but a higher wattage amp gets to that top speed faster. Sure, not a perfect analogy, but it's the way I look at it. What this means to me is that my XPA-5 at the same SPL level (as my Denon) still has sufficient watts to make rapid changes (acceleration). Simply put, while maintaining a loud (at the SPL level) frequency it can still amplify quieter frequencies without losing control. An example perhaps, SACD's are good for this as they have so much more "information" for the amp to reproduce. In the first 8 bars of Dire Straights Walk of Life there are a couple of very quite, pianissimo, cymbal touches that are overpowered by other much louder instruments. Via the Denon I can hear them, but they are not distinct and their location source not easily identified. Via the XPA-5 they are plainly heard and their position, above and behind, localised. I've tested this out a few times, once with a musician friend of mine and he could point to the spot sound source far easier with the XPA-5 than the Denon. With the Denon I could turn the volume up and lower volume frequencies can be heard more easily, but the positioning doesn't improve. This to me is the advantage of the XPA-5, I can hear more, clearer at the same volume. The other advantage I have found with the XPA-5 is the almost total lack of listener fatigue, I don't get any requests to "turn it down" like I did with the Denon. The whole family comfortably listens at a higher volume. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by eclypse on May 2, 2013 20:28:56 GMT -5
You sure did sell me Gary! haha awesome stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Golden Ear on May 2, 2013 21:17:38 GMT -5
Gary, I certainly respect your opinion as you did a first hand comparison of your Denon without and then with the XPA-5. But my question is what is the XPA-5 doing to "hear sounds with the XPA-5 that were previously inaudible, the sound stage is deeper and taller" that the amps in the Denon are not? If the XPA-5 is an amp that presents a signal in a neutral and uncolored way how can these improvements happen? How can sounds "that were previously inaudible" now be audible? I'm in no way trying to ridicule your thoughts but just trying to understand how this can happen. Bill Hi Bill, I have no problem discussing my views. ask away, challenge, debate, question, it's all OK. I've been doing this hifi thing for a very long time, I even did professional sound in concert environments to pay for university. So, even without acoustic qualifications, I've developed opinions based on my experiences. I can relate audio in some ways to cars, top speed to me is like SPL level and the rate of acceleration is relevant to an amplifier's wattage. The top speed (SPL level) may be the same but a higher wattage amp gets to that top speed faster. Sure, not a perfect analogy, but it's the way I look at it. What this means to me is that my XPA-5 at the same SPL level (as my Denon) still has sufficient watts to make rapid changes (acceleration). Simply put, while maintaining a loud (at the SPL level) frequency it can still amplify quieter frequencies without losing control. An example perhaps, SACD's are good for this as they have so much more "information" for the amp to reproduce. In the first 8 bars of Dire Straights Walk of Life there are a couple of very quite, pianissimo, cymbal touches that are overpowered by other much louder instruments. Via the Denon I can hear them, but they are not distinct and their location source not easily identified. Via the XPA-5 they are plainly heard and their position, above and behind, localised. I've tested this out a few times, once with a musician friend of mine and he could point to the spot sound source far easier with the XPA-5 than the Denon. With the Denon I could turn the volume up and lower volume frequencies can be heard more easily, but the positioning doesn't improve. This to me is the advantage of the XPA-5, I can hear more, clearer at the same volume. The other advantage I have found with the XPA-5 is the almost total lack of listener fatigue, I don't get any requests to "turn it down" like I did with the Denon. The whole family comfortably listens at a higher volume. Cheers Gary They did a double blind test on $200 amp vs $2000 amp with curtain covering the gears. They were calibrated to ensure both were same level. The listener include both old and young with good set of ears and knows music and play songs they know very well. Study shows that 8 out of 10 could not tell which amp is playing. An ideal amp don't have sound character by themselves because it only amplify whatever signal it get from the preamp. It is the preamp that produce the sound signature of an amp.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 2, 2013 21:45:09 GMT -5
