best amp for sierra-1nrt

[Rock]

Hi,
I select integrated amplifier for sierra-1 NRT, the amount of up to $ 1,000
2 channel stereo.
the room is not large, preferences in music: rock 70s (Slade, Smokey)
instrumental music.
What are the considerations?

[markie]

Hi,
I select integrated amplifier for sierra-1 NRT, the amount of up to $ 1,000
2 channel stereo.
the room is not large, preferences in music: rock 70s (Slade, Smokey)
instrumental music.
What are the considerations?

Hi Rock,

I see that someone in another thread is considering the same type of thing. I too would like to know if anyone has experimented with what amps and preamps work best with the Sierra.

Regarding integrated amps, most don't have dacs but some do. I'm not sure if you would prefer one with a dac or not.

The Absolute Sound has their list of best integrated amps under $1000 which might be a good place to start. It's possible that a great integrated for one speaker may not be the best for another speaker.

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/2013-tas-editors-choice-awards-integrated-amplifiers-under-1000/

Keep us posted!
best wishes,
Mark

[Rock]

My interest, the same question, just as in you.
That it is better: amplifier + preamplifier, for example:
(XPA-200+USP-1) or integrated? If it is integrated that for a brand: Arcam, Roksan,Exposure,Music Hall.
Who, has experience with these amplifiers?
The good sound for a super stereo is necessary.
Regards, Rock

[markie]

Hi Rock
That XPA-200 and USP-1 combination would be hard to beat for value/performance I would think. And they're on sale. If you have the room for separates that's what I would do. Now, I haven't heard any comparisons between that Emotiva combination and, say, the Marantz integrated PM8004, but it would be nice to know.
Mark

[Dark Ranger]

Hi Rock!

I ran my Sierra-1 pair (standard tweeter) on the XPA-200 for 13 months. It was fantastic! I can recommend that amplifier highly.

I don't have any experience with integrated amplifiers, so I cannot offer a comparison.

[petmotel]

It has been demonstrated enough times that the sound quality between good modern solid state electronics played within their limits is not readily audible.

I think the more important considerations are power levels (headroom), build quality/reliability, noise floor, and probably most important is that the selected item has the feature set you require.

The Sierras present an easy enough load that low impedance amps aren't necessary to drive them, selection should be pretty much open.

I've driven my speakers with inexpensive Yamaha receivers, as well as much more expensive Anthem separates, try as I might, I could discern no difference in SQ. The feature set, however, made it possible to achieve a much better sounding system due to bass management, and room correction. The noise floor was also quieter with the separates.

If you are planning on integrating a sub, or trying to help fix acoustics in your listening space, I would recommend a multi-channel receiver with those features.

Jay

[zfreiman]

I'm currently using an Arcam A28 with Nordost cables driving my Sierra 1's. I really enjoy this combo. I've used Parasound, Adcom, Music Hall & Musical Fidelity in the past. The Arcam has been my favorite so far. I would try to demo both British and American and see what suits your musical tastes.

[Rock]

It has been demonstrated enough times that the sound quality between good modern solid state electronics played within their limits is not readily audible.

I think the more important considerations are power levels (headroom), build quality/reliability, noise floor, and probably most important is that the selected item has the feature set you require.

The Sierras present an easy enough load that low impedance amps aren't necessary to drive them, selection should be pretty much open.

I've driven my speakers with inexpensive Yamaha receivers, as well as much more expensive Anthem separates, try as I might, I could discern no difference in SQ. The feature set, however, made it possible to achieve a much better sounding system due to bass management, and room correction. The noise floor was also quieter with the separates.

If you are planning on integrating a sub, or trying to help fix acoustics in your listening space, I would recommend a multi-channel receiver with those features.

Jay

Yes, I think you're right, taking into account the need to choose a set of features and goals for the future are to be implemented in this system.

you think that the difference between the integrated and amplifier, is not ? I understand that the "ears" are different, and the sound quality is very individual. Therefore, I collect information easily identify what I need and where to start.
Pereslushat all amplifiers is simply not possible! Oh, and for what?
By the way, I plan to connect to the south.
At this time, the emotiva no-CD, what do you recommend in conjunction with XPA -200?
Regards,Rock

[Kisakuku]

Pereslushat all amplifiers is simply not possible!

Russian-English Google translate does hiccup once in a while, doesn't it?

[RPM]

Recently Bought the Emotiva XPA-2 after blowing up my parasound 2125.
At 799.00 on sale its hard to beat, I did try the XPA-200 And it was very good,
however I do push the volume, And it was getting VERY warm to Hott....after my previous
experience I wanted something that doesn't break a sweat. The Amp is DEAD quiet,
with enough clean power to get everything from the Seirra's.

[beadyz]

I found a good 2-channel preamp upgrade to make more difference in my system than when I upgraded my amplifier.

Maybe do some research on a nice preamp in your price range and worry about the amp later. Perhaps a Musical Fidelity preamp, or a Rogue Audio tube preamp. I'd recommend used, as you get much more bang for your buck. I've had great luck on Audiogon buying great gear and prices I was happy with.

I started with a Carver receiver running the Sierra-1's in stereo. Then I used the Carver as a preamp and then picked up an Adcom GFA-545 mk1, which you can find for ~$100-150 and it really sounded nice. A noticeable improvement over the internal amp in the Carver. I was going to build a DIY amplifier and bought an amp to use for its chassis, power supply, and heat sinks, but ended up just using that amp and liked it more (not drastically, but incrementally better everywhere) than the GFA-545. It was a SMART TA-242 stereo movie theatre amp, and it is an upgraded clone (torroidal transformer, etc) of the Hafler amps like the DH-220 and XL-280. The SMART amps are on the bay all the time for ~$200 or less and the Haflers in that range also I think.

After a year or so I stepped up to a sweet 2-channel BAT tubed pre-amp. WOW!!! Talk about an increase in SQ. More improvement than going from some Bowers and Wilkens bookshelves to the Sierra's, or from the Carver to an outboard amp.

Another year later and I upgraded to a BAT tube amp. Another big increase, but I think the preamp was the bigger step up in SQ.

Just depends what you want your system to do. My system is 2.1 only, and I use it for TV/DVD and music. I have a Velodyne SMS-1 for subwoofer control. If you don't absolutely have to have 5.1, you could put the money you'd spend on speakers and wiring into a preamp and/or amp. I'm not worried about having 5.1 at all, and am extremely happy with my setup. So happy that I don't see changing my preamp/amp combo for many, many years to come.

Mike

[markie]

Very interesting, that a step up in a preamp could better a step up in speakers. To my shame I haven't even heard of BAT tube preamps or amps. But I have heard that a good preamp will make a bigger difference than a good amp, given speakers that are reasonable to drive. And I've heard that if tubes have to go in any one place, the preamp is a great place for them.

I wonder if Dave is now tempted to give those BAT tube preamps a try, given the glowing (pun intended) review by an Sierra owner... :)

Mark

[curtis]

He said it made more of a difference than the amplifier, not the speakers.

[markie]

Hmmm, yes he said the change in preamp made more of a difference than a change in amplifier, but he also said it made more of a difference than a change in speaker, at least in this particular case:


More improvement than going from some Bowers and Wilkens bookshelves to the Sierra's

This is exactly the kind of information that is fascinating, and useful imo.

At the Toronto Audio Video Entertainment Show which I attended exactly a week ago today, I got to hear dozens of speakers, and one of them was the Legacy Aeris, a very highly acclaimed speaker. But I thought the sound in the room was - meh - and I've since heard a couple of reviewers say the same thing. They attributed the let down to the associated equipment setup that the vendor was using.

So, I think it is important for Ascenders to know what combinations of equipment have been known to work well with their Sierras. Mike's account was very helpful for sure.

Mark

[curtis]

Sorry...I was responding to his first sentence.


I found a good 2-channel preamp upgrade to make more difference in my system than when I upgraded my amplifier.



Hmmm, yes he said the change in preamp made more of a difference than a change in amplifier, but he also said it made more of a difference than a change in speaker, at least in this particular case:

[beadyz]

The B&W's were 601 S1's as I recall. The Sierra's had much more controlled bottom end and were less boomy in the bass while going lower. That was the biggest difference I recall. I seem to recall the mids were cleaner and sounded more realistic also.

When I went to the BAT preamp there were lots of changes. I think the improvement I noticed most was the attack on the leading edges of sounds, particularly precession instruments. That's the best way I can describe it. I thought everything sounded wonderful until I "heard something new" with the preamp. Sounds were just sharper and more realistic without being overdone or artificial.

And not just the leading edge thing. Details were finer, and sounds seemed to "hang" in the air more. Most pronounced with say a piano played delicately or a female blues/Jaxx voice. It was even noticeable from another room, the ambient sounds were just more real sounding.

The last thing I noticed was the improvement in bass. Not big, slamming bass, although that is there in spades, but what I've read people describe as "texture" to bass is the best analogy I can come up with. Instead of just a one-note-bass type of sound you can hear variations in the bass (and particularly sub-bass) frequencies.

The tube amp upped everything I just described another notch, but not as much as the initial increase I got with the preamp.

I can't say if it's because it is a tube preamp, or if it's because it is dual mono all the way from the power supply or what, but I was very happy with the result, particularly as I bought it without ever haveing heard any tube gear at all. Guess it was a leap of faith.

I will point out that the tube gear puts of a lot of heat. The preamp probably abut 200-250 watts of heat. The amp I think is north of 500 watts. That's a small to medium space heater. I didn't listen to the tube gear most of the summer as it just got the rorm too warm. Now that it's cooling down it's great though.

Mike

[petmotel]

Hmmm, yes he said the change in preamp made more of a difference than a change in amplifier, but he also said it made more of a difference than a change in speaker, at least in this particular case:



This is exactly the kind of information that is fascinating, and useful imo.

At the Toronto Audio Video Entertainment Show which I attended exactly a week ago today, I got to hear dozens of speakers, and one of them was the Legacy Aeris, a very highly acclaimed speaker. But I thought the sound in the room was - meh - and I've since heard a couple of reviewers say the same thing. They attributed the let down to the associated equipment setup that the vendor was using.

So, I think it is important for Ascenders to know what combinations of equipment have been known to work well with their Sierras. Mike's account was very helpful for sure.

Mark

The problem with "letting Ascenders know what combinations work well" is that this is all just subjective opinion which will not be universally accepted by all. Just because there is a difference in the sound between a tube pre-amp and a solid state piece does not mean that the sound quality is better. It just means there is a difference. Some people might like that difference, others may not.

I'm relatively certain that modern, well built solid state equipment will measure better than the tube equipment, the very notion that changing to different tubes will alter the sound signature of tube equipment suggests that it is coloring the signal. Personally I prefer the signal to be as uncolored, and close to the original as possible.

If you hear a presentation of gear at a show, and come away less than impressed, there are a great many variables at work here, from the room acoustics, to the quality of the recorded material that can affect what is ultimately heard. Assuming it's a bad combination of gear is only supposition, and one not likely supported with honest, bias controlled testing.

Jay

[Rock]

Today listened integrated is Atoll in 80 helpers and AM200, and before the PR300
The components were better than the dynamics, play more realistic.
Basically, the sound is very pleasant to read, not aggressive. It is well Very plays jazz and classical music. Hard rock is normal. Female vocals
very clean.
Tomorrow I want to listen to Yamaha A S700, NAD C356BEE, Rotel RA-12,
but more and more I go to the Emotiva
Rock

[beadyz]

I'm relatively certain that modern, well built solid state equipment will measure better than the tube equipment, the very notion that changing to different tubes will alter the sound signature of tube equipment suggests that it is coloring the signal. Personally I prefer the signal to be as uncolored, and close to the original as possible.



I'm sure even most low-end SS gear will show better distortion numbers than the best tube gear. Add enough negative feedback and you I think you can get almost any amplifier circuit to show vanishingly low distortion numbers. I'm a mechanical engineer, and that side of my brain couldn't wrap itself around the fact that tube gear with (much) higher distortion could sound better than SS gear with such low distortion. I'd been curious about tube gear since back in the late 90's, but never took the gamble until about 2 years ago. The soundstage on my tube gear seems more open and extends deeper behind the plane of the speakers than my SS gear.

As I said, I don't see myself changing anything about my amp/preamp for a very long time, perhaps not until I can't get replacement parts for this equipment or it becomes unfeasible to repair it.

Tube vs. SS is almost like politics or religion, ppl seem very rooted in one camp or another. All I can say is that for me, I like the tube sound better in my system than SS. I will add a couple caveats, however. I have never listened to any SS equipment of the level that my tube gear is, and the 6H30 tubes used in the BAT SE models is said to be too linear and SS sounding by some hardcore tube guys.

Since this forum is focused on Ascend gear, I will say that the Sierra-1's were definitely more transparent than the B&W's. Meaning once I switched to the Sierra's it was much more difficult to locate the speakers in front of me with my eyes closed than with the B&W's. They were much more hollow sounding then the Sierra's, so perhaps I was hearing vibrations from the encloses, making it easier to "see" where the speakers were in front of me with my ears.

Back to amps, there really isn't a whole lot of difference between 50 wpc and 100 wpc, or even 200 wpc. You'll have a bit more headroom, but it's not a huge difference, IMHO. I have an old Kenwood integrated SS amp from the early 70's that was my dad's, and it is rated at 50 wpc, and it got plenty loud also. I'd go for SQ over power.

I would like to upgrade my Sierra-1's with Dave's Sierra-2 upgrade, but that's not to say I find the original Sierra's lacking. I really want to see how a ribbon tweeter sounds with tubes (supposed to be sublime), and I want to support Dave for working so hard and song long on a project like this. You don't find too many companies like Ascend anymore, and I want to do my part to keep Dave in business.

[markie]

Hi Jay,

Yes very much is subjective in audio, whether one likes a warmer sound, or so forth. But there are other attributes of music that, although subjectively discerned, just about *everyone* would agree is better. A perfect example are the details in the improved sound quality Mike describes with his BAT preamp.

Double blind studies comparing one amp or the other, I dare say, involve unfamiliar source materials, unfamiliar components, in unfamiliar rooms. In other words, the acoustic memory we have which is so important in evaluation and which takes much time develop, is removed from the equation. That is a shame, and that is why such studies should not be taken at face value.

For sure I would believe Mike's well considered analysis over a dozen such fundamentally flawed 'controlled' studies any day.

The question, as Mike has raised, it what exactly is causing such an improvement in sound quality. It may not be tubes per se (as he pointed out), it could be something else in the way the preamp operates.

I just took at peek and see that BAT has a new solid state version of the preamp. I would guess it's as good as the BAT tube preamp that Mike has, without being a space heater: :)

http://www.musicdirect.com/p-350-bat-vk-42se-solid-state-preamp.aspx

And hey, it's only $8000 :D

Mark

[beadyz]

Hi Jay,

Yes very much is subjective in audio, whether one likes a warmer sound, or so forth. But there are other attributes of music that, although subjectively discerned, just about *everyone* would agree is better. A perfect example are the details in the improved sound quality Mike describes with his BAT preamp.

Double blind studies comparing one amp or the other, I dare say, involve unfamiliar source materials, unfamiliar components, in unfamiliar rooms. In other words, the acoustic memory we have which is so important in evaluation and which takes much time develop, is removed from the equation. That is a shame, and that is why such studies should not be taken at face value.

For sure I would believe Mike's well considered analysis over a dozen such fundamentally flawed 'controlled' studies any day.

The question, as Mike has raised, it what exactly is causing such an improvement in sound quality. It may not be tubes per se (as he pointed out), it could be something else in the way the preamp operates.

I just took at peek and see that BAT has a new solid state version of the preamp. I would guess it's as good as the BAT tube preamp that Mike has, without being a space heater: :)

http://www.musicdirect.com/p-350-bat-vk-42se-solid-state-preamp.aspx

And hey, it's only $8000 :D

Mark

Yeah, the new stuff is crazy expensive, hence why I suggested used, preferably a generation or 2 back :-) I haven't heard any of the new stuff, but can't see how it could sound that much better unless you've done all sorts of room treatments, have a really nice DAC upstream, etc.

I'd look at a VK-3i or maybe a VK-30, but even then you are over $1k. You can get the BAT preamps with a full function remote, which was a HUGE plus for me. I'm not such a purist that I have to have a stepped attenuator to get that last .01% increase in SQ. I'll give that up to be able to adjust volume from my seat, lol. I think most of them have a home theatre bypass function, so you can have them inline with a 5.1 or 7.1 system on your mains for dedicated 2-channel listening if you want also. But, they have to be powered on so you will be using your tube life. I've used my preamp for probably a year's worth of days (@ maybe 4-5 hrs a day) over the last ~2 years and the tubes still sound great, so I wouldn't say it's a huge issue.

I was looking at Musical Fidelity preamps at first; the A3cr and A3.2cr in particular. You can find those well under $1k, closer to $500 if you look hard and take your time, and they are dual mono and have remotes also. I'd still like to have a listen to them if the opportunity presents itself.

You can find the BAT SS amps like the VK-200 in the $1k range (used), and I've seriously considered getting one to use during the warmer months. But, I have several other hobbies that end up taking my time in the evenings during the longer days in the summer so I haven't done it. Plus, I still have my Adcom and SMART amps which I can still listen to happily.

Don't mean to sound like an evangelist, but I really like the BAT stuff. No affiliation with the company, just a happy customer of their (used) equipment.

[Beave]

Hi Jay,
...

Double blind studies comparing one amp or the other, I dare say, involve unfamiliar source materials, unfamiliar components, in unfamiliar rooms. In other words, the acoustic memory we have which is so important in evaluation and which takes much time develop, is removed from the equation. That is a shame, and that is why such studies should not be taken at face value.
..

Mark

Mark,
Your comments about double-blind studies are just not true. There is no reason why you can't use music you're familiar with in a double-blind study. There is no reason you can't use equipment you're familiar with, either. And there's no reason it has to be done in an unfamiliar room.

I've done such studies in my room, with my music, and with my gear.

The requirements are simply that the listener doesn't know what gear is being heard at the time (amp A or amp B?); that the levels are adjusted to be within very tight tolerances (usually a couple tenths of a dB); and that the switching between components is quick (usually within less than a half second).

That final requirement is there because, as you stated, acoustic memory is important - but it is also fleeting and very short-lived.

[petmotel]

Hi Jay,

Yes very much is subjective in audio, whether one likes a warmer sound, or so forth. But there are other attributes of music that, although subjectively discerned, just about *everyone* would agree is better. A perfect example are the details in the improved sound quality Mike describes with his BAT preamp.

Double blind studies comparing one amp or the other, I dare say, involve unfamiliar source materials, unfamiliar components, in unfamiliar rooms. In other words, the acoustic memory we have which is so important in evaluation and which takes much time develop, is removed from the equation. That is a shame, and that is why such studies should not be taken at face value.

For sure I would believe Mike's well considered analysis over a dozen such fundamentally flawed 'controlled' studies any day.

The question, as Mike has raised, it what exactly is causing such an improvement in sound quality. It may not be tubes per se (as he pointed out), it could be something else in the way the preamp operates.

I just took at peek and see that BAT has a new solid state version of the preamp. I would guess it's as good as the BAT tube preamp that Mike has, without being a space heater: :)

http://www.musicdirect.com/p-350-bat-vk-42se-solid-state-preamp.aspx

And hey, it's only $8000 :D

Mark

Whether I agree with someone's preferences for their favorite electronics gear, or not, perhaps we can all agree that from a value perspective, expensive, esoteric electronics are probably not "Job 1" so to speak.

Chances are that someone building their sound system with a moderately priced set of bookshelf speakers is working with a limited budget. Within the framework of that constraint, I would offer that speakers, room acoustics, and well recorded media would present a better return on dollars spent. Electronics, on the other hand represent, in my mind at least, a fine example of diminishing returns.

Although the topic of this thread is "best amp for sierra-1nrt" I think we can all agree that to suggest a Halcro, Levinson, McIntosh, Krell, Theta... ad infinitum is probably not too realistic. Who would reasonably spend many, many multiples of their speakers on their supporting electronics? Probably not too many.

The OP seems to be leaning towards Emotiva gear which I believe is very good quality, and performing gear in the price range he seems to be shopping.

Jay

[petmotel]

Mark,
Your comments about double-blind studies are just not true. There is no reason why you can't use music you're familiar with in a double-blind study. There is no reason you can't use equipment you're familiar with, either. And there's no reason it has to be done in an unfamiliar room.

I've done such studies in my room, with my music, and with my gear.

The requirements are simply that the listener doesn't know what gear is being heard at the time (amp A or amp B?); that the levels are adjusted to be within very tight tolerances (usually a couple tenths of a dB); and that the switching between components is quick (usually within less than a half second).

That final requirement is there because, as you stated, acoustic memory is important - but it is also fleeting and very short-lived.

VERY much in agreement with all that you have said here! Never ceases to amaze me that standardized scientific testing methods are accepted in almost all aspects of our existence until it comes to audio. Suddenly all bets are off, and the subjectivists are all over you like the zombies in World War Z ;)!

Jay

[markie]

Hi Beave,

Congrats on performing such a test yourself. Yes if it's in your own room with your own familiar equipment, level matched, etc, that is *much* preferred. I would be interested in what you did the test with - amps or preamps, and what kinds, and what speaker you were using at the time - highly resolving or not.

A word about accoustic memory. One problem with those double blind tests is that they are of short duration. I suggest that a form of acoustic memory is long term. For instance, Mike wouldn't have to flip back and forth to know if there is a difference. One listen to the new preamp and he would know the sound is different. It then becomes a matter of discerning just how it is different. It might just be different, not necessarily better. In Mike's case, it was definitely better.

So I believe you Beave that you didn't hear a difference. I also believe that Mike did hear a difference. Based on his detailed description of the difference, it was indeed real. The conclusion I come to is at least twofold. Sometimes a difference in equipment makes very little difference in the sound, and sometimes it makes a significant difference.

Mark

[Rock]

Hi,
-Yamaha A-S700, provides powerful, clean sound. Adjusting loudness set the best sound for the ear. Excellent dynamics of sound. I liked the great detail and emotional resonance.
-NAD C356 BEE, 1. There is a lack of transparency and high. 2. Bass fuzzy, not well defined. 3. Would say that too lenient in the sound.
-Rotel RA-12 Mediocre sound, does not agree with the price of the device, poor remote control, power really hot during operation, hum into the signal is muted when the display (dimmer), greatly inflated price compared to the issued sound quality.
I want to emphasize that this is only my opinion.

I'm curious to know what the best cable to use for the Emotiva XPA-200 and Sierra-1Nrt?
Rock

[markie]

Great to know, thanks Rock!
For cables, I've heard that Blue Jeans cables represent a very good value.
Mark

[Beave]

Hi Beave,

Congrats on performing such a test yourself. Yes if it's in your own room with your own familiar equipment, level matched, etc, that is *much* preferred. I would be interested in what you did the test with - amps or preamps, and what kinds, and what speaker you were using at the time - highly resolving or not.

A word about accoustic memory. One problem with those double blind tests is that they are of short duration. I suggest that a form of acoustic memory is long term. For instance, Mike wouldn't have to flip back and forth to know if there is a difference. One listen to the new preamp and he would know the sound is different. It then becomes a matter of discerning just how it is different. It might just be different, not necessarily better. In Mike's case, it was definitely better.

So I believe you Beave that you didn't hear a difference. I also believe that Mike did hear a difference. Based on his detailed description of the difference, it was indeed real. The conclusion I come to is at least twofold. Sometimes a difference in equipment makes very little difference in the sound, and sometimes it makes a significant difference.

Mark

Hi Mark,
I've done several tests over the years. I once did a comparison between a $40 Sony DVD player and an entry-level-brand audiophile CD player. I've also done comparisons between a 20 year old stereo receiver, two different models of Parasound amps, an NAD integrated, two Cambridge Audio integrateds, and a new Denon AVR. Only one of them stood out as sounding different (the 20 year old stereo receiver) at the volumes/levels I listen at (I would expect the Parasound HALO amp I had would have won at realllllly high volume levels, but I decided to save my ears and not go that loud).

As for the speakers being "highly resolving," I'm not sure how you characterize that. I've used various speakers over the last couple years - Energy RC, Monitor Audio RS, Monitor Audio RX, Ascend Sierra 1s, PSB Synchrony Ones, and none of them made the results change. Surely they're resolving enough.

You mentioned that the tests are of "short duration." How so? That appears to be another assumption you've made. In the tests I've done - and the tests that so many others have done and have published - there is no requirement for short duration. You can sit and listen as long as you want. The short duration requirement only applies to the time it takes to swich back and forth. Wanna listen to component A for 2 hours before switching to component B? That's fine. Just make sure the switch happens in under a half second or so.

As for Mike's claims, they are just that. His method is flawed, because he didn't level-match or do quick-switching, not to mention that he was aware of what component he was listening to (that can bring up subconscious biases that affect what we "hear"). Take the very same preamp, and plug it in and listen, then unplug, plug in the same model but at a slightly different level (which could easily come just from unit-to-unit component variations), and the two might "sound different," when it's actually the same gear.

[markie]

Hi Beave,

Some years ago I read a couple of very good critiques of publicized blind A/B tests which had tested for hearing differences in amplifiers. One of the things critiqued was the short duration of the music being listened too. That's where I'm coming from. Now, if you're saying that there have been publicized tests where the shortcomings of those previous A/B tests were somehow overcome, and the results were still that no discernible differences were heard among sensitive and experienced listeners, I would very much appreciate a reference for that. I'm here to learn.

I certainly can't fault your own personal method. It looks like you have A/B'd lots of your gear through a good number of years, and found little or no discernible differences. I accept that at face value.

May I humbly suggest that an experienced listener - say a reviewer - with a reputation for being able to hear differences between gear, *would* be able to hear differences in A/B test which others like yourself or myself may not. This presumes of course that they are listening to music they know like the back of their hand, in their own room, and using their own familiar gear.

People smell, taste, see and hear to sometimes startlingly different degrees of sensitivity, and that's just the way it is. My wife smells things I am totally oblivious too. Such is life. I appreciate good music, but frankly I know that others can hear much more into the music than I can. Mixed blessing if you ask me. :-)


In Mike's case, the way he describes the music I can tell he is sensitive and alert to cues in the music that others may not be. And he is certainly experienced, intelligent and critical enough to know the difference that simple volume levels can make in sound perception, and would correct for that.

Mark

[Beave]

Hi Beave,

Some years ago I read a couple of very good critiques of publicized blind A/B tests which had tested for hearing differences in amplifiers. One of the things critiqued was the short duration of the music being listened too. That's where I'm coming from. Now, if you're saying that there have been publicized tests where the shortcomings of those previous A/B tests were somehow overcome, and the results were still that no discernible differences were heard among sensitive and experienced listeners, I would very much appreciate a reference for that. I'm here to learn.

I certainly can't fault your own personal method. It looks like you have A/B'd lots of your gear through a good number of years, and found little or no discernible differences. I accept that at face value.

May I humbly suggest that an experienced listener - say a reviewer - with a reputation for being able to hear differences between gear, *would* be able to hear differences in A/B test which others like yourself or myself may not. This presumes of course that they are listening to music they know like the back of their hand, in their own room, and using their own familiar gear.

People smell, taste, see and hear to sometimes startlingly different degrees of sensitivity, and that's just the way it is. My wife smells things I am totally oblivious too. Such is life. I appreciate good music, but frankly I know that others can hear much more into the music than I can. Mixed blessing if you ask me. :-)


In Mike's case, the way he describes the music I can tell he is sensitive and alert to cues in the music that others may not be. And he is certainly experienced, intelligent and critical enough to know the difference that simple volume levels can make in sound perception, and would correct for that.

Mark



The bolded part seems reasonable at face value, but it's actually not all that true. While hearing acuity certainly varies from one person to another, the audio performance of most modern electronic gear is well beyond what any person can hear (ie, noise levels, THD, frequency response anomolies, etc). The same can't be said for speaker performance, where differences are orders of magnitude larger than the differences in electronics. Speaker differences are easily measured and fairly easily heard.

Your comment about reviewers having especially good hearing acuity tickles my funny bone for a couple of reasons. First, take for example Stereophile, where the reviewer does a subjective write up, followed by John Atkinson doing bench tests of the piece of gear under review. How many times has the write-up gushed about performance of some amp or speaker, only to have the measurements show a huge issue that was obviously never even heard by the reviewer? It is my opinion that reviewers are no better listeners than the average enthusiast; they are simply more colorful and imaginative writers.

In fact, they may even be worse listeners. Harman (the company) has done some listening tests and found that some reviewers faired worse than random college students they recruited to do the tests. :)

We would have a better handle on their capabilities, but reviewers and audio magazine editors tend to shy away from performing controlled listening tests. They always come up with some excuse or other why the test must be flawed, before they even participate. I suspect they know the test will show the emperor has no clothes, ie, they won't be able to discern gear either. There goes their platform for being golden-eared reviewers we should all pay attention to!

If you go to the "2 channel" or "audio theory setup and chat" sections of AVSforums.com, you'll find many people who have participated in, and sometimes published, results of controlled listening tests. In nearly all cases, not a single listener was able to pick out one CD player from another, or one solid-state amp from another.

The way Mike describes it, as you put it, is very similar to how reviewers often put things: It makes it seem like the writer clearly hears a difference, but the methodology is fundamentally flawed from the get-go. And correcting for simple volume level differences isn't so simple to the average person - it requires measuring gear to really make the levels matched very closely (ie, just matching levels by ear isn't good enough).

Regards,
beave

[Rock]

Hi,
Yes, the selection of the components can be expensive, but knowing where to look, offers a choice between a good and a bad system, but not between bad and downright miserable.
And so, to begin with, I decided to order Emotiva SPA-200 and USP-1
Thank you to everyone who took part.
Rock

[markie]

Great choice Rock, I look forward to your impressions of the Emotiva gear. I'm also curious, when you reported your impressions of the other components, did you demo in you own home or was it at a store?

Mark

[markie]

Hi Beave,

It is quite possible there are reviewers out there who have more enthusiasm for their job than they have particularly heightened hearing acuity into the music. ;-)

But it is reasonable to suppose that most reviewers have hearing sensibilities above the average person.

The best type of test? The tester would go into the homes of those people who 1) have acute hearing into music and 2) have setups which are known to be revealing of upstream changes. Then in a double blind fashion the particular component in question would be A/B'd, level matched of course. The reviewer would listen to music the way he is accustomed - for extended periods.

Given this, I bet those people could readily distinguish between changes in speakers, preamps, amps, power cables, interconnects, etc, in general order of ease of discerning differences.

Guys like Mike would probably welcome the chance to show this is no illusion.

Now, some may say that if a system is so sensitive to upstream changes there is something wrong with it. I've also heard the converse. For instance, a speaker or preamp might so imprint it's own signature on the sound that it overwhelms other subtler signal differences which otherwise would be discerned.

Lots to experiment with here, which makes it that much more fun.

Mark

[petmotel]

Hi Beave,

It is quite possible there are reviewers out there who have more enthusiasm for their job than they have particularly heightened hearing acuity into the music. ;-)

But it is reasonable to suppose that most reviewers have hearing sensibilities above the average person.

The best type of test? The tester would go into the homes of those people who 1) have acute hearing into music and 2) have setups which are known to be revealing of upstream changes. Then in a double blind fashion the particular component in question would be A/B'd, level matched of course. The reviewer would listen to music the way he is accustomed - for extended periods.

Given this, I bet those people could readily distinguish between changes in speakers, preamps, amps, power cables, interconnects, etc, in general order of ease of discerning differences.

Guys like Mike would probably welcome the chance to show this is no illusion.

Now, some may say that if a system is so sensitive to upstream changes there is something wrong with it. I've also heard the converse. For instance, a speaker or preamp might so imprint it's own signature on the sound that it overwhelms other subtler signal differences which otherwise would be discerned.

Lots to experiment with here, which makes it that much more fun.

Mark

And yet, given the substantial database to the contrary, there are those whom will refute any, and all scientific evidence when it is presented.

There are certainly those that will insist that speaker cables, and interconnects, and even power cords affect sound quality to a substantial degree. I can say, without any cynicism, that if one is convinced that is the case that they will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, perceive that difference. Sure enough when an "audiophile" spends a couple hundred dollars on those Audioquest (or pick any other ridiculously priced cables) and get those beauties installed, sure enough they will absolutely hear an increase in the sound quality of their gear. Only problem is that this increase would never be able to be supported with honest bias controlled testing, or with any other type of scientific testing methods, even with highly sophisticated measuring equipment.

Mark, at this point I generally just say we will have to agree to disagree. The only reason I find it important to differentiate between reality and hype/myth, is that often times neophyte enthusiasts read these types of threads. I think it might be helpful to many of them to realize that they are wasting their money to buy into the "snake oil" that runs rampant in the "high end" audio world.

If we were to look at the design/business paradigm of Ascend acoustics for instance, you will find that their designs are based fully on science, and Dave provides far more detailed, and sophisticated measurements than the average speaker manufacturer. Why do you think that is the case?

Yeah, it would probably be more fun if that "high end gear" really did provide a better listening experience. Of course it does for those to whom "audio jewelry" is important, much as in the same manner as a woman would appreciate an expensive diamond necklace.

Jay

[curtis]

One thing that we must remember, and any audiologist will tell you, is that many things affect how an individual perceives sound, and they are still not fully understood. Anything from the the hair on your skin, to your health and mood.

[markie]

One thing that we must remember, and any audiologist will tell you, is that many things affect how an individual perceives sound, and they are still not fully understood. Anything from the the hair on your skin, to your health and mood.

Very true Curtis. How we perceive sound can vary not just from person to person but for one person alone from one time to another, due to mood change, sickness, expectation bias, etc, etc.

I've heard some people insist that their systems sound better at night. I don't doubt that, but it could well be a combination of factors: human circadian rhythm, less potential distraction, less background noise, less noise in the power lines, and who knows what else!

Mark

[Beave]

I am in complete agreement with Jay and will let his post do my talking for me! :cool:

As for systems sounding better at night, I've always felt that to be the case. I believe it has nothing to do with the system itself and everything to do with the listener. With less light, our eyes can't see as well, and so our body tries to compensate by directing more processing power towards our hearing.

[beadyz]

I will never claim to have any sort of fantastic hearing. In fact I'm sure it's significantly worse than when I was younger.

However, it was easy to hear a difference between the 601's and the Sierra-1's; even my wife who has no interest in my hobbies could hear a difference. I agree that speakers have the most distortion and should be the easiest to discern from each other.

The difference between the Carver acting as a preamp and the BAT preamp was also easy to tell. It was not an insignificant difference. The BAT noise floor was lower, the stereo image deeper, and as described previously, sounds were more crisp and "sharp", but not harsh. I like jazz/blues/electronica more often than other genres, and with a female singer like Diana Krall or ambient music like The Orb the soundstage on the BAT was just more open and voices/instruments/sounds more like the real thing. Granted some (most?) of the sounds in electronica may not be real, but the way they came out of the BAT sounded more real to my brain.

Differences in the amplifiers were more subtle than then preamps. Going from the integrated amp on the Carver to the Adcom, the bass was significantly deeper, with much more control. You could tell the bass was tighter and less "loose" or "floppy" sounding. I think almost anyone could hear the difference. From the Adcom to the SMART, it was less difference. Again I'd say better control of the bass was the most noticeable difference, but not as much difference as between the Carver/Adcom.

Going from the SMART to the BAT amp was not the huge jump I was expecting at initial listen. Perhaps I had my expectations too high and was expecting to be blown away, or find an immediately noticeable difference like the speaker or preamp change. I will say my first listen was a Friday after a particularly stressful day at work and an argument with my wife (and we had 3 kids under 5 at that time, anyone with kids understands what this means…) and the amp only had a few minutes to warm up. However, I let the amp run most of Saturday and played some dance music/TV, etc through it during the day. After everything calmed down and the kids were in bed, I sat down for some real listening. This time I heard something special. I'm not a reviewer or a journalist, I'm an engineer and technical, so I'm not good with flowery descriptions. The sound with the BAT amp was just more open and sounds hung in space. The noise floor was lower again, which helped the sounds stand out more, IMHO. Maybe it was psycho-acoustic, I don't know. But I liked what I heard, and keep hearing. The stereo image is more solid and focused and there is just something special to the sound.

FWIW, I do most of my real listening at night, in the dark, when the kids and wife are upstairs. Like others, I find music to sound better at night. And often the later it gets, the better it sounds. Maybe it's just being tired, or maybe something else is at play, I don't know. Many times I will look at the clock and know I should go to bed, but I want to listen to one more song because the music is sounding so special.

I'm not a believer in high-end cords, conditioners, etc. I use Blue jeans balanced cables between the preamp and amp and (gasp) 12-ga low voltage landscape power cable for speaker cable. I've never experienced any high-end cables, but I doubt I hear well enough, and certainly my room isn't set up well enough, that I could tell a difference. FWIW, I can tell a difference in the soundstage, particularly depth, when the Sierra's are 6" from the rear wall vs. pulled out 3 or 4 feet. Can I hear a difference between 1/4" of toe-in angle? I don't think so.

I am confident I could pick the Sierra's from the B&W's or the BAT pre from the Carver pre everytime. I will concede that the amps were closer in performance, but I think I could tell the BAT from the others. Since one of the largest difference was in the bass and lower frequencies, maybe I am hearing the difference in power supplies. On cheaper equipment maybe corners are cut in the power supplies letting their rail voltages sag and not put out as much current. On a high-end component perhaps the manufacturer figures the listener may actually be driving large full range speakers and will listen to music with information in the low registers (organ music, symphonies, etc).

Make of it what you will.

OP, any decent mid-grade amp will sound great to you, I wouldn't sweat it. I would suggest trying a dedicated 2-channel preamp at some point if you lean towards stereo listening of music vs. home theatre. Check your local CL for cheap used gear.

Mike

[Beave]

Quick comments and questions:
1) Yeah, I think we all agree that sound differences in speakers are quite audible. And, like you said, moving the speakers can make easily-heard differences as well.
2) How old are your Carver and Adcom pieces of gear? The claim that "they all sound the same" has caveats: That the gear is properly functioning and meeting its spec. Older gear may or may not conform to these requirements. Power supply caps can and often do dry out over time, affecting bass response.
3) Is the BAT tube-based? The claim about sounding the same does not apply to tubes, where distortion and frequency response can be significant enough to be audible.
4) Did you level-match in your comparisons? Just small changes in output levels from one preamp to another can easily account for any perceived audible differences.

[petmotel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0&feature=player_embedded

An interesting little clip for anyone interested in expectation bias. Your brain can, and will interpret what you hear EVEN WHEN YOU KNOW YOU'RE BEING TRICKED! I'ts actually rather maddening, give it a try.

Jay

[beadyz]

Quick comments and questions:
1) Yeah, I think we all agree that sound differences in speakers are quite audible. And, like you said, moving the speakers can make easily-heard differences as well.
2) How old are your Carver and Adcom pieces of gear? The claim that "they all sound the same" has caveats: That the gear is properly functioning and meeting its spec. Older gear may or may not conform to these requirements. Power supply caps can and often do dry out over time, affecting bass response.
3) Is the BAT tube-based? The claim about sounding the same does not apply to tubes, where distortion and frequency response can be significant enough to be audible.
4) Did you level-match in your comparisons? Just small changes in output levels from one preamp to another can easily account for any perceived audible differences.

Carver and Adcom pieces are both early-mid 90's I believe, so not ancient, but not brand new either.

The BAT preamp is tube based, with dual-mono architecture and very nice build quality and components.

No level matching. It wasn't a volume difference, it was a distinct difference in sound of the preamps.

[Beave]

Carver and Adcom pieces are both early-mid 90's I believe, so not ancient, but not brand new either.

The BAT preamp is tube based, with dual-mono architecture and very nice build quality and components.

No level matching. It wasn't a volume difference, it was a distinct difference in sound of the preamps.

OK, now we have more insight as to the sound differences you're hearing.

1) Early/mid-90s is easily old enough for the gear to no longer meet spec. The power supply electrolytic caps could be dried out by now. In my tests, my early 90s stereo receiver sounded considerably different than everything else - considerably worse. Its caps had gone bad. That may be the case with yours too. Also, early/mid-90s gear usually met specs for being "transparent," but not always. Some gear then, even solid-state, didn't meet requirements for output impedance or frequency response.

2) Tube based gear can and often does sound different. Some people may prefer it, but it is generally not as accurate (in terms of frequency response) as solid-stage gear.

3) Without level-matching, the listening tests mean nothing. You say it wasn't a volume difference,, it was a distinct difference in sound. That may be true because of (2) above, but it also shows that you're failing to appreciate the importance of level-matching. Often, a "distinct difference in sound" can be accounted for simply by slightly mis-matched levels. It's how our hearing works. As I said before, you can take two of the very same product, and set the levels to be slightly different, and listeners (who don't know what gear they're hearing) will describe distinct differences in the sound of the two pieces of gear, when in fact the only difference is a slight level difference.

[petmotel]

^^^^^ Another crucial factor is that the perceived differences of sound quality are being determined after an extended time differential. Pretty much an impossible task considering the unreliable nature of audio memory.

Jay

[beadyz]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I seriously doubt it was to do with PS caps. They aren't leaking, and the sound wasn't bad, there was just less bass in the receiver than in the lower end amp than in the higher end amp. Not sure why you don't think that could be the case. Otherwise every amp would be made using the lightest gauge wire, iron core transformers and surface mount caps in the power supply and be about 2 cubic inches in volume. The higher end amp has MUCH more capacitance in the PS, larger transformer(s), and higher quality components than the lower end stuff.

Believe me, if I didn't hear a worthwhile difference I would have sold the equipment and tried something else.

Mike

[Beave]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I seriously doubt it was to do with PS caps. They aren't leaking, and the sound wasn't bad, there was just less bass in the receiver than in the lower end amp than in the higher end amp. Not sure why you don't think that could be the case. Otherwise every amp would be made using the lightest gauge wire, iron core transformers and surface mount caps in the power supply and be about 2 cubic inches in volume. The higher end amp has MUCH more capacitance in the PS, larger transformer(s), and higher quality components than the lower end stuff.

Believe me, if I didn't hear a worthwhile difference I would have sold the equipment and tried something else.

Mike

The bass response was where my 20 year old receiver was most deficient as well. Just because the caps aren't visibly leaking doesn't mean they haven't dried out, or at the very least are no longer meeting their spec.

Not sure what iron core transformers has to do with anything. They can be just as powerful as toroids. There are pros and cons to each (toroids can be smaller but are more expensive for a given kVA rating, they generate less field issues as well).

Surface mount caps in the power supply? Not sure I follow there either.

Actually, some of the new Harman-Kardon AVRs use smps (switched-mode power supplies), with neither big transformers nor big electrolytic caps.

Those big power supplies are there for a reason - to give more power capability. That doesn't mean they sound better when using a fraction of the available power, however.

They're also there, sometimes, for an additional reason: Because audiophiles buy with their eyes as much as their ears. They see toroids, big caps, and feel the heavy weight, and assume it all adds up to better sound quality. It all adds up to heavier, and generally more powerful amps, but that's all.

[davef]

Guys,

Just been briefly following this... There are, without any doubt, differences in dynamics between various amplifiers and receivers, and differences in dynamics can very well be defined as differences in sound quality... There are also differences besides dynamics -- don't assume all amplifiers measure "flat" -- they don't. In addition, different amplifier classes tend to sound different as well - a poorly designed class D amp can sound horrible due to switching noise, just as an amp with an out of whack bias will sound horrible due to high levels of distortion...

[Beave]

Guys,

Just been briefly following this... There are, without any doubt, differences in dynamics between various amplifiers and receivers, and differences in dynamics can very well be defined as differences in sound quality... There are also differences besides dynamics -- don't assume all amplifiers measure "flat" -- they don't. In addition, different amplifier classes tend to sound different as well - a poorly designed class D amp can sound horrible due to switching noise, just as an amp with an out of whack bias will sound horrible due to high levels of distortion...

Differences in dynamics are really just another way of saying some amps have more power capability than others, no? And if you aren't hitting near the limits of those power capabilities, then the dynamics should be equal.

True that not all amps measure flat. As I noted, tube amps often don't. But these days any properly-designed solid-state amp does. Oh, I'm sure you can find some ultra-expensive audiophile amp that doesn't measure flat, but that's due to either intent or incompetence.

As for class D amps, yeah, they're sort of like tube amps in that they can be the exception to the rule. The filters needed on their outputs lead to them sometimes having high(ish) output impedances, meaning their frequency response may be somewhat load-dependent.

The "all amps sound the same" has a whole list of caveats, for sure. But the list isn't as big as most people think (ie, that practically every amp has its own sonic signature).

[petmotel]

Guys,

Just been briefly following this... There are, without any doubt, differences in dynamics between various amplifiers and receivers, and differences in dynamics can very well be defined as differences in sound quality... There are also differences besides dynamics -- don't assume all amplifiers measure "flat" -- they don't. In addition, different amplifier classes tend to sound different as well - a poorly designed class D amp can sound horrible due to switching noise, just as an amp with an out of whack bias will sound horrible due to high levels of distortion...

There is no doubt that Mike believes he hears a difference between the specific gear he has mentioned. There is every possibility that he is right, and there is also the possibility that his methods of discriminating between them is flawed enough that expectation bias has rendered his opinions invalid.

That has been the whole point of much of the discussion. Expectation bias can, and does, play more of a role here than most realize. That much has been shown to be a certainty. I realize that it's ridiculous to believe that anyone is going to perform a level matched, blind, ABX test to confirm a difference in their personal components. I also realize that normal sighted comparisons, done after a substantial length of time has passed, don't mean too much.

I hope no one takes this discussion personally, mostly the folks on the Ascend groups treat each other with respect. This little hobby of ours can certainly lead to a difference of opinion, experiences, and general belief systems. Not a thing in the world wrong with that! Sometimes a good old fashioned debate can be a stimulating, and positive affair.

Jay

[Beave]

Well said Jay. Challenging one's beliefs is a touchy thing, so I'm trying to be polite. I hope it comes across that way. When I listen to any of my various amps one at a time (ie, play one, disconnect, connect the next one, play it....), I always feel like each one sounds different! It's only when I match levels, hide the identity, and do quick-switching that suddenly I have a hard time picking one from the next. It's amazing how our hearing can play tricks on us.

[markie]

Remember that 'beliefs' on this issue go both ways. :) But isn't it interesting to contemplate that just *one* instance of a person consistently being able to distinguish two well made preamps, or amps, or cables, or power cords, etc, in a double blind environment (in his own home with familiar music and equipment) give good reason to cast serious doubt on all those controlled studies in unfamiliar venues which supposedly showed otherwise.

Mark

[Beave]

Remember that 'beliefs' on this issue go both ways. :) But isn't it interesting to contemplate that just *one* instance of a person consistently being able to distinguish two well made preamps, or amps, or cables, or power cords, etc, in a double blind environment (in his own home with familiar music and equipment) give good reason to cast serious doubt on all those controlled studies in unfamiliar venues which supposedly showed otherwise.

Mark

It would be big news if it happened. And I'd be very interested to know about it, and, as an EE, to figure out what made the audible difference.

But so far, it hasn't happened. That's pretty telling, isn't it?

[markie]

It would be big news if it happened. And I'd be very interested to know about it, and, as an EE, to figure out what made the audible difference.

But so far, it hasn't happened. That's pretty telling, isn't it?

From what I remember (which may not be correct) there are three main factors that make cables different: impedance, capacitance, and inductance. There could be other factors at work as well that are outside the realm of electrical engineering.

I did a quick Google and found this from the Wall Street Journal:




Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000, eight-foot pair of Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which are as thick as your thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker cable. Many audiophiles say they are equally good. I couldn't hear a difference and was a wee bit suspicious that anyone else could. But of the 39 people who took this test, 61% said they preferred the expensive cable.

That may not be much of a margin for two products with such drastically different prices, but I was struck by how the best-informed people at the show -- like John Atkinson and Michael Fremer of Stereophile Magazine -- easily picked the expensive cable.

Its sound was described as "richer," "crisper" and "more coherent." Like some wines, come to think of it.

In absolute terms, though, the differences weren't great. Mr. Atkinson guesstimated the expensive cables sounded roughly 5% better. Remember, by definition, an audiophile is one who will bear any burden, pay any price, to get even a tiny improvement in sound.



Now, it may not have been a rigorous DBT. But considering that the test was done in an unfamiliar room, with unfamiliar equipment (probably), and possibly unfamiliar music, the fact that at least two experienced listeners could easily tell the difference is telling. The results would have been far more pronounced in someone's familiar listening environment.

I myself went to an audio show a few years ago here in Toronto where a cable manufacturer (ONDA) was showing the differences among their own cables. The sound was coming beautifully through some Vanderstein 5As as I recall. Three difference cables, three different sounds, three different price brackets. They were clearly different, to me. However I was unsure which one I would prefer. One was 'sparkly', another gave a 'denser' sound, and the third seemed to highlight transients, it seemed more dynamic. And again, that was in an unfamiliar environment, with unfamiliar music. I'm not even an experienced listener, nor do I have exceptional hearing. So it's a no brainer to me that cables make a difference. And if *they* make a difference, I can perfectly understand that a preamp potentially would make an even bigger difference.

Mark

[Beave]

Cables, really? I should probably bow out of this before I get myself in trouble. Perhaps Jay has the ability to argue that one without offending. I do not have that ability.

[Dark Ranger]

Ah, the discussion of the audio cables. It brings us all closer together. :rolleyes:

[petmotel]

Cables, really? I should probably bow out of this before I get myself in trouble. Perhaps Jay has the ability to argue that one without offending. I do not have that ability.

Nope, I'm done. I tried a couple of replies, I'd be banned for sure if I had posted.

Jay

[markie]

Ah, the discussion of the audio cables. It brings us all closer together. :rolleyes:

Yes, yes, around a roaring fire. Marshmallow anyone?

In the bang for the buck proposition, cables are admittedly down near the bottom. At the top of the list, in no particular order, we have recording quality of the music, room treatments, speaker, and proper equalization/DSP room correction. For the next three down, in no particular order, we have preamp, source/dac, and amp. For the next three down, in no particular order, we have power cords, cables, and interconnects.

I shall refrain from mentioning more esoteric paraphernalia for the sake of forum harmony. :)

On this forum we can agree on one thing: Ascend speaker products present a very high value proposition for sure!

Mark

[davef]

Differences in dynamics are really just another way of saying some amps have more power capability than others, no? And if you aren't hitting near the limits of those power capabilities, then the dynamics should be equal.

Not really - it comes down to headroom reserve and this is where the amp's power supply capabilities really come into play. Transformer capacity and the amount of capacitance in the PS filter caps is key. I use an amp that has a full .250 farads (250,000 uF) of capacitance but yet is only 150 watts, and it has better dynamics then a 500 watt amp I also use... Wattage rating is an important aspect at determining dynamic capabilities, but it is absolutely not the only factor.... A good factor in determining dynamics is to compare the amp power ratings into different impedance loads. An amp that is rated at 100 watts into 8 ohms and 200 watts into 4 ohms, has plenty of current capability, while an amp that is rated at 100 watts into 8 ohms and 110 watts into 4 ohms has poor current capabilities.


True that not all amps measure flat. As I noted, tube amps often don't. But these days any properly-designed solid-state amp does. Oh, I'm sure you can find some ultra-expensive audiophile amp that doesn't measure flat, but that's due to either intent or incompetence.

And that is just it -- the designers intent... A 1-2 dB boost at the low end can make the amp sound warmer and more appealing, and the consumer would be left thinking, hey -- I can definitely hear a difference between amps, while being completely unaware that the amp is coloring the sound. This has happened to me on 2 occasions, and only after measuring the amps -- did I realize the cause...

After so many years in this industry, I have learned never to doubt what someone else hears. I may not agree with it and that person may not be hearing what they are due to the reasons they think -- but that is what makes this profession challenging for me -- trying to justify and quantify beyond reasonable doubt what someone else is hearing...

It is like speaker cables -- most say all speaker cable sounds the same, but I say speaker wire that is designed properly will sound the same. However, a cable can be wound in such a way such that it has high inductance, thus slightly rolling off the highs and making the sound warmer, meatier... This is the intent of the designer and it is, in my opinion, wrong to do so. But the cable will definitely sound different than an ordinary pair of speaker cables that does not have high inductance...

Does the consumer know he is purchasing high inductance speaker cables? Or a cable specifically designed to change the sound? No -- instead he is purchasing cable that is marketed as "sounding better"...

All cable should be sold with published specs such as these: http://www.mogamicable.com/category/bulk/speaker_cable/pure_sound/ Where capacitance, inductance and resistance is known...

During my M&K days, this was the only cable Ken wanted us using for testing and measurements, since the cable specifications were known and trusted.

[Beave]

Not really - it comes down to headroom reserve and this is where the amp's power supply capabilities really come into play. Transformer capacity and the amount of capacitance in the PS filter caps is key. I use an amp that has a full .250 farads (250,000 uF) of capacitance but yet is only 150 watts, and it has better dynamics then a 500 watt amp I also use... Wattage rating is an important aspect at determining dynamic capabilities, but it is absolutely not the only factor.... A good factor in determining dynamics is to compare the amp power ratings into different impedance loads. An amp that is rated at 100 watts into 8 ohms and 200 watts into 4 ohms, has plenty of current capability, while an amp that is rated at 100 watts into 8 ohms and 110 watts into 4 ohms has poor current capabilities.

True, but a little misleading. First, if the amp isn't clipping, which I stipulated earlier, then headroom reserve isn't helpful. If your amp is capable of putting out 100 watts per channel, continuous, and you're running it averaging 2 watts out and hitting 50 watts out at peaks, then headroom reserve never comes into play. Remember, I stipulated that the amp isn't clipping. By referring to an amp with higher transformer capacity and ps filter capacitance, you're basically describing an amp that can output more before clipping. So, yes, at extremes, the more capable amp will be more capable, but that's a syllogism.

As for the amps ratings example you gave, I know you're generalizing, but there are counterexamples on both sides. In other words, it's sort of a myth in audiophile circles. Consider 1) Some manufacturers, aware of this commonly-held belief in audiophile circles, purposely under-rate their output at 8 Ohms so that it looks like they double wattage into 4 Ohms, and 2) NAD, whose amps have considerable transformers and filter capacitance (at least compared to most AVRs), rates their amps for the same wattage at 8 Ohms and at 4 Ohms (continuous), yet they have impressive dynamic power output capabilities.

The overall point remains the same: An amp that isn't clipping shouldn't have a sound. Your description of headroom reserve is another way of saying dynamic power isn't the same as continuous power. True. Most amps can output more in short dynamic bursts, and some amps can output *way* more than their continuous output ratings. But if you're not using that capability, and most people aren't, then it's a moot point.




And that is just it -- the designers intent... A 1-2 dB boost at the low end can make the amp sound warmer and more appealing, and the consumer would be left thinking, hey -- I can definitely hear a difference between amps, while being completely unaware that the amp is coloring the sound. This has happened to me on 2 occasions, and only after measuring the amps -- did I realize the cause...

True, but how many amps these days are designed to have a boost? In all the measurements I've ever seen - on several websites, magazines, etc - I've never seen any that do.

Oh, sure, you can find an amp that is purposely designed to color the sound, but such an exception is easily measured and doesn't fall into the category of "properly designed and meeting spec." I had a former EE coworker who knew somebody who designed guitar amps. He was very well known and sought-out by rock guitarists for making amps with certain sound characteristics. His approach? Take a functioning amp (ie, flat FR, non-distorting, low noise) and purposely screw it up. And he was making good money doing so. But that's audio production, not reproduction, where the goal should be not to screw it up.


After so many years in this industry, I have learned never to doubt what someone else hears. I may not agree with it and that person may not be hearing what they are due to the reasons they think -- but that is what makes this profession challenging for me -- trying to justify and quantify beyond reasonable doubt what someone else is hearing...

After so many years in this industry as well, including having products reviewed in home theater mags, I've learned to always take what people say they hear with a huge grain of salt, because most people have no clue how easily our other senses, and who-knows-what-else-is-happening-in-our-brains, affects what we hear. I myself have been humbled by thinking I could easily pick out an amp over another, only to find myself completely guessing when I had to do it blind.


It is like speaker cables -- most say all speaker cable sounds the same, but I say speaker wire that is designed properly will sound the same. However, a cable can be wound in such a way such that it has high inductance, thus slightly rolling off the highs and making the sound warmer, meatier... This is the intent of the designer and it is, in my opinion, wrong to do so. But the cable will definitely sound different than an ordinary pair of speaker cables that does not have high inductance...

Does the consumer know he is purchasing high inductance speaker cables? Or a cable specifically designed to change the sound? No -- instead he is purchasing cable that is marketed as "sounding better"...

All cable should be sold with published specs such as these: http://www.mogamicable.com/category/bulk/speaker_cable/pure_sound/ Where capacitance, inductance and resistance is known...

During my M&K days, this was the only cable Ken wanted us using for testing and measurements, since the cable specifications were known and trusted.

It's pretty easy to "design" speaker cable that doesn't have high inductance or capacitance. In fact, the converse is true: It's pretty hard to "design" a speaker cable that doesn't have low inductance and capacitance. You have to screw it up on purpose, just like my coworker's friend who screwed up amp designs on purpose. Stick with simple, cheap copper wire of the appropriate gauge and no need to think any more about it.

[markie]

I just finished reading an excellent article at Audioholics, written less than a year ago. Guess what? The skeptics there, who had held that there are no audible difference between non clipping amps, are converting. It is well worth reading in its entirety.

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/the-sound-of-an-amplifier

I found much that was interesting. One is that clipping can occur even at normative listening levels, and we probably don't recognize it as clipping, just as inferior sound. Surprise!

Another thing I found interesting was that certain *agreed upon* sound characteristics of amplifiers such as veiled / transparent have no known correlation to electrical parameters that are known to electrical engineers. It is still rather much a mystery, although a very real phenomenon. This doesn't surprise me. For instance an EE sees a cable and he says it conducts electricity. A quantum physicist looking at the same cable will say it is a particular type of metal lattice that is propagating electrical waveforms that carry information. A bit of a difference in outlook!

Yet another tidbit from the article was that amp performance is very much related to what it is connected to. An amp may be quite good in one setup and not in another.

And that is why I think it is important to know what amps and other equipment are known to produce particularly satisfying results when used the Sierras.

Mark

[pierreterrier]

I experience ultra satisfying sound from my Sierra Towers (with Raals) with the following equipment:

-Turntable, VPI Classic 1
-Cartridge, Soundsmith Zephyr
-Amp, Marantz PM-15S2 limited edition reference series
-Speaker cables, 10 gauge Atlona

From my music lover background, I have never experienced sound quality like this (bass, midrange and treble) on any equipment I have heard or owned since the mid sixties.

[GirgleMirt]

Quote Originally Posted by markie View Post
Hi Jay,
...

Double blind studies comparing one amp or the other, I dare say, involve unfamiliar source materials, unfamiliar components, in unfamiliar rooms. In other words, the acoustic memory we have which is so important in evaluation and which takes much time develop, is removed from the equation. That is a shame, and that is why such studies should not be taken at face value.
..

Mark
Mark,
Your comments about double-blind studies are just not true. There is no reason why you can't use music you're familiar with in a double-blind study. There is no reason you can't use equipment you're familiar with, either. And there's no reason it has to be done in an unfamiliar room.

I've done such studies in my room, with my music, and with my gear.

The requirements are simply that the listener doesn't know what gear is being heard at the time (amp A or amp B?); that the levels are adjusted to be within very tight tolerances (usually a couple tenths of a dB); and that the switching between components is quick (usually within less than a half second).

That final requirement is there because, as you stated, acoustic memory is important - but it is also fleeting and very short-lived.

Yeah I'm also in disagreement. The only reason some folks 'disagree' with blind tests or call them invalid is because they do not support their beliefs and misconceptions. You have the same thing in many fields; religion, homeopathy, ESP, astrology, magic bracelets, talking to the dead, spirits, ghosts and all sorts of nonsense. People who believe in that sort of stupidities will always look for info that confirms their beliefs and ignore or dismiss facts/proofs/evidence of the contrary. It's called confirmation bias. Add in ego and narcissism, and you've got a non-reasoning individual who'll never question nor change their beliefs.

DBTs, Double Blind Tests, work. Even blind tests work. Do some research, just a simple google search, many have done such tests in their own homes with long trial periods and the results were the same. DBTs are not a subject of contention.

In audio, some things make a significant difference. Such things are;
- Speakers or headphones. These have significant audible difference.
- Amps; Some do color the sound (tubes for example) significantly and some may be driven into clipping by being underpowered, but generally non-clipped proficient amps will all sound the same. DBTs have demonstrated this, for example comparing a 200$ Sony receiver with 20000$ tube amps or whatnot... And people were unable to tell apart both amplifiers.

The rest, cables, cd players, cable raisers, magical stones, etc., are all pretty much useless or snakeoil. Get decently sized copper cables, any decent CD player or RCA cables, and you're in business.

The underlined part was really important in the last paragraph. If people can't tell apart a budget amplifier and an amp costing 100 times more, I think it's safe to assume that spending 100 times for a high end amp is wasting your money. Especially if you can't tell them apart under blind conditions.

I mean seriously... If you can't tell apart the sound of two amplifiers under blind conditions... You must be really stupid to buy one over the other because you still think it sounds better... lol Anyhow... I guess there's still the placebo effect, but imho once you know that you can't tell the difference in sound of two amplifiers apart if you can't see them, worrying about it is silly and might even be a sign of mental health problems... ;)

But again the problem is misinformation. In audio people will worry that their gear isn't up to par, and look for improvements, even if there's none to be had. And vendors will be glad to provide a more expensive piece of gear as an 'upgrade', which in the case of amps/cdps/cables/etc might very well make no audible difference. But hey, an whole industry depends on it and a whole slew of liars and charlatans are ready to take advantage of misinformed consumers... The whole industry is a mess... Add the fact that the most technically proficient component might not even be the one preferred by all listeners, and really, the whole audio industry is a mess; confused consumers stumbling in a mine field of snakeoil and overpriced products...

So anyhow, you can drink the Cool-Aid and jump in feet first into the audiofool bandwagon and live in the magical mystery world of audio where 'magical' expensive components that sound the same make a huge difference, or you can look at things logically and reasonably... It's your choice. Sadly, so many make the wrong choice... As George Carlin said: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

[RPM]

well I've been debating on upgrading to the sierra 2 or a 600.00
power cable they swear on the computer audiophile forum makes
such a difference in "depth of soundstage" "tighter bass response"
hmm.... choices n choices.....lol.....yeah above post is spot on.

[markie]

RPM, out of curiosity did you notice a difference in sound characteristics between the Parasound amp you had, and Emotiva's xpa-2 that replaced it? (I see that both are class A/B)

thanks,
Mark

[muzz]

well I've been debating on upgrading to the sierra 2 or a 600.00
power cable they swear on the computer audiophile forum makes
such a difference in "depth of soundstage" "tighter bass response"
hmm.... choices n choices.....lol.....yeah above post is spot on.

Sierra2 or a snake oil $600 :rolleyes: power cable?
EZ decision for me.

[markie]

Yes I think it would be a very easy decision for all of us here...

But after one gets some great recordings, Sierra-2s or Towers, room treatments, room EQ, a fine preamp, great DAC (if required), a solid source, nice amps, and ears cleaned out, what is there left to do? (Besides listen!) A local dealer or friend might be kind enough to loan out a power cord, a cable, or an interconnect, and the result may surprise ... or not.

Mark

[petmotel]

Yes I think it would be a very easy decision for all of us here...

But after one gets some great recordings, Sierra-2s or Towers, room treatments, room EQ, a fine preamp, great DAC (if required), a solid source, nice amps, and ears cleaned out, what is there left to do? (Besides listen!) A local dealer or friend might be kind enough to loan out a power cord, a cable, or an interconnect, and the result may surprise ... or not.

Mark

Wow, you never miss an opportunity to preach your gospel eh? It's become painfully obvious you have an agenda, I should think that, by the preponderance of the replies you've gotten, that your "subjective attitude" is neither supported, nor appreciated.

There is no reason for me to try to convince you of my (and those that share a belief in objective methodology) views, or me of yours. As you've said, for the sake of forum harmony, please consider giving it a rest. It is beginning to appear that perhaps you have a vested interest in perpetuating the same old stale mythology that exists in the audio world. What in the hell do a power cord, speaker cables, or interconnects have to do with the question asked in this thread, what relevance is this discussion to the intent of the OP? Not a single, solitary thing.

Jay

[Dark Ranger]

What would happen if an unstoppable force collided with an immovable object?

It's more of a philosophical question, but I think the metaphor fits most of the audiophile cable discussions I've read.

One thing I've discovered over the years is that we humans cultivate beliefs shaped by many things, including culture, upbringing, environmental influence, peer influence, and experiences unique to the individual. Some beliefs are disproved relatively early in life (e.g. Santa Clause is not real), while others can be carried throughout one's entire lifetime (e.g. Capital Punishment should be/should not be abolished). We form opinions every day, and sometimes these opinions become deeply rooted as beliefs (and even values). We can be exposed to things repeatedly so that they become second-nature. This process is natural and it's part of what makes us human.

However, while our senses merely bring us the information, it's up to our brains to sort it all out. The way we process stimuli can affect our reality, and vice versa, so that it becomes a self-fulfilling cycle. Sometimes we lack the knowledge and experience to correctly interpret the incoming data. The world is a very large place and we cannot know everything about anything. There will be inevitable knowledge gaps when we don't have all the puzzle pieces. The trick is to understand this limitation and some of the problems it brings, such as cognitive dissonance and experimenter's (or expectation) bias. Unfortunately, our fallback heuristics don't always steer us in the right direction.

Beliefs do not have to be set in stone. As each day passes, we absorb more information and accumulate greater experience. I think one important key to problem-solving is to retain an open mind coupled with the essentials of the scientific method. Instead of thoughtlessly throwing out information which does not match with current beliefs, we should investigate it and analyze the differences. Why is there a mismatch? How reliable is the data? Which theory is more scientifically sound? Are there ulterior motives involved? And on and on it goes.

Of course, all of this is hard work and takes time. We humans like to take shortcuts in many areas, including our thought process, where (arguably) it is the most important. The good news is that most beliefs have a kernel of truth somewhere. And with two opposing beliefs, the truth is often near the middle. How diligent we are at finding that truth can correlate to the value we place on making accurate decisions.

The audiophile cable argument is one of those quagmires I just don't see being resolved without a lot of hard work and scientifically-valid experiments on both sides.


/rant

[RPM]

RPM, out of curiosity did you notice a difference in sound characteristics between the Parasound amp you had, and Emotiva's xpa-2 that replaced it? (I see that both are class A/B)


thanks,
Mark

Not really, the parasound was very good, until it blew up...lol...sparks
and all. the XPA-2 doesn't break a sweat when I push the volume and
has room to spare, thats really the difference.

[petmotel]

I bought my first stereo components just over forty years ago in my late teens. I've been in more hi-fi stores than I can even begin to count, I've seen many, many sales strategies from the arrogant "snob appeal" approach common in the high end boutiques, to the purposely colored demos to steer customers to high profit margin gear.

In case you're not aware, the suggestion to take cables and other useless garbage home with you and try it out is one of the oldest ploys in the book. I once fell prey to this tactic, but I actually took the time to do a direct side by side comparison, and consequently returned the high dollar cables the next day. I'm sure plenty of folks have just went home, changed out their cables, listened very critically, and perceived an increase in detail, and whatnot, never realizing how expectation bias can fool the senses.

There is but one motive for this junk, and it is the almighty dollar. I had a good friend that worked in a high end shop (his parents actually owned the store). He told me the only reason they sold the expensive cables was purely profit margin. Make no mistake, they didn't even believe in the BS they were selling at their own store, but did make it available for the customers that wanted them. At least they didn't push that stuff, and my friend was honest about selling high value, great performing gear. Audiophiles beware, however, he could certainly talk the talk with the best of them!

Certainly the studies that have removed bias from the equation should be proof enough. That is where I put my faith, repeatable conclusions formed of rigorously performed scientific experimentation.

Jay

[pierreterrier]

Between my Towers, amp, turntable and isolation audio stand (a must for turntables), I got about 10 grand. For my Atlona 10 gauge cables and gold plated double mount banana plugs I got about $100.

So I got a nice speaker cable set up for about 1% of the cost of my system and that's what I call a deal of a lifetime :)

So no copper wire from Home Depot for this guy, even though they might sound exactly the same, because I truly think my speakers would be upset about such a lack of respect, lol. But seriously, if my speakers wouldn't come in a pair I would call them "she", just like my boat, that's how I treat things I love, just me.

[markie]

Thanks for sharing Pierre. Yes it's all about the love. When we spend quality time with someone, even some*thing*, there is that connection. I think I'll even miss my 2006 imac when it's time has come. :-)

It has always fascinated me seeing the price ratios put into our music gear. At shows I've seen modestly priced speakers powered by much more expensive amps, preamps and sources, and connected by cables that are, well, rather immodestly priced. :)

I always bear in mind that behind so many these high end products, from speakers to amps to cables, are real and good people who themselves have put a lot of effort, and yes love into their work to produce something they are genuinely proud of and want to share.

Mark

[petmotel]

Between my Towers, amp, turntable and isolation audio stand (a must for turntables), I got about 10 grand. For my Atlona 10 gauge cables and gold plated double mount banana plugs I got about $100.

So I got a nice speaker cable set up for about 1% of the cost of my system and that's what I call a deal of a lifetime :)

So no copper wire from Home Depot for this guy, even though they might sound exactly the same, because I truly think my speakers would be upset about such a lack of respect, lol. But seriously, if my speakers wouldn't come in a pair I would call them "she", just like my boat, that's how I treat things I love, just me.

I use Canare 4S11 speaker cable in my theater set-up, as well as nice spade connectors, and banana plugs from Blue Jeans Cable. It's round, with four conductors and a nice looking, rugged outer jacket. I can understand the reasons for not wanting to use zip cord for speaker wires, enhancing the sound quality not being one of them. I too have a lot of love for my A/V system, it brings me a tremendous amount of enjoyment. I would have to believe most participating in this forum feel the same.

Jay

[curtis]

I use Canare 4S11 speaker cable in my theater set-up, as well as nice spade connectors, and banana plugs from Blue Jeans Cable. It's round, with four conductors and a nice looking, rugged outer jacket. I can understand the reasons for not wanting to use zip cord for speaker wires, enhancing the sound quality not being one of them. I too have a lot of love for my A/V system, it brings me a tremendous amount of enjoyment. I would have to believe most participating in this forum feel the same.
i also use Canare 4S11. Terminated and put a nice nylon sleeve on them myself. Had them for a long time...I should probably re-terminate them so they look nicer, but you can't see them behind the speakers and amp.

For or my surrounds, I just use white 14ga zip cord...fits the white trim in the room nicely.

[Dark Ranger]

I've read some really interesting stories about folks discovering their expensive "audiophile" cable was actually performing worse than a cheaper cable. By worse, I mean significant noise issues like buzz and hum. As soon as they switched it out for a cheaper, but well-made cable, the noise problems disappeared. Point being, just because something is more expensive does not automatically make it "better." It's a trap we can fall into with anything, not just audio equipment and cables.

In case anyone is curious (based on my last post), I use the Ultralink 14-gauge 4-conductor stuff (http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/access/cable/speakcable.html) that Dave sells. No connector terminations, just bare wire at the binding posts. Works great and sounds great. My interconnects are a mixture of Blue Jeans Cable and Emotiva X-series cable. :)

[muzz]

Whole bunch of guys at AVS were buying specific extension cords(thicker round stuff) at HD and using it as speaker wire.......

[GirgleMirt]

Between my Towers, amp, turntable and isolation audio stand (a must for turntables), I got about 10 grand. For my Atlona 10 gauge cables and gold plated double mount banana plugs I got about $100.

So I got a nice speaker cable set up for about 1% of the cost of my system and that's what I call a deal of a lifetime :)

So no copper wire from Home Depot for this guy, even though they might sound exactly the same, because I truly think my speakers would be upset about such a lack of respect, lol. But seriously, if my speakers wouldn't come in a pair I would call them "she", just like my boat, that's how I treat things I love, just me.
I hear ya! When I last put my computer together I had at least 2500$ in there, so I told the salesman, I need at least a 25$ power cable, because I'll be spending a lot of time working on my computer, and so I want a nice power cable, turns out it's the best damn purchase I ever made! That power cable works hella great, can't say I ever regret spending 1% of the price of the computer on the power cable. Just the video card in there and the processor, they're fast you see, hundreds of operations per second, and so 1% for the power cable is the least I'd ever spend on it. So no regular power cable for me! Even though it's not entirely impossible a regular power cable might have worked (doubt it), I'm not about to risk it!!! I want to get 100% the performance out of my PC and so it's a 25$ power cable. Anything else would just be not enough expensive for the caliber of my PC. If my PC was shit ok, I'd get a regular cable and it would work perfectly. But I have an expensive PC and so I need an expensive power cable. Perfectly logic.

When I bought my Mustang, I told the dealer, you know, I want to get ALL of the performance of my Mustang, and so I told him to put about 300$ worth of vinyls on it, only 1% of the cost of the car. Best damn purchase ever made! I'm not saying the car wouldn't have been as fast had it not had those speed stripes vinyls on it (even though we all know vinyls add horsepower), but you know, ain't about to risk it, it's just 1%, and you know what, car's fast as hell an I ride in it all the time! Stickers are the best damn purchase ever made! Maybe it's not entirely impossible that a car without vinyls might have been as fast, but I ain't drivin no 30k$ car without speed stripes that's for sure! And baby's fast as hell I call her Sheryll an I'd marry her if it was legal!

:p


There is but one motive for this junk, and it is the almighty dollar. I had a good friend that worked in a high end shop (his parents actually owned the store). He told me the only reason they sold the expensive cables was purely profit margin. Make no mistake, they didn't even believe in the BS they were selling at their own store, but did make it available for the customers that wanted them. At least they didn't push that stuff, and my friend was honest about selling high value, great performing gear. Audiophiles beware, however, he could certainly talk the talk with the best of them!
Sad... It's like people want to get ripped off. A colleague of mine was telling us about how his new baby kept crying, so he went and bought homeopathic medicine and a magical bracelet (ok he didn't call it magical bracelet), and you know what, it worked! It stopped crying. That's pretty amazing when you think about it. And you know, it's just a couple dollars, no more than like 40$, for a baby to stop crying, I mean come on, who wouldn't do that for a baby? Would you not give the best care for your newborn? Would you skip the magical bracelet and magical water?! Only 40$... Looks great too! (if you like the cheap hokuspokus bracelet look)

But yeah. The absolute worst is that people aren't interested in what is real. You can present them with undeniable evidence that say a 2$ Radio-Shack RCA cable works perfectly, and they'll just ignore and dismiss it... Then some gipsy comes around "this water will cure all ailments and makes your stereo background blacker!" and they're all over it like a fat kid on a cupcake...! It's pretty damn amazing when you think about it. head-fi has a cable section, and it's DBT-free. You're not allowed to speak about DBTs. Because those who believe in cables, do not want to hear/read about them. Just think about that for 2 seconds... LOL That's incredible! So they can all rave like lunatics about some of the most useless things in existence without being interrupted by common sense...

I guess reality isn't a nice place to live in. So boring and uninteresting... If you don't live in reality, opens up a whole new world of possibilities! Who wouldn't want to live in a world of delusion and self-deception?! No invisible friends to talk to, no mystical cables to make your speakers sound better, no magic to make your baby stop crying... Missing so many great things! And so cheap too! Only 100$ here, another 250$ there, ain't no denying money couldn't be better spent elsewhere when you're getting so much out of it. If you didn't spend 699.99$ on your power cables, how could your system sound so great?! It's not like it could all be in your head because it makes such a huge difference for you... It's not like you or millions of others could be wrong... I mean it's like religion, I'm a Christian and as a Christian the bible tells us to believe in Yahweh, so it's not like me and millions of christians could be wrong, obviously, it's those millions of muslims/indus/jews/pastafarians/etc., who are! ;)

Ah logic... Where thay be!!!

[pierreterrier]

Wow, all that just for sarcasm, must be pretty boring out there, getting used to it though, some here can't help themselves I guess, struck a nerve? lol.

[GirgleMirt]

Wow, all that just for sarcasm, must be pretty boring out there, getting used to it though, some here can't help themselves I guess, struck a nerve? lol.

Yeah, I type very fast, and you kinda did ;) For you, your position might have seemed perfectly reasonable, but from the perspective of someone who does not believe in magical cables, your post seemed no more reasonable than a post from a cable lunatic raving about the dramatic changes his new 500$ gremlin insulated power cable made... If you missed it, here's my 'beef' with your post:

The price of your system is irrelevant, a copper cable is a copper cable. You could be powering 20000$ speakers, paying 200$ for speaker wire would be just as useless as paying 200$ for cables to power 200$ speakers. Such 200$ cable would be what, probably overpriced by about 170-180$, stating that it's the "deal of a lifetime" when you'd have spent almost 10 times as much as you could have for perfectly adequate cable would have been utterly moronic... In your case it's not as bad because your cables are terminated and half that, but essentially it's an utterly useless 'upgrade' over a regular cable...


So no copper wire from Home Depot for this guy, even though they might sound exactly the same, because I truly think my speakers would be upset about such a lack of respect, lol. But seriously, if my speakers wouldn't come in a pair I would call them "she", just like my boat, that's how I treat things I love, just me.

You're really not far off than the guy who added speed stickers because he bought a sports car and wanted it to go fast, or the guy who bought an expensive power cable not to slow down his PC... Maybe not equal in terms of idiocy, but you're not far off from the precipice... That last 'jab' about cables maybe sounding the same is about the same as someone ending a post with: "and you know I'm just glad I won't be burning in hell for all eternity as others might." Just hinting that maybe your overpriced cable improves the sound of your system is I think not that different from stating that it does, you're just perpetuating the myth that overpriced audiophile junk cables sound better than plain old copper wire.


You're really not far off than the guy who added speed stickers because he bought a sports car and wanted it to go fast, or the guy who bought an expensive power cable not to slow down his PC... Maybe not equal in terms of idiocy, but you're not far off from the precipice...
And that's where my main beef is, why you struck a nerve... Idiots who believe in utterly ridiculous shit are no more different than you. What I mean by that; I'm sure you're not a stupid person, but on that one topic; speaker wire, you've essentially dropped the ball by allowing yourself to believe that maybe your overpriced cable sounds better than a regular cable... It doesn't really matter why... If you were just lazy and didn't do your research, if you just didn't bother to really think about it, or if maybe you don't have intellectual capabilities or technical knowledge to understand the easily obtainable information; but the end result is the same, you've not done due diligence on this topic.

It's the exact same thing for someone who believes stickers makes his car go faster, that an overpriced power cable will make a computer go faster, that homeopathy is real medicine, that the earth is 5000 years old and was created by an invisible dude, etc... It's not being 'cute', it's just intellectual failure... First it's cables and 1% system price, then what, 2% is not a lot right? Even 5% isn't much correct? Oh and then it's the power cable... And drawing on your CDs with green markers, and insulating against those damn fairies who light up your black background by adding some lights all over the place...

Intellectual failure is intellectual failure... Brighten up guy! :p

[markie]

GM, please show respect to your fellow man. I've never heard such a sour tone on this forum. If we need to brighten up, so be it, but you need to lighten up. This is just a hobby! Also, I much prefer that there is no dark sarcasm in the classroom, thank you.

Mark

[petmotel]

GM, please show respect to your fellow man. I've never heard such a sour tone on this forum. If we need to brighten up, so be it, but you need to lighten up. This is just a hobby! Also, I much prefer that there is no dark sarcasm in the classroom, thank you.

Mark

Oh say it ain't so, I actually have to agree with you!

Jay

[GirgleMirt]

GM, please show respect to your fellow man. I've never heard such a sour tone on this forum. If we need to brighten up, so be it, but you need to lighten up. This is just a hobby! Also, I much prefer that there is no dark sarcasm in the classroom, thank you. .
Haha sorry yeah tone gets lost on many posts it seems... If it was not obvious that my post was meant to be in jest/humorous then I guess I don't know I didn't make a very good job then.. :( If I did seem to lack respect on my fellow man, a dozen apologies... It wasn't on purpose, I do believe that everyone has the potential to be logic and reasonable, it's just that it takes a bit of effort to achieve... It so it pains me when individuals do not bother... :(


So no copper wire from Home Depot for this guy, even though they might sound exactly the same, because I truly think my speakers would be upset about such a lack of respect, lol.
I don't know I guess I get irked easily with such issues... So using normal cables is a lack of respect for speakers? They deserve overpriced audiophile cables? And why is that exactly? I guess just trying to weasel in myths instead of clearly stating upfront that you believe that normal copper cables are inferior to overpriced cables, irks me.

Why continually insinuate that they are better without ever clearly stating that this is what you believe? Why not state clearly your beliefs so they can be discussed? I think that in our society, a lot of people who hold strange beliefs fear to state them publicly for fear of ridicule and critique... I guess it's a normal reaction, but if that's the case, then it must be evident to such individuals that their beliefs are most likely to be ridiculed and rebuked... If that's the case, shouldn't they question their beliefs and really weigh whether or not they are warranted? That would be my reaction... But instead, they'll try their best to be vague and only make insinuations about their beliefs? Ex: "I believe overpriced power cables make my speakers sound better" vs "maybe you should try an expensive power cable and you might be surprised at the results!"

I don't know I guess dishonesty offends me... Why not clearly state your beliefs so they can be discussed instead of being vague and making unclear insinuations about myths and whatnot?


Idiots who believe in utterly ridiculous shit are no more different than you. What I mean by that; I'm sure you're not a stupid person, but on that one topic; speaker wire, you've essentially dropped the ball by allowing yourself to believe that maybe your overpriced cable sounds better than a regular cable...
I think this was problematic, even though I stated (or at least tried) to state what I meant... I meant that everybody is wrong in some things, and that someone who is wrong on something evident for many (such as Santa-Claus, tooth fairy, etc.) are no different than others who are wrong on other less evident things; such as audio cables or any other myth... I'm no different. I'm most probably wrong on many things, and the only thing we can do about it is to strive to do due diligence to validate our beliefs. It's not always easy or simple to do so, but one of the worst sin IMHO is not bothering to do so, and even worse even ignoring/dismissing information/evidence which does not support our beliefs.

I think that's what offends me most, and the fault is the same in any domain, and you do see it everywhere you look. It's not the beliefs themselves, it's the intellectual failure which leads to those false beliefs which annoys me to no end... It's the "not bothering" to validate your beliefs... It's intellectual bankruptcy... If I stated falsehoods or inaccuracies, I'd be thankful for them to be highlighted and rebutted, and that's why I think it's important to state what you believe clearly. But some do the opposite, they try to weasel in their beliefs and want them to be respected instead of examined and discussed... It's ludicrous! Beliefs are to be respected on their own merits. If you're reluctant to state them clearly because you fear ridicule, oftentimes rightfully so, and you're only making vague insinuations, you've already defeated your own arguments because you yourself admit your argument isn't even worthy to be clearly expressed...

Anywho...

This is just a hobby!
Haha! This offends me too! ;) The cable 1% rule was nonsense. The "This is just a hobby!" is just saying: "it doesn't matter!", but it does matter... In everything, it's the slippery slope of allowing intellectual laziness... What it's a hobby so we can all be stupid and say stupid things and it doesn't matter? No it does matter... Logic/reason matters everywhere! It's not like because this is a hobby we can all say and believe stupid shit... Sigh.. See it's that mentality, that we all get to be stupid and it's perfectly ok because in the end it never matters... It always matters!!!

[Dark Ranger]

The last several pages suggest to me that we're not going to solve this here. So, in the interest of forum unity, I think we might all have to agree to disagree on this.

I respect everyone here and I think we're all a cut above the usual "audiophile fray." The general goodwill and tolerance is a welcome oasis. Let's pack up our beliefs on this and spend more time enjoying the music during this holiday season. :)

I'll catch you guys in another thread!

[pierreterrier]

Double wow! Whatever has made you so bitter in your life I'm just thankful I have had none of it. I'd say take her easy but it's probably not in your cards.

[GirgleMirt]

lol I'm not bitter at all ;) It's just some things irk me more than others. Dishonesty and mental laziness being two of the worse offenders. I'm not saying there's two types of people, but there's two types of people: Those who care about the truth, and those who don't. If you don't care about the truth; knowing if what you believe is right or wrong, you're basically sabotaging your own mind and making it very likely that you'll hold false beliefs, to me that's a capital sin. Intellectual bankruptcy... It annoys me to no end.

Some things are true, others aren't. In cables, either fancy audiophile cables make an audible difference, or not. It's not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of what is real and what isn't. And if it does make a difference, why and how? And is it an improvement or is it degradation? These questions have been answered... Anyhow, I guess I'm too optimistic and just shouldn't bother... People will always believe in all sorts of nonsense, and many aren't even interested in knowing what is true/real and what is not...

But yeah D.R. is right, way off topic... back to your regular programming ;)