Accuphase E-3000

[shuppatsu]

Sighted bias can still be a good and valid reason to buy a more expensive product for individuals because the perception of audio is indeed different.

in reference to this part of the post
“He just can't expect his perception to be present for anyone else. That latter point is where most subjectivists fail -- they treat their personal perception as a scientific fact that should be obvious to the rest of the world.”

Or my example with the optical illusion. Is A and B identical in measurement? Yes. Are they perceived as identical? Maybe for some? If you are buying land in A vs. B to build a home, and you want a lighter or darker appearing ground, you may pick one over the other even at added expense, despite actual measurements.

I agree with you as far as things go. 99.9% of our listening is sighted, and it will affect our perception even if we are aware that it is doing so.

My favorite example is from this old article about blind testing amps:

Practically all listeners, including Skeptics [the cohort that did not believe that adequately measuring amplifiers could sound different], felt [after performing sighted comparisons] that there were audible differences--some with satisfaction, some with amazement....many of the Skeptics began to feel that they could now understand what the Believers had been talking about.

Needless to say, the differences vanished for both cohorts under blind conditions. But anyway, this does not imply that sighted impressions of well-measuring electronics are valuable. We can have our own impressions and they are true for ourselves. But they hold little validity for other people. The analogy with the optical illusion is a good one but like all analogies it breaks down at a certain point. The optical illusion can’t be unseen because it goes to how our image processing is wired. We can’t avoid sighted impressions entirely but I believe that people who place their trust in subjective reviewers will be more impressionable than people who don’t.

Even then, it would be no-harm-no-foul if all audio electronics cost the same. But they don’t, and any natural bias towards more expensive and heavy gear gets compounded by sharing impressions exhibiting that bias.

 

[GXAlan]

We can have our own impressions and they are true for ourselves. But they hold little validity for other people. The analogy with the optical illusion is a good one but like all analogies it breaks down at a certain point. The optical illusion can’t be unseen because it goes to how our image processing is wired.

APA PsycNet

psycnet.apa.org

Preference for attractive faces in human infants extends beyond conspecifics - PMC

Human infants, just a few days of age, are known to prefer attractive human faces. We examined whether this preference is human-specific. Three- to 4-month-olds preferred attractive over unattractive domestic and wild cat (tiger) faces (Experiments ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

What makes you think sighted bias has inconsistency between people? Even before the world of influencers and online media, we have things like Bose home speakers which are hated on by the reviewers but enjoyed by consumers?

Even then, it would be no-harm-no-foul if all audio electronics cost the same. But they don’t, and any natural bias towards more expensive and heavy gear gets compounded by sharing impressions exhibiting that bias.

Many people pay extra for fancier paint on their car?

Let’s look at Dr Toole’s paper. All speakers are good:

Now look at figure two, and let’s take it slowly.

When looking at location 1, blind, all four speakers sound close enough. If the light white speaker (first) was $1000 and the dark gray one (fourth) was $500, you would clearly favor the dark gray one. It sounds the same in blind testing but is cheaper. Once you go to sighted bias, notice that the white one jumps up a lot. The Y axis is still scaled so you only gained less than a full point, but now it would seem like the white speaker can justify its added expense. Note that the standard deviation did not get larger for the white bar, it got smaller.

This goes against the idea that sighted bias is random in direction or holds little validity when going from individual to individual.

Look at speaker S (third one). Once you saw it, it dropped in preference a lot. Suppose this was $250. In blind testing you might say that it’s not as good but within the standard deviation and worth the cost savings but in actual use, you wouldn’t be as happy.

Going back to electronics. Under blind testing, we can either choose electrical measurements where the error bars would be smaller. Once you introduce sighted bias, if one product consistently scores higher, it might be reasonable to spend more.

Product A and B are electronics, both with noise and distortion well below the threshold of audibility. They are equally good for all objective measurements.

Once you reveal the product, tests show that product A is thought to universally sound better across multiple listeners.

We know, objectively, this sighted preference is due to attractiveness of the case/chassis, tactile feel of switches, quality of VU meters, brand cachet and associated objective reliability/serviceability and less objective scarcity or cost.

Is it wrong to say “These two products perform identically in an electrical manner. Under sighted conditions, the more expensive and more attractive product consistently gives people higher joy/satisfaction as measured on the perception of sound quality.”

Snake oil is when people try to say that product B is better because of hand waving explanations or something magical. Product development is a saying that the design choices and business practices of this company are intentional and influence your sighted bias in a positive direction with the greatest magnitude.

It’s ok to say that a $800 and $8000 product performs similarly electrically and in blind testing but that the power of sighted bias is such that you may actually enjoy the $8000 product sufficiently more to enjoy the $7200 worth of added costs…

 

[shuppatsu]

APA PsycNet

psycnet.apa.org

Preference for attractive faces in human infants extends beyond conspecifics - PMC

Human infants, just a few days of age, are known to prefer attractive human faces. We examined whether this preference is human-specific. Three- to 4-month-olds preferred attractive over unattractive domestic and wild cat (tiger) faces (Experiments ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

What makes you think sighted bias has inconsistency between people? Even before the world of influencers and online media, we have things like Bose home speakers which are hated on by the reviewers but enjoyed by consumers?



Many people pay extra for fancier paint on their car?

Let’s look at Dr Toole’s paper. All speakers are good:
View attachment 472346

View attachment 472347

Now look at figure two, and let’s take it slowly.

When looking at location 1, blind, all four speakers sound close enough. If the light white speaker (first) was $1000 and the dark gray one (fourth) was $500, you would clearly favor the dark gray one. It sounds the same in blind testing but is cheaper. Once you go to sighted bias, notice that the white one jumps up a lot. The Y axis is still scaled so you only gained less than a full point, but now it would seem like the white speaker can justify its added expense. Note that the standard deviation did not get larger for the white bar, it got smaller.

This goes against the idea that sighted bias is random in direction or holds little validity when going from individual to individual.

Look at speaker S (third one). Once you saw it, it dropped in preference a lot. Suppose this was $250. In blind testing you might say that it’s not as good but within the standard deviation and worth the cost savings but in actual use, you wouldn’t be as happy.

Going back to electronics. Under blind testing, we can either choose electrical measurements where the error bars would be smaller. Once you introduce sighted bias, if one product consistently scores higher, it might be reasonable to spend more.

Product A and B are electronics, both with noise and distortion well below the threshold of audibility. They are equally good for all objective measurements.

Once you reveal the product, tests show that product A is thought to universally sound better across multiple listeners.

We know, objectively, this sighted preference is due to attractiveness of the case/chassis, tactile feel of switches, quality of VU meters, brand cachet and associated objective reliability/serviceability and less objective scarcity or cost.

Is it wrong to say “These two products perform identically in an electrical manner. Under sighted conditions, the more expensive and more attractive product consistently gives people higher joy/satisfaction as measured on the perception of sound quality.”

Snake oil is when people try to say that product B is better because of hand waving explanations or something magical. Product development is a saying that the design choices and business practices of this company are intentional and influence your sighted bias in a positive direction with the greatest magnitude.

It’s ok to say that a $800 and $8000 product performs similarly electrically and in blind testing but that the power of sighted bias is such that you may actually enjoy the $8000 product sufficiently more to enjoy the $7200 worth of added costs…

I appreciate you pulling this, especially since I don't have Dr. Toole's book or AES, so I miss a lot of the original research. That said, everything you quoted comports with my understanding and doesn't contradict anything I thought I said. Perhaps I overstated the case a bit when I said "they hold little validity for other people." But I also said, "we can’t avoid sighted impressions entirely," and referred to a natural bias towards components that are more expensive and heavy (by which I meant have higher perceived physical quality).

Ironically, the article I linked supports your position more than the paper you refer to. As I noted, sighted bias existed for both the "skeptical" and "believer" cohort. Whereas to my knowledge, the Toole study did not look into the effect of people's incoming beliefs at all.

The article I linked did not provide information of the magnitude of the sighted bias between the two groups. My hypothesis is that the magnitude would be higher in the believer cohort. Expectation bias should be higher if one actually believes that there is a difference. Unfortunately, the article did not report magnitude. I looked for research along these lines, but I only found this Pubmed paper. It favors my contention, stating "But beyond the mechanics of the ear, the brain plays a pivotal role, interpreting and often altering these perceptions based on prior knowledge, expectations, and beliefs. Furthermore, in a connected world where opinions and reviews are a click away, societal influences, from brand loyalty to peer perceptions, might further modulate our subjective experience of sound."

However, it is a truly horrible instance of "scholarship." I would not pay it any mind. There is no original research in the paper and the cited references do not support the statements made. So good research on this topic either doesn't exist or is beyond my ken.

 

[mlsstl]

Keep in mind that bias involves more than just conscious awareness of prior experiences, expectations and beliefs. Subliminal factors also play a big role, even when we are going to great lengths to try and be neutral -- we're not even aware of these subconscious influences. I've probably mentioned this book way too many times, but Dr. Cordelia Fine has an informative book titled "A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives." Another plus is that is also a very entertaining read and well documented.

 

[Mr Tripp]

Benchmark AHB2

The AHB2 is not an integrated amp

 

[kyuu]

The AHB2 is not an integrated amp

And?

 

[Mr Tripp]

I already have a Marantz Model 30, which has better specs then the Accuphase.
I just was wondering how it would compare, seen the hefty price tag.

Over the past 50-plus years, I've owned numerous pieces of Marantz gear, including the Model 30, and have enjoyed every one. But I must say, comparing the Model 30 to the Accuphase E-3000 is a foolhardy exercise regardless of what the numbers may suggest to you. I recently had an opportunity to spend some time listening to the E-3000 through Legacy Audio Focus SE floorstanders and can assure you there is no comparison. As well it should be when considering the price variance, the E-3000 is vastly superior to the Model 30 in every possible way. That said, if you're in the market for an excellent integrated amp musically equivalent to the E-3000 consider the Luxman L-505Z and save yourself $2000.

 

[Mr Tripp]

And?

The E-3000 is integrated, so there is that

 

[Svend P]

Over the past 50-plus years, I've owned numerous pieces of Marantz gear, including the Model 30, and have enjoyed every one. But I must say, comparing the Model 30 to the Accuphase E-3000 is a foolhardy exercise regardless of what the numbers may suggest to you. I recently had an opportunity to spend some time listening to the E-3000 through Legacy Audio Focus SE floorstanders and can assure you there is no comparison. As well it should be when considering the price variance, the E-3000 is vastly superior to the Model 30 in every possible way. That said, if you're in the market for an excellent integrated amp musically equivalent to the E-3000 consider the Luxman L-505Z and save yourself $2000.

You need to test level matched and blind. You were fooled by the price tag. All amplifiers sound the same, since they all measure better than human hearing.

 

[Purité Audio]

If they are audibly transparent and are capable of properly driving the partnering loudspeakers.
Keith

 

[Svend P]

If they are audibly transparent and are capable of properly driving the partnering loudspeakers.

I bet zero times when we get descriptions of wast differences that this is the explanation.

 

[pma]

Buy one and send it in for review. This is how it works.

That’s not a good advice in case of such expensive and heavy unit.

If someone looks for built quality, reliability, attractive look and good, well defined parameters, I would go for the Accuphase. If the goal is to buy a new amp every 6 months, then Accuphase is not an option.

 

[Joachim Herbert]

That’s not a good advice in case of such expensive and heavy unit.

If someone looks for built quality, reliability, attractive look and good, well defined parameters, I would go for the Accuphase. If the goal is to buy a new amp every 6 months, then Accuphase is not an option.

It's the only way to get objective data.

 

[RoA]

You need to test level matched and blind. You were fooled by the price tag. All amplifiers sound the same, since they all measure better than human hearing.

 

[Svend P]

It is an electronic device that works in the electronic plane. Everything it does can be measured. An Accuphase does not measure any better that a Fosi that costs 200$
Most likely you were fooled by one amplifier playing louder than the other.

 

[pma]

It is an electronic device that works in the electronic plane. Everything it does can be measured. An Accuphase does not measure any better that a Fosi that costs 200$

Would you please post a link to measurements of Accuphase E-3000, which is a topic of this thread. Thank you very much.

 

[Svend P]

Would you please post a link to measurements of Accuphase E-3000, which is a topic of this thread. Thank you very much.

Do you believe it sounds any different than any other amplifer? Why are we having this discussion?

 

[Mr Tripp]

You need to test level matched and blind. You were fooled by the price tag. All amplifiers sound the same, since they all measure better than human hearing.

Not this time. I trust my ears and am still able to distinguish notable differences related to imaging, soundstage, clarity, etc. The differences experienced may not totally justify the price variance between the two components, but they were apparent nonetheless.

 

[Mr Tripp]

It is an electronic device that works in the electronic plane. Everything it does can be measured. An Accuphase does not measure any better that a Fosi that costs 200$
Most likely you were fooled by one amplifier playing louder than the other.

Forget the measurements. I don't hear measurements when listening to music, I hear music. If you hear measurements, therein lies your problem.

 

[pma]

Do you believe it sounds any different than any other amplifer? Why are we having this discussion?

You said that this “Accuphase does not measure any better than a Fosi that costs 200$”. Your statement, without any proof, without any comparison. Frankly, at least misleading and I cannot imagine why one needs to publish such unsupported opinions. You said it, then prove it.