They did a double blind test on $200 amp vs $2000 amp with curtain covering the gears. They were calibrated to ensure both were same level. The listener include both old and young with good set of ears and knows music and play songs they know very well. Study shows that 8 out of 10 could not tell which amp is playing. An ideal amp don't have sound character by themselves because it only amplify whatever signal it get from the preamp. It is the preamp that produce the sound signature of an amp. I'm not sure than cost is a relevant comparison, my Denon AVR cost $2000 and the XPA-5 cost $800. Even if I add the cost of my UMC-200 at $600, I still have a system that sounds far superior to everyone who has listened to it, that cost $1400 compared to the Denon that cost $600 more. I'm a big fan of blind testing, removes the placebo effect. But the speakers, the room, the source and most of all the listeners can mask the results and prevent them from being meaningful. All I know is that in my room, with my speakers and my ears the XPA-5 sounds superior to the Denon when using the Denon as a processor and especially when replacing it with a UMC-200. Not that it's particularly relevant but all of the interconnects and cables are the same, even the power cord. Please don't assume from my posts that I don't like Denon, I still have, like and use most days my old AVR3805 in the family room and out on the verandah. It's a nice sounding, well built, tough and powerful unit. I agree that preamps and processors can have more of an effect on sound quality than power amplifiers, after all I have a USP-1 for exactly that reason. But I don't accept the premise that all amps sound the same. We all know that tube amps don't, neither do class D amps and, based on my experience, I can pick a class A amp over a class A/B given the right environment. The differences, even between two class A/B amps "costing" (not "selling for") similar amounts, with similar power outputs can be subtle. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by Golden Ear on May 2, 2013 22:45:21 GMT -5
They did a double blind test on $200 amp vs $2000 amp with curtain covering the gears. They were calibrated to ensure both were same level. The listener include both old and young with good set of ears and knows music and play songs they know very well. Study shows that 8 out of 10 could not tell which amp is playing. An ideal amp don't have sound character by themselves because it only amplify whatever signal it get from the preamp. It is the preamp that produce the sound signature of an amp. I'm not sure than cost is a relevant comparison, my Denon AVR cost $2000 and the XPA-5 cost $800. Even if I add the cost of my UMC-200 at $600, I still have a system that sounds far superior to everyone who has listened to it, that cost $1400 compared to the Denon that cost $600 more. I'm a big fan of blind testing, removes the placebo effect. But the speakers, the room, the source and most of all the listeners can mask the results and prevent them from being meaningful. All I know is that in my room, with my speakers and my ears the XPA-5 sounds superior to the Denon when using the Denon as a processor and especially when replacing it with a UMC-200. Not that it's particularly relevant but all of the interconnects and cables are the same, even the power cord. Please don't assume from my posts that I don't like Denon, I still have, like and use most days my old AVR3805 in the family room and out on the verandah. It's a nice sounding, well built, tough and powerful unit. I agree that preamps and processors can have more of an effect on sound quality than power amplifiers, after all I have a USP-1 for exactly that reason. But I don't accept the premise that all amps sound the same. We all know that tube amps don't, neither do class D amps and, based on my experience, I can pick a class A amp over a class A/B given the right environment. The differences, even between two class A/B amps "costing" (not "selling for") similar amounts, with similar power outputs can be subtle. Cheers Gary I have Marantz, Denon and USP-1. Without changing anything other than the preamp, the sound signature changes. The biggest changes in sound I experienced was replacing a speakers. The old speakers I have were Polk LSi15 and they were never design to listen at low level other than moderate to high level. Since I listen mostly on low level, I replace my tower speakers with a 2 way bookshelf and problem solve.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 2, 2013 22:55:56 GMT -5
I have Marantz, Denon and USP-1. Without changing anything other than the preamp, the sound signature changes. The biggest changes in sound I experienced was replacing a speakers. The old speakers I have were Polk LSi15 and they were never design to listen at low level other than moderate to high level. Since I listen mostly on low level, I replace my tower speakers with a 2 way bookshelf and problem solve. You'll get no argument from me that in order of their effect on sound quality speakers are first, then processors/preamps and then power amps. It's one of the reasons (not the only reason) why I spent more on the speakers in my 5.1 set up than all of the other components combined. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by billmac on May 3, 2013 7:38:54 GMT -5
I'm a big fan of blind testing, removes the placebo effect. But can mask the rthe speakers, the room, the source and most of all the listeners esults and prevent them from being meaningful. Gary, You touch on a subject that I believe is more a factor than many are willing to admit. That is the "placebo effect". More than once when I got started in this hobby did I fall prey to it. I thought more than once that amp changes made "night and day" differences in my system. Then I started reading more and educating myself to the point where I really tried to be as objective as possible when changes in my system were made. I found that even when doing an amp change as quickly as possible that it still took enough time that my audio memory was an issue. In that I found I could not honestly do an accurate comparison because I could not do a direct A-B comparison. What I found was that I really could not detect differences in the amps to really notice any differences that stood out. I feel that many do not do proper volume level matching which is crucial IMO. Just as little as a 1/2 of a dB difference can effect SQ giving the louder of the two amps an advantage. When I see "night and day difference", "blew me away" and many other terms such as these when the talk of comparing solid state amps of similar topology I have my doubts. You mention how "the speakers, the room, the source and most of all the listeners results and prevent them from being meaningful". This could be true but if all you are doing is comparing amps the listener is the biggest factor IMO. If all components are the same accept the addition of an amp to an AVR (or vice versa) then the time it takes to add the amp (cable changes) ones audio memory is just not good enough to make an accurate comparison. If someone says their audio memory is excellent and that it isn't an issue they are just fooling themselves IMO. The old "well thats what I heard" is not a convincing enough for me and to be quite honest is not very accurate IMO. If you feel the listener is a factor in a DBT then you must agree that the factor is magnified quite a bit when the comparison is one that is not direct. A comparison when it takes time to add or remove a component such as an amp. A few years ago I had a group of A/V "nuts" to my house to listen to music and compare some components. A few of those that came were Lounge members Bruce (voigtskins), Mat Rice (ratmice) and Jim Milton. One of the comparisons we did was the DACs in the XDA-1 to that of Oppo 93. Without going into great detail we did a direct A-B between the two and not one person could pick out which was which. The comparison was an almost instant switch as both were connected to a Parasound 2100 preamp. This comparison really impressed me in that all the times I heard a "night and day" and "it blew me away" terms used from those that are comparing DACs is possibly more the placebo effect than anything else. So I'm never going to say that someone is not hearing what they say they are hearing. But rather one has to realize that ones mind and hearing can play tricks on oneself at times. I know I have fallen for this many times . Bill
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on May 3, 2013 8:51:19 GMT -5
They did a double blind test on $200 amp vs $2000 amp with curtain covering the gears. They were calibrated to ensure both were same level. The listener include both old and young with good set of ears and knows music and play songs they know very well. Study shows that 8 out of 10 could not tell which amp is playing. An ideal amp don't have sound character by themselves because it only amplify whatever signal it get from the preamp. It is the preamp that produce the sound signature of an amp. Hum, 20% did hear the difference. Could it be that those are the 20% that bother to post on internet audio forums in the first place? Just saying that 20% is still a high number so something must be going, no?
|
|
zmaxtt
Seeker Of Truth
Posts: 9
|
Post by zmaxtt on May 3, 2013 9:19:13 GMT -5
IMO to hear an appreciable difference over the internal amps of the denon I would consider getting an outboard amp with considebly more power then the denon just for the left and right speakers and the center if space and finances allow. My previous set up consisted of a b&k 7270 series 2 200wx7with a denon3808 acting as a processor. The difference between the internal amps of the denon and the b&k was slight, however when I purchased the xpa1s to power the left and right speakers i did notice an appreciable difference in dynamics, Bass output and obviously a headroom advantage over the b&k and the denon .. The speakers I had were paradigm studio 100v4 cc690 adp590. Of course this was in my setup and I used my system for music and home theater. My observations of the above setup we're really for just 2 channel listening although I did still feel it had its benefits when playing concerts and movies in surround sound...
|
|
|
Post by billmac on May 3, 2013 9:46:25 GMT -5
Hum, 20% did hear the difference. Could it be that those are the 20% that bother to post on internet audio forums in the first place? Just saying that 20% is still a high number so something must be going, no? True that some heard differences. But could they tell which was which ? Bill
|
|
|
Post by Golden Ear on May 3, 2013 9:47:19 GMT -5
When a speaker get all the power it need and still not happy with its sound, there is no point of buying more powerful amp since its not going to give you SQ other than more dynamics and headroom. Investing more on higher quality speakers will yield a greater SQ than amp by itself. Modern day gear has no problem producing flat frequency response and very low distortion but there is no speaker in this known universe that can produce a ruler flat from 20hz-20khz. There will be peak/dips in the response especially in the crossover region.
|
|
|
Post by sergeantynot on May 3, 2013 9:57:46 GMT -5
^ To play devil's advocate, when I had my old 8ohm speakers powered by the UPA-7, they sounded excellent and I never felt that they would ever clip. When I upgraded to the XPA-3, I actually noticed NO sonic improvement whatsoever. I was kind of disappointed and happy at the same time at how wonderful the UPA-7 really was. You sholdn't because the topology and in house emotiva sound are all same from entry level to their top of the line. As you go higher in series, you get more power and dynamics for power hungry speakers. ;D You're right, there would be no difference at all since the speaker did not change. I carefully mentioned that when switching amps, I noticed no change in improvement at all. The factor of the same 8ohm efficient speaker was still there. Luckily, based on my research I was not really expecting any kind of performance jump going from a 125watt amp to 200. Now I actually have not ever tested that same 125watt amp on my current 4ohm towers. I know that they are indeed power hungry, so I would like to leave them on my XPA-3. Since adding 2 more surround channels in my system, I will be adding those to the XPA-3, and adding either an XPA-2 or dual XPA-1L to power my towers. Now, will I experience a performance jump? Well, probably not. Especially since I have never clipped my towers with the XPA-3, so I would be completely shocked if adding the XPA-2 would really open things up any further. I am waiting on more 1L reviews before going down that route to see what all the hubbub is about Class A. If anything, that might add a new signature sound that may be rewarding in the end.
|
|
|
Post by sergeantynot on May 3, 2013 10:16:48 GMT -5
Your point sounds good in theory, and I appreciate that you seem to be the lone ranger to champion the "only add an amp when needed" mantra, but even you yourself have not bothered testing your Denon equipment without an amp. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if memory serves the 4311 is rated as a 4ohm capable 140wpc AVR. There must be a reason you completely bypassed testing your speakers on the Denon. Why exactly was this? In this case, how exactly can you be so sure that at low level volumes (non-clipping as you stated), the performance would be identical to having an amp? By the way, you do a superb job of telling people their Emotiva equipment shouldn't (in theory) increase performance in their system. Which Emotiva gear do you personally have that you experienced no sonic improvements with? I had my BA A7200 amp long before I bought the 4311. I decided to use the 4311 as a prepro waiting for the arrival of the XMC-1. So that is why I have never run the 4311 without an amp. I know several people that are using the 4311 without external amps without issues. One actually sold his external amp as he felt it wasn't needed with his Salk 4 ohm speakers. This was after doing extensive comparisons with and without the amp. This is a person that measures the performance of his system in his room quite often. So he is well aware of how to do such comparisons. I have had numerous amps in my system over the years including Emotiva's LPA-1. I have compared past AVRs from Denon, Onkyo and Pioneer with and without external amps. What I found was the SQ was only effected when my system was pushed to very high volume levels. At lower to moderate volume levels I did not experience the SQ improvements you have mentioned. By the way I never said adding an Emotiva amp "shouldn't (in theory) increase performance in their system". What I'm saying is that I do not understand how the SQ can be effected so much by adding an external amp at lower to moderate volume levels. If one has an AVR that is not powering their speakers to the volumes they wish in say a large room then an Emotiva amp is most certainly going "increase the performance" of their system. As the "Lone Ranger" of advocating trying an AVR first before adding an external amp I have to ask you a simple question. What is so hard about trying an AVR first to see if it has sufficient power in ones system? Bill Bill, You are right, there should be nothing hard about doing the A/B testing we are discussing. I would really like to see your observations of using your system without an amp. Since you are used to the signature sound it currently delivers, any loss (or gain) in fidelity should be immediately recognized.
|
|
|
Post by billmac on May 3, 2013 10:55:58 GMT -5
Bill, You are right, there should be nothing hard about doing the A/B testing we are discussing. I would really like to see your observations of using your system without an amp. Since you are used to the signature sound it currently delivers, any loss (or gain) in fidelity should be immediately recognized. Sarge, I will definitely be doing a comparison of the 4311 with and without the A7200. But it will not be an A-B comparison as the time to swap out cables and such will not make that possible. To me an A-B comparison is a direct comparison with minimal time (3-5 seconds) such as switching inputs on a preamp, prepro, AVR or switch box. I will post my thoughts as soon as I do this which will probably be later this month when I have some time off. At that time I will have the house to myself for a few days. I will go into the comparison with an open mind and who knows what the end result will be . Bill
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on May 3, 2013 20:49:25 GMT -5
I'm a big fan of blind testing, removes the placebo effect. But can mask the rthe speakers, the room, the source and most of all the listeners esults and prevent them from being meaningful. Gary, You touch on a subject that I believe is more a factor than many are willing to admit. That is the "placebo effect". More than once when I got started in this hobby did I fall prey to it. I thought more than once that amp changes made "night and day" differences in my system. Then I started reading more and educating myself to the point where I really tried to be as objective as possible when changes in my system were made. I found that even when doing an amp change as quickly as possible that it still took enough time that my audio memory was an issue. In that I found I could not honestly do an accurate comparison because I could not do a direct A-B comparison. What I found was that I really could not detect differences in the amps to really notice any differences that stood out. I feel that many do not do proper volume level matching which is crucial IMO. Just as little as a 1/2 of a dB difference can effect SQ giving the louder of the two amps an advantage. When I see "night and day difference", "blew me away" and many other terms such as these when the talk of comparing solid state amps of similar topology I have my doubts. You mention how "the speakers, the room, the source and most of all the listeners results and prevent them from being meaningful". This could be true but if all you are doing is comparing amps the listener is the biggest factor IMO. If all components are the same accept the addition of an amp to an AVR (or vice versa) then the time it takes to add the amp (cable changes) ones audio memory is just not good enough to make an accurate comparison. If someone says their audio memory is excellent and that it isn't an issue they are just fooling themselves IMO. The old "well thats what I heard" is not a convincing enough for me and to be quite honest is not very accurate IMO. If you feel the listener is a factor in a DBT then you must agree that the factor is magnified quite a bit when the comparison is one that is not direct. A comparison when it takes time to add or remove a component such as an amp. A few years ago I had a group of A/V "nuts" to my house to listen to music and compare some components. A few of those that came were Lounge members Bruce (voigtskins), Mat Rice (ratmice) and Jim Milton. One of the comparisons we did was the DACs in the XDA-1 to that of Oppo 93. Without going into great detail we did a direct A-B between the two and not one person could pick out which was which. The comparison was an almost instant switch as both were connected to a Parasound 2100 preamp. This comparison really impressed me in that all the times I heard a "night and day" and "it blew me away" terms used from those that are comparing DACs is possibly more the placebo effect than anything else. So I'm never going to say that someone is not hearing what they say they are hearing. But rather one has to realize that ones mind and hearing can play tricks on oneself at times. I know I have fallen for this many times . Bill Hi Bill I've done a lot of blind testing over the years, I even worked at a large importer/distributor of hifi gear for 14 years, where I was frequently the none "salesman" in the room. The example I gave above, I have many more, was deliberately specific, it is quantifiable and repeatable. There is an overall improvement in sound which is a common generalisation, but it is supportable with specific, indentifiable examples. I agree with you on the "night & day" analogy, it's been a long time since I heard what I would describe as that level of difference between reputable brand name hifi hardware. They are all pretty good these days, so what we are looking for are subtle differences, that are unlikely to smack us right between the eyes (ears). Cheers Gary
|
|