Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 86

Thread: Sierra-1 NRT vs Towers. No comparison??? A friend got me thinking.

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    501

    Default Re: Sierra-1 NRT vs Towers. No comparison??? A friend got me thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by phlw View Post
    I see two issues with these listening sessions...

    1) They are really testing the person, and not the electronics.
    Not really... They're testing to see if people can or can't hear a difference under blind conditions. The same people who fail the blind listening tests are usually the ones who claim that the differences are blatantly obvious, until you remove the bias/placebo and then they find themselves unable to differentiate a 300$ and a 20000$ amplifier...

    It's not so much to test if a person is able to hear the differences, more to find out (test) if two pieces of electronics are distinguishable under blind conditions; when people don't know which they're listening to and can't be fooled by things like bias and placebo. It's to test whether listeners are really able to reliably differentiate the 'sound' of two amps for instance.

    The fact that a person knows that he/she is being evaluated on their accuracy to pick out the better electronics is a placebo effect in itself that distorts the study (read Test Anxiety).
    Well I did mention Tom Nousaine's tests in a quote... Or the guy who thought he was listening to a crap amp and started to denigrate it when it was in fact his own Bryston playing... But anyway. Performance anxiety is rather moot imho. Let's say you were nervous, would you fail a test to distinguish a red from a blue ball? Probably not... green and red? Nope... It would be easy because they would look very different.

    What if the balls were really closely matched though, pure red for one while the other had a very subtle hint of yellow, making the colors barely distinguishable... One person could claim that the difference is very obvious, and the one with the label "pure red" is indeed pure red and that it's obvious that the other color isn't pure red. But can he really or does he just imagine it? Can he really tell those two colors apart? He claims he can, how can we know? Blind test or DBT

    By removing the label identifying the colors and shuffling the balls, it would be easy to see if the person really could. Nervous or non-nervous he should be able to do do so. If they're really different it would be easy to tell them apart, but if they're very similar then then the person might not be able to correctly identify the 'pure' red... If the person could reliably(statistically) correctly identify the pure red, bang, we know he can and we know the colors are different, case closed. If not, it wouldn't mean there's no difference, just that people couldn't tell them apart when they didn't know which was which beforehand; when bias/placebo was removed. In that case, you could easily conclude that their color was closely matched or at least very similar.

    That's what seems to be going on with audio and amps. One sells a 500$ 'pure' red ball and everyone loves the pure red color, while others sell a 50$ non-pure red ball and everyone hates it because it's not pure red and it's really not as red as the other... Yet nobody can tell them apart if their colors are not clearly labeled! lol That's audio my friend... So no, imho, it's not performance anxiety, it's just two things which are indistinguishable from one another under blind conditions because they basically sound exactly the same...

    A better test would be either...

    A) The person sitting in their own living room relaxing with a shot of fine scotch and nobody around.

    or

    B) A study with people that could care less about audio or the outcome.
    Yeah these tests are very common and have been done, and they reach the same conclusions... Read up on the Matrix-hifi or other blind tests, very common.

    2) I know this is cheating when trying to normalize out variables in a test, but the test taker should have full use of the volume control at all times. This is more realistic to the listening environment.
    Yeah they often do.. If an amp is tested, the volume is via pre which is often the same for both power amps. Most tests have details on test procedure, and the people who actually bother to do the tests make sure that the test is adequate because they know that if not they're simply wasting their time, so they make it as 'fair' and agreeable as possible.

    Anyhow, audio is very much like religion, where you have some people who believe and you have people who don't. The data is there, the tests/proofs are there, yet, some people want to continue to believe one way or another. Some (snakeoil vendors for instance) have interest in pushing the myths just like church has pushing the religion.

    There are so many similarities it's scary. When an 'audiophile' is told that his 10000$ amp doesn't sound any better than a 200$ special, they are basically shocked, offended, angry and reject the possibility. How could this person be wrong! He heard the differences so clearly! This is impossible, and they simply reject and refuse to believe it, they even refuse to consider it! Just impossible! It reminds me of this man right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8VaBCikHGs Was he an audiophile and told his overpriced amp isn't better than a budget amp, he would say the same thing, he can't afford to make such error in his audio hobby, if it sounded the same he would never have purchased the amp, so of course it sounds different and the 10000$ amp is so much better! It just HAS to be!

    People who think they can hear difference most definitely believe amps do not sound the same. But in many cases it's placebo/bias (interesting read if you're not familiar with them, lots of info to be found with google!) they are mistaken/imagining things. But anyhow, as I said, some amps are still better than others. Some can't drive 2-4 ohms speakers, some will clip sooner, some have higher THD&N, some have a skewed FR and act as an EQ, some have different features, maybe a better/worst crossover for the sub, EQ, etc. So not all amps sound the same, but proficient amps do, because they all do the same thing well; amplify an electrical signal.

    And even again, in audio, take tube amps which unarguably have more distortion than solid state... How many people prefer tubes? How many prefer vinyls? Sigh...

    Quote Originally Posted by phlw View Post
    GirgleMirt... I agree that the outcomes of these studies showed that there was no statistically significant difference between amplifiers, but my experience has shown otherwise.
    I bet you 10$ no DBT, and only subjective opinion; placebo/bias error prone test I think this simply supports my point... If you walked down the street for a few hours, you could probably find a handful of people who have recently seen Jesus or Elvis... People who claim to be able to hear differences between amps, cd players, DACs, etc., are many, but how many have ever bothered to test out their theories/beliefs? If someone posted that he saw Elvis with his own eyes in a bar 3 days ago, would that sway your opinion on the death of Elvis?

    I'm not saying you're wrong, there could have very well been differences between the amps you've tested, or, there might have been none and you were simply mistaken; placebo/bias. It would only have been human... And there is the rub and the whole point. It's why blind tests exist and why people who care about the validity of their beliefs do DBTs.

    I remember reading a stereophile review of some very high end speakers and the measurements found glaring faults in the speaker, and the reviewer mentioned that the speakers were designed by ear. Well there you go. Sounded fantastic to the speaker designer, but turns out it was actually 'crap' according to the measurements. You just can't rely on your ears/brain to identify minute differences between for instance 2 amps or drivers/woofers/croosovers/cdplayers/etc. Even if 2 things are exactly the same, you're likely to hear differences...

    That's why DBTs exist, to remove bias and placebo... So that you can validate your listening results in a way that you can say with certainty that you are absolutely sure that you really did hear differences and weren't simply mistaken or imagining differences where there are none...

    But not all amps sound the same ex: http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm fact of the matter is that technically most amps measurements/specs indicate that they should sound the same and they do... Audiophile amps to me are largely like supernatural claims. People claim to be able to read minds or find water using sticks of wood or whatnot, and really believe they do, yet, when tested with a bit of rigor, all those supernatural powers surprisingly vanish, and the people are always so quick to find many excuses of why their supernatural powers failed.

    I guess amps are a bit touchy because some do sound different... I personally don't know which is good/bad and which sound the same or different.. According to DBTs, most amps from big name companies should be more than decent. But who knows... sigh
    Last edited by GirgleMirt; 09-21-2012 at 05:05 PM.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    12

    Default Re: Sierra-1 NRT vs Towers. No comparison??? A friend got me thinking.

    What a great post- should be stickied. I've done a ton of research on this as well and came to the conclusion. One interesting thing to google is "richard clark amp challenge" where many have tried to distinguish amps but can't.

    Since we humans can't hear the differences in amps the absolute best way to maximize audio performance is to spend the money where it really matters - super high end interconnect cables No flames or responses required - just having a little fun

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    111

    Default Re: Sierra-1 NRT vs Towers. No comparison??? A friend got me thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by curtis View Post
    I will guarantee you that the sub is not of the same quality of the Sierra's. Change it out, and you will have another "Wow" moment.

    I am not sure how you have it integrated, but I am sure that it is bringing down the overall experience when it is used in conjunction with the Sierras.

    From and HTiB to Sierra standpoint, I would expect a considerable improvement...and I mean CONSIDERABLE. Perhaps there is a configuration/setup issue.

    You will spend a long time trying to achieve perfection. There are SO MANY factors. Speakers play a big roll, but there is so much more that contributes to the sound in your room.
    Curtis ..... changing my HTiB sub to Rythmik F12 has been the biggest WOW I had with this system.
    A/V Receiver - Denon AVR 4311ci
    L/R - Ascend Sierra-1 NrT
    Center - Ascend Sierra-1 NrT
    Surrounds - Ascend HTM-200
    Sub - Rythmik F12
    TV - Sharp LC-80LE650U 80-inch
    Screen - 135" STR-169135-G Silver Ticket 4K Ultra HD Ready
    Projector - Epson Home Cinema 3100 1080p
    SACD Player - Sony C222ES

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    St George UT & Glenwood Springs CO
    Posts
    432

    Default Re: Sierra-1 NRT vs Towers. No comparison??? A friend got me thinking.

