• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Danny Richie's latest...

He did also find that people could prefer a different speaker when listening blind to what speaker they preferred when listening sighted.

Which is really quite scary when you think about it.

Trouble is the practical implementation is almost non-existent. We can't easily do blind testing when choosing a speaker, and we'll listen sighted in normal use, with the bias intact.

So back to using the measurements to choose. :)

The problem there, as I have brought up before, is the conundrum implied by all of the above.

The measurement criteria was derived under blind listening conditions, but you will be listening under sighted conditions.

If sighted listening is by nature so unreliable, how are the measurements going to help predict your experience listening sighted to your loudspeakers?

Either the measurements will help predict what you will perceive under sighted listening or they will not.

If not, what use are they?

But if so, it suggests that sighted listening can be usefully accurate. (that under sighted conditions in your home you will accurately perceive the characteristics that made those speakers sound good under blind conditions.).

But we’ve been down this road before…:)
 
He did also find that people could prefer a different speaker when listening blind to what speaker they preferred when listening sighted.

Which is really quite scary when you think about it.

Trouble is the practical implementation is almost non-existent. We can't easily do blind testing when choosing a speaker, and we'll listen sighted in normal use, with the bias intact.

So back to using the measurements to choose. :)

I'm thinking about a test, the manufacturers could possibly do. Or maybe a third party could do it as independent research.

Make a speaker that performs extremely well objectively, then do a test on a target group where you hide the speaker behind some acoustically transparent fabric and present different fake appearances via augmented reality or holographic projection.

Could be fun to see what kind of aesthetics will add or subtract to/from the experience. It would probably also differ depending on the type of music being played.
 
Make a speaker that performs extremely well objectively, then do a test on a target group where you hide the speaker behind some acoustically transparent fabric and present different fake appearances via augmented reality or holographic projection.

I’m interested in how the blind tests translate to sighted listening impressions.

So take a very well designed speaker that scores very high under blind listening, and then set the speaker up for a group and check against the groups sighted impressions.

Actually, that brings up a question; if I’ve seen this, I can’t remember:

Does anybody know how Revel speakers scored in SIGHTED listening, versus blind listening?

It would be interesting if there is some relevant amount of consistency in the sighted/blind assessments.
 
I’m interested in how the blind tests translate to sighted listening impressions.

So take a very well designed speaker that scores very high under blind listening, and then set the speaker up for a group and check against the groups sighted impressions.

Actually, that brings up a question; if I’ve seen this, I can’t remember:

Does anybody know how Revel speakers scored in SIGHTED listening, versus blind listening?

It would be interesting if there is some relevant amount of consistency in the sighted/blind assessments.

The test mentioned in Toole's book, referenced in this post, concludes that in both sighted and blind evaluations, the two nearly identical Harman speakers outperformed the other speakers in the comparison.
This indicates that one can reliably test speakers with noticeable differences when placed in the same position in the same room under sighted conditions. Unfortunately, the specific speakers used in the test were not disclosed, so we can't determine the sound characteristics of the four sets of speakers.
 
I'm thinking about a test, the manufacturers could possibly do. Or maybe a third party could do it as independent research.

Make a speaker that performs extremely well objectively, then do a test on a target group where you hide the speaker behind some acoustically transparent fabric and present different fake appearances via augmented reality or holographic projection.

Could be fun to see what kind of aesthetics will add or subtract to/from the experience. It would probably also differ depending on the type of music being played.
Wharfedale did a consumer test. Same speakers in different colours. Sighted listening. The colours directly related to the subjects' feedback on the sound balance, red being warm sounding etc.
 
The test mentioned in Toole's book, referenced in this post, concludes that in both sighted and blind evaluations, the two nearly identical Harman speakers outperformed the other speakers in the comparison.
This indicates that one can reliably test speakers with noticeable differences when placed in the same position in the same room under sighted conditions. Unfortunately, the specific speakers used in the test were not disclosed, so we can't determine the sound characteristics of the four sets of speakers.

Right. I’ve seen that. Thanks. They were seemingly some indications that sided listening was tracking the general trend of blind, listening with the Revel speakers, but as you say, there wasn’t really enough data to be conclusive. And not near enough I guess to answer the question I was asking.


Wharfedale did a consumer test. Same speakers in different colours. Sighted listening. The colours directly related to the subjects' feedback on the sound balance, red being warm sounding etc.

Interesting. Not surprising. Do you happen to have a link?
 
Right. I’ve seen that. Thanks. They were seemingly some indications that sided listening was tracking the general trend of blind, listening with the Revel speakers, but as you say, there wasn’t really enough data to be conclusive. And not near enough I guess to answer the question I was asking.
This is a feature of some of the tests mentioned in the book. While it offers interesting and valuable insights, in certain cases, its relevance stems from it being the best available source of information at the time.
 
Right. I’ve seen that. Thanks. They were seemingly some indications that sided listening was tracking the general trend of blind, listening with the Revel speakers, but as you say, there wasn’t really enough data to be conclusive. And not near enough I guess to answer the question I was asking.




Interesting. Not surprising. Do you happen to have a link?
no, it was in the early 1980s
 
On Danny's latest video, he claims to have found a speaker he cannot fix. Apparently, someone sent him a Paradigm 95F tower. To his credit, Danny found the Stereophile review from almost 10 years ago and used it to baseline. While he complains about the cabinet and the drivers though, he hurriedly decides this one is unfixable without even basic forensics on them.

Admittedly, if the original purchaser looked at the Stereophile measurements from 2015, have to wonder why he still bought them. In his analysis, Danny simply throws up his hands and does his usual "buy GR instead". Since GR does not offer any comparable completed speaker, the whole video just seems like a stunt. :oops: These speakers are about 100 lbs. each and tall too, so they are not inexpensive to ship either. In any case, Danny could have rejected these speakers up front, but would have missed the opportunity to make a youtube spectacle of them!
 
Last edited:
"the KING of all Tweaks" Danny Richey said after being inspired by Ron at New Record day. They both are shocked by the improvement of adding the Sparkos op/amp. The best thing he's ever done...EVER. I too am guilty of adding the SS2590 in my DAC and loving it!

 
"the KING of all Tweaks" Danny Richey said after being inspired by Ron at New Record day. They both are shocked by the improvement of adding the Sparkos op/amp. The best thing he's ever done...EVER. I too am guilty of adding the SS2590 in my DAC and loving it!

Danny is a self serving, lying, snake oil selling moron. If thats your proof you have a long way to go to convince anyone here that this Improvement is real.
 
Danny is a self serving, lying, snake oil selling moron. If thats your proof you have a long way to go to convince anyone here that this Improvement is real.
That's nice. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. It's others trying to convince me that what I hear is not real (even though they haven't tried it themselves) Please...don't try this tweak. It's not for you.
 
No, I was just sharing my persective. I thought you'd want to know about "the best tweak ever".

Uh huh.

It'll be less of a bumpy ride if you decide to contribute in good faith.
 
Now Danny philosophizes about how silver coated copper speaker cables works. What kind of word salad has he now thrown together? :oops:

Danny:
Silver coated copper creates a phase shift...higher frequencies tend to travel along the surface while lower wavelengths tend to travel through the wire. According to Danny, this leads to: The higher frequencies are pushed forward in the soundstage.

You can check for yourself, starting at 3:50 into the video:

 
Last edited:
That's nice. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. It's others trying to convince me that what I hear is not real (even though they haven't tried it themselves) Please...don't try this tweak. It's not for you.
No, I was just sharing my persective. I thought you'd want to know about "the best tweak ever".

My girlfriend's mother religiously follows some North American quack "doctor" who's convinced her that all kinds of food types are poison to her, and she's buying tons of insanely priced supplements that he's selling. She also loves to "share her perspective" on this nonsense all the time.

Some things are just better to leave unshared. The nutty world of op-amp swapping is one of them, IMO.

But honestly, I don't believe Danny is any of the things @Cbdb2 lists. In my eyes he's just a dude who's taken a deep plunge into the placebo rabbit hole. He probