Audiofools turned objectivists or vice-versa?

[BluesDaddy]

With respect to the original assertion regarding most receivers around that timeframe, the 1975 review states that one's measured distortion performance was unusually good, so perhaps atypical.

If we are going to rule out straw men, then we should also discard correlation without causation (at best) or straight-up innuendo.

We should also rule out not being able to discern tongue in cheek comments.

 

[Blaspheme]

I don't think it is in dispute that an amplifier may struggle with a low impedance load.

I don't agree that a speaker that dips low in impedance is necessarily badly designed. All loudspeakers have compromises or trade-offs, at least that one is straightforward to overcome.

I read an old thread here where someone with some nice Magico speakers preferred running some Hypex class D and ran into an unusual compatibility problem. The March Audio guy (who was a member until recently) naturally criticised the impedance of speakers in much the same way. Makes sense from his point of view. The OP's solution was a strange and likely expensive cable. I'd just get a big Krell (or equivalent) and feed them ample current as god intended.

 

[Blaspheme]

We should also rule out not being able to discern tongue in cheek comments.

Indeed, we should.

 

[MarkS]

With respect to the original assertion regarding most receivers around that timeframe, the 1975 review states that one's measured distortion performance was unusually good, so perhaps atypical.

The review said the FM tuner on that receiver was unusually good. The amp measurements were entirely typical, as you can prove to yourself by checking other reviews.

I chose that review simply because it was the first review of a cheap receiver that I found by starting with the Jan 1975 issue of Stereo Review and going forward.

 

[Blaspheme]

The review said the FM tuner on that receiver was unusually good. The amp measurements were entirely typical, as you can prove to yourself by checking other reviews.

I chose that review simply because it was the first review of a cheap receiver that I found by starting with the Jan 1975 issue of Stereo Review and going forward.

You are right, I remembered incorrectly. One old magazine is enough of a head trip, I'll take you word for it on other reviews. I spent way more time on the bizarre advertising (cigarettes!) than I should have. Incidentally, I had the cheapest of the trio of Pioneer amps in the first ad.

 

[magicscreen]

If the point is to get more of them to see the light and join our side then it is super counter productive.

What? And are you calling yourself scientist? You are only a religious mob. And the one of the worst.

By the way, a became an objectivist from an audiofool. I have lost my good hearing. Simple as that.

 

[MarkS]

And are you calling yourself scientist? You are only a religious mob. And the one of the worst.

I will quote you from another thread:

But why do you need blind tests? I cannot understand this.
You listen to a cable. What do you hear?
Then listen to another cable. And now what do you hear?
It is easy as pie.

Your are absolutely right about this. Take two cables that you know sound different. Have a friend install one or the other in your system, without telling you which, and setting it up so that you cannot see which is installed (covering the cable with a cloth or something if necessary). Then you listen (to whatever you like, for as long as you like), and, when you know which cable is installed, write it down.

Have your friend come over the next day, and do it again. He needs to keep a record of which cable was installed each day; he can decide which by flipping a coin. Of course you are not allowed to participate in the selection and installation process.

Do this for ten days. Then compare your results with what you friend had actually done.

If you cannot get at least 9 out of 10 right, I don't think you can really hear a difference.

Does that make me a member of a religious mob?

For myself, I don't like paying large sums of money for stuff that does not actually improve the sound of my system. I insist on judging by my ears only, not my eyes.

 

[Mart68]

I'd just get a big Krell (or equivalent) and feed them ample current as god intended.

Yes, Krell is the 'Ripley Solution' from 'Aliens' -

''I suggest we take off and nuke the whole site from orbit, It's the only way to be sure.''

 

[Frank Dernie]

I went from being completely objective in the late 1960s to being persuaded that the opinions of some reviewers without the technical ability or investment in measuring equipment to measure stuff were worth considering even though they didn't check the functioning of the equipment before writing.
I probably wasted a lot of money when I was working 60-80 hour weeks but at least I don't change kit often
Once I retired and had time to look into and properly evaluate kit myself I found that in cases where I did not myself hear differences the reviewers mentioned and, looking at the measurements it was clear they explained why I didn't. I stopped concerning myself with anything subjective apart from loudspeakers.
I knew from my experience in the business that the popular reviewers of record players had a weak understanding of the physics and often made absurd "technical" deductions and since the whole record player business is an absurdly overpriced fashion business I can't be bothered with it. There are well engineered modestly priced record players which will actually perform more accurately than some of the 5 figure styling exercises but the general weight of LP enthusiasts are drifting off to infinity.

 

[Blumlein 88]

snippage....... There are well engineered modestly priced record players which will actually perform more accurately than some of the 5 figure styling exercises but the general weight of LP enthusiasts are drifting off to infinity.

Do you think this is the real source of Infinity Stones in the future? Apologies if you don't follow the Marvel Movies.

 

[DSJR]

I like tinkering with what you all would call ancient vinyl playing shit! I come at these old decks expecting little and am then pleasantly surprised how reasonable and self effacing they can sound (Frank D knows which ones as well as their German competitors )

As for a blind A-B amp test, I believe Alan Shaw of Harbeth has a video posted of him doing precisely that, the amps covered, but a proper switch box in use. i was troubled by the basic speaker wires used, but the speaker loading is pretty benign I gather (baby P3ESR's used I seem to remember). No doubt holes could be found and picked apart, but I suspect an easy speaker loading would minimise any possible differences anyway

 

[restorer-john]

As for a blind A-B amp test, I believe Alan Shaw of Harbeth has a video posted of him doing precisely that, the amps covered, but a proper switch box in use. i was troubled by the basic speaker wires used

Whenever I wired the comparator, it took an entire day and at least 2x100M rolls of wire. We used white, 2 core 7.5A 240V cable. At least 10-15 pairs of speakers, 5 amplifiers and it all had to be fair (same lengths). Audiophile cable need not apply- it would have cost many hundreds of dollars and taken up too much room in the box conduit around the skirting boards.

 

[Limopard]

Had some audiophool traits in the second half of the 90's and experimented with some cables, CD sprays and foots for the CD player. At least I stayed away from the real expensive stuff and didn't went bancrupt. At this time I didn't know the placebo effect was a thing to consider.

 

[gsp1971]

About 4-5 years ago, in a Hi-Fi show in Athens, I attended a cable demonstration session by a very well known and very popular US cable company. The point of the demonstration was to show the difference cables make to the sound of the system.
They were comparing a generic USB cable versus their own product line.
All USB cables were connected, one at a time, into the same Naim DAC-V1.
Pre-amp and Power Amp were from Symphonic Line.
Speakers were Audio Physic Avantera.
All-in-all fairly expensive machinery.

The song we were asked to listen to was a song from the album Live in London by Leonard Cohen.
The person conducting the test told us to listen specifically for differences in the bass region (bass should be more clear and more defined, he said).

First up was the generic USB cable. We listened to the song for about a minute.

Next up was their entry-level USB cable. We listened to the song again for about a minute. The person in charge then asked if we could hear the difference especially in the bass. Many attendees nodded. I thought the bass and Cohen's voice was a tiny bit louder but I couldn't hear any other differences (i.e. clarity, definition, etc.). I spoke to the attendees sitting on my left and on my right. The attendee on my left agreed with me that it was just a bit louder but he couldn't hear any other difference. The person on my right thought that bass was ever so slightly tighter.

Next up was the next USB cable in their product line, which was pricier. We listened to the song again for about a minute. This time, the person in charge did not ask if we could hear the difference. He said: 'The difference must be a lot clearer now, right? Of course.'
I spoke again to the attendees sitting on my left and on my right. All three of us said that we couldn't really tell the difference from their entry-level USB cable.

Next up was their even more expensive USB cable. Same thing.

You get the idea.

I am reciting the story exactly as I experienced it. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

For what it's worth ...

 

[Frank Dernie]

Do you think this is the real source of Infinity Stones in the future? Apologies if you don't follow the Marvel Movies.

Sorry I am not familiar with Marvel movies, or many films actually

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I will not repeat my journey from Audiofool to ..
I need to share with the collective as it marks when I very much started to question my (up to then) extraordinary hearing abilities. From that point I tested myself in a crude way (had a non-audiophile friend switch or not my cables for me, then later my CD transport and converter combo to a regulars, run of the mill , un-audiophile Yamaha CD player... to reach similar results. After recovering from the the utter dismay and humiliation ... I have enjoyed music more and spent less for objectively and subjectively better results.

Apologies to the fellow named in this, as my personal interactions with him have shown him to a be courteous and gracious individual. A real gentleman who is passionate about this hobby of ours .. Still the truth spoke that day.. That was ( Wow! How Time flies!?) 14 years ago.

The non-scientific "experiment":

Account of a Controlled Cable Test.

I suggest to any audiophiles to try something similar. A tool that will have the hesitant going in the right direction is the ABX comparator on Foobar 2000. With this many will find themselves most often than not (the statistics are part of the application), unable to discern 192 Kb/s VBR mp3 from the "pure" uncompressed raw files... Often 128 Kb/s is enough to fool you .

Peace.

 

[Plcamp]

Heh, I used minidsp to a,b,c,d (because you can store four) different crossover topologies and switch within a second or two on live music.

In another case with four same topologies at different cross frequencies.

Most didn’t yield detectable differences to me except between any two that were widely different. Even then, I could tell they were different, but that’s not to say one was obviously better.

I did conclude a couple I liked best…but I don’t really know why and because I didn’t do the tests fully blind, I probably should repeat them.

 

[MarkS]

I tested myself in a crude way (had a non-audiophile friend switch or not my cables for me, then later my CD transport and converter combo to a regulars, run of the mill , un-audiophile Yamaha CD player...
...
The non-scientific "experiment":
Account of a Controlled Cable Test.

Your methods are not crude, and they are completely "scientific".

 

[MrBrainwash]

Seems like some people are challenging why short duration is important:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echoic_memory

Everything I'm seeing is 10 seconds or less. Someone could differentiate over a longer period of time, but then I don't think they are mentally comparing two acoustic references at that point, but rather "processing" the information and storing that. EX: Ouch, that treble hurt my ears. I'm going to remember that... A week, hour, or minute later they listen to something else, and "oh, that didn't hurt my ears, this is better."

They can be right, but they could also be looking at a speaker that seems like it doesn't have as much sharp treble, or they might think that brand doesn't, or it could be later in the day and their ears are tired, or they are lying about the first one hurting their ears because it's not the purchase they made, etc.

Yesterday I had a discussion on audio(phile) forum about that concept. Oh boy ... I need an emotional support becouse I can't take lvl of incapability to understand single and basic psychological concept they showed me.

Their claim was that we can't compare the sounds before that time pass and we can learn to better remember sounds.

Explanaitions and examples didn't work. It's hard to tell if they can't grasp that concept or don't want to admit mistake. But they start personal attacks and sentenses like: You don't understand but we don't want to waste our time explaining.

 

[BluesDaddy]

Yesterday I had a discussion on audio(phile) forum about that concept. Oh boy ... I need an emotional support becouse I can't take lvl of incapability to understand single and basic psychological concept they showed me.

Their claim was that we can't compare the sounds before that time pass and we can learn to better remember sounds.

Explanaitions and examples didn't work. It's hard to tell if they can't grasp that concept or don't want to admit mistake. But they start personal attacks and sentenses like: You don't understand but we don't want to waste our time explaining.

Yep. And it only gets reinforced every time they read a review where the writer compares the sound of something he listened to six months prior to what he's reviewing now. All just BS or ignorance.