    I think that when you get into the highest end of audio, with all components, and connections of the finest quality, any flaws will become apparent.

    I have heard top systems, set up by the best in the business. I could practically hear the musicians heart beat. There must have been something done right.

    Nontheless, most of us take pride in extracting value, along with quality, and have a lot of fun. Ascend is practically a guilty pleasure in this regard.

    Blutarsky

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    194

    Default Re: Sierra-1 NRT vs Towers. No comparison??? A friend got me thinking.

    I was tempted to go upstairs to bring down the JVC RX-8030VBK AVR, to make comparisons again, for my own benefit no less.. I hope I wasn't imagining the static that was present when it was used as a pre-amp for the Emotiva UPA-7. Distortions, when using Direct to bypass any added processing were annoyingly obvious then, at least when the UPA-7 was added those things weren't there before. Dunno if unbearably annoying could be considered a good thing then, but all else being equal now, I shouldn't hear any difference except that I'm wanting there to be..

    This sucks, *shrug*, lol.
    Last edited by choirbass; 09-21-2012 at 05:17 PM.
    Sierra 2 Front LR PA-1 DC-1
    Sierra Luna Surround LR Multichannel via UMC-1 Stereo amp via VSX-D912 AVR
    DC-1 Ext 2 Ch DAC LR XLR to Mono Amps LR RCA to UMC-1 Opt
    T2531 31 Band Stereo Graphic EQ XLR RCA
    PA-1 LR XLR Mono Block 140Watt @ 8 Ohms Class D Amps
    UMC-1 Line Stage Sub X-over @ 40Hz
    L12 12" Subwoofer RCA
    P3 Power Plant A/C Regenerator - Can dramatically improve sound quality realism after 350 hours or 2 weeks of cumulative burn in
    40" HDR 4K TV Opt
    Windows 11 Gaming HTPC HDMI
    D2R

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    501

    Default Re: Sierra-1 NRT vs Towers. No comparison??? A friend got me thinking.

    hehe thx chris if you were referring to my post.. Interesting the R.C. amp challenge! http://tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm

    Amplifier requirements

    The amplifiers in the test must be operated within their linear power capacity. Power capacity is defined as clipping or 2% THD 20Hz to 10kHz, whichever is less. This means that if one amplifier has more power (Watts) than the other, the amplifiers will be judged within the power range of the least powerful amplifier .

    The levels of both left and right channels will be adjusted to match to within .05 dB. Polarity of connections must be maintained so that the signal is not inverted. Left and Right cannot be reversed. Neither amplifier can exhibit excessive noise. Channel separation of the amps must be at least 30 dB from 20Hz to 20kHz.

    All signal processing circuitry (e.g. bass boost, filters) must be turned off, and if the amplifier still exhibits nonlinear frequency response, an equalizer will be set by Richard Clark and inserted inline with one of the amps so that they both exhibit identical frequency response. The listener can choose which amplifier gets the equalizer .
    The last paragraph would scare me though if I was hosting the challenge... Not sure how many bands the EQ would have, but I'd be worried that even with the EQ there might be residual audible FR aberrations between the two amps to make it so that they could be differentiable...

    Anyhow, another good article and test: http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/rece...d-quality.aspx "Futterman Monoblock Amplifier array couldnt beat the $200 Pioneer"

    From R.C.:
    Does this mean all amps sound the same in a normal install?

    No. Richard Clark is very careful to say that amps usually do not sound the same in the real world. The gain setting of an amplifier can make huge differences in how an amplifier sounds, as can details like how crossovers or other filters are set. When played very loud (into clipping), the amplifier with more power will generally sound better than a lower powered amp.

    Most people perceive slight differences in amplitude as quality differences rather than loudness. The louder component sounds “faster, more detailed, more full”, not just louder. This perceptual phenomenon is responsible for many people thinking they liked the sound of a component when really they just liked the way it was set up.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,538

    Default Re: Sierra-1 NRT vs Towers. No comparison??? A friend got me thinking.

    I mostly agree with Girgle on this one, however – there are definite, audible differences between different classes of amplifiers. For example, “digital amplifiers”, while being much more efficient, do so at the cost of switching noise. The power supply actually turns on and off at a very fast rate and this can be audible (ICE Power is a good example of well implemented class D technology). I once listened to a full range amp based on BASH technology and it was awful for full range music, which I believe is why they are so popular for use as subwoofer amplifiers (switching noise is typically very high in the frequency spectrum). There can be considerable differences in audio quality based on the design of the amplification stage.

    That said, most amplifiers and receivers these days are class A/B and if this technology is implemented properly, you will not hear a difference from one to another provided that the amp is designed to function as a true power amp (no frequency response tailoring) and has the output power to reach the dynamic peaks required.

    Receivers these days are a bit different because of all of the different DSP processing. A consumer may “upgrade” from one receiver to another and the new receiver might sound better, but in nearly all cases – this is due to the implementation of the different codec’s and various DSP modes. Dolby Volume is a good example of this. At lower volume levels, the receiver with Dolby Volume will typically “sound” better than one without it but this is technically not a case of one receiver sounding better than another, although for most consumers – that is exactly what they perceive it to be. The reality is that one receiver simply has a feature that another does not have. There are additional factors to consider based on the DSP chipsets, how bass management is implemented, auto EQ or lack thereof etc.

    For 2-channel audio (assuming bypassing various DSP processing), I strongly doubt anyone would hear a difference between your basic $300 2-channel class A/B receiver (say a HK-3490) and a $2000 top of the line fully featured AVR.

    Ascend customers generally fall into two camps – we have audio purists who avoid all the bells and whistles and strive for audio accuracy for music listening, purest analog signals possible. Then we have those who strive to achieve what sounds best to them and thus utilizing the digital domain (which unavoidably results in a less pure analog signal at the final stage) and AutoEQ. Those who strive for purity would be wasting money on receiver/amplifier upgrades provided that their existing equipment is up to par. Those who want to achieve what sounds best to them, receiver upgrades can be worthwhile based on newer feature sets that alter the original signal.

    There is no right or wrong with this, just a matter of what you want to achieve.

    For me, for music listening – I am an extreme purist and want to hear as much as the original (unaltered) analog source as possible, whether I like how it sounds or not.

    All that said, nothing influences the overall performance more than the actual speakers themselves. They are the component that converts electrical energy into sound waves, the last chain in the system. Think about it this way, in a receiver – the only aspects that affect the way something sounds is:

    1. Frequency response (if the receiver alters the original frequency response of the source)

    2. Power capability – if not enough power, dynamics will be limited and signal peaks will be compressed.

    3. Distortion (including the conversion for analog to digital and back again)

    That is really it.

    With a loudspeaker, there are so many variables that influence the way something sounds.

    1. Frequency Response of the speakers themselves.
    2. Phase integration / phase response
    3. Off-axis dispersion (power response)
    4. Power handling capability
    5. Distortion
    6. Transient / Impulse response
    7. Stored energy
    8. Cabinet resonance
    9. Driver resonance

    …and many more. Each of these variables is audible. For example, even the most advanced DSP system can not change the dispersion characteristics of a loudspeaker and many professionals believe (including this one) that this aspect has more influence over the way something sounds than anything else. When considering transient accuracy, resonance control and phase integration between the drivers – (all factors that DSP processing in a receiver can not influence) it becomes quickly apparent that HiFi starts and ends with the loudspeakers. It is why more than half of our customers prefer to avoid using any digital processing and look to the loudspeakers as the critical component.

    Of course, from there we must consider power cord upgrades
    .
    .
    .
    Good Sound To You!

    David Fabrikant
    www.ascendacoustics.com

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    111

    Default Re: Sierra-1 NRT vs Towers. No comparison??? A friend got me thinking.

    David .... Then what a guy from another forum wrote is verry accurate. Here is what his suggestion is.....

    "
    More expensive receivers usually offer the following:
    Better remote
    More features (you may desire or not)
    Bigger beefier power amplifiers
    Possibly better sound.
    More channels (9.1 or 11.1 versus 5.1 or 7.1 etc)

    It depends what you want to do with it. People like to buy the big expensive receiver and often never use the added features or never needed the power.

    What I would look for is the least expensive receiver you can find that offers the surround features you need and channels you need (and possibly one with preouts so you can add power amps.

    Receivers are basically disposable toasters with horrid resale value. Stereo shops are littered with $3000 receivers 8-10 years ago that sell for $200 now.

    Once the feature set is out of date they're pretty much worthless. I would treat a receiver like a laptop - in three years they're pretty much obsolete junk.

    So if you buy a $700 current just released receiver you will pretty much get 90% of the features you would get from a $2100 receiver. If you run reasonably efficient speakers it's doubtful you'll notice an audible difference (in the same line - comparing say a Marantz to a Marantz or Deonon to Denon etc). Then in 3 years you buy another $700 receiver - chances are that new $700 receiver will blow the current $2000 receiver away in terms of features. But even if it's "just on par" you have now equaled the $2100 receiver and over 6 years you've spent $1400. Plus three years after that if you spend $700 you can be pretty much guaranteed that any $700 receiver in 2018 will beat any current $2100 receiver in terms of remote feature set and perhaps power and sound as well all for the same money spread over three purchases.

    Further you were able to sell the previous 2 receivers or use them in second and third systems. So over 9 years you have three amplifiers. Or one receiver that had to last 9 years (buying one now for 9 years or buying one now - for 3 years, another for 3 more years, and another for 3 more years). The $2100 one will be out of date in 3-6 years. But with the three receivers - you will always be "up to date" on technology and in year 9 when or if they've replaced HDMI with something else your machine will have the connections or if they're up to 20.2 you're machine will have the connections.


    As for the power amp section - if the receiver has the preouts you could buy yourself some good well built power amps that probably beat any in the receivers and you can cart them along to every receiver in the future or buy surround processors instead.


    A Receiver is like an all in one printer. It does everything but nothing particularly well. Their reason for being is features. But if the features are passe every few years you may as well go as cheap as possible with all the features you require and treat them as disposable.

    Further if the $700 one blows up after the warranty it is easier to swallow than the $2,100 or $5,000 beastie if it fails.

    Receivers have very high failure rates. I worked at McDonalds - we went through 3 receivers in a year - Yamaha, Denon, and Sony and they only ran two speakers. I had the flagship Pioneer Elite in the mid 95 - (the first one was DOA) - the second one was okay but my current 2003 $350 Marantz sounds every bit as good (in some ways better) and is far more advanced in every way. 8 year later a $350 receiver embarrasses an over $2,000 receiver.

    Frankly I would look at something like this.

    http://www.crutchfield.com/S-guT4TWb...NR1603/Marantz

    * "
    Makes sense???
    A/V Receiver - Denon AVR 4311ci
    L/R - Ascend Sierra-1 NrT
    Center - Ascend Sierra-1 NrT
    Surrounds - Ascend HTM-200
    Sub - Rythmik F12
    TV - Sharp LC-80LE650U 80-inch
    Screen - 135" STR-169135-G Silver Ticket 4K Ultra HD Ready
    Projector - Epson Home Cinema 3100 1080p
    SACD Player - Sony C222ES

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    28

    Default Re: Sierra-1 NRT vs Towers. No comparison??? A friend got me thinking.

    Great info everyone! I am usually a very data-driven guy and can't believe I am saying this, but my experience is there is definitely a perceivable difference in spite of these studies.

    For a long time I owned a very nice Rotel RA-960BX 60W/Ch integrated amp I bought new.

    Years later I was looking for a new CD player on Craigslist and found a Marantz CD-17 for $100 (MRSP $1000). He was also selling a matching Marantz PM-17 60W/Ch integrated for $125 (MSRP$ 1200).

    I just wanted the CD player, and was not going to waste my money on the Marantz integrated because I though there would be very little, if any, difference. After long thought, I decided to get the Marantz integrated as well because it had a remote (Rotel didn't), and I would have a nice matching set.

    When I got home I tried the Marantz CD player, and couldn't be sure if I could hear any difference from my current (much cheaper) CD player. I was a bit disappointed, but no big loss as it was in very good shape, looked cool, and only cost $100. Also, now I had a matching amplifier with a remote that would run both units.

    A few days later I hooked up the Marantz integrated in place of my Rotel as I was now going to sell the Rotel to a friend. I was fully not expecting any difference at all, but all I can say was the difference was immediately apparent.

    The vocals were a bit more up front and harmonized better, plus the bass was tighter and deeper. Was the difference worth $700 to me (the diff in the two amps' new price), probably not, but it was it worth the $375 less I payed for the Marantz... of course! My point here is that I had absolutely no vested interest in the Marantz sounding any different than the Rotel, and it sure surprised me that it did.

    Maybe I am living in ignorant bliss here. That is why I only buy my electronics off of Craigslist. If I am kidding myself, then it isn't breaking the bank

    Again, thanks much for you very thoughtful and informative posts. I find this very interesting. I have to admit my experience is opposite of the usually skeptical approach I have to subjects such as this.
    Last edited by phlw; 09-21-2012 at 10:10 PM.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    St George UT & Glenwood Springs CO
    Posts
    432

    Default Re: Sierra-1 NRT vs Towers. No comparison??? A friend got me thinking.

    Maybe buy a high quality multi channel amp, and get a new processor, or receiver as needed. That way you could keep up with the features, and spent the bucks where it matters.

    Blutarsky

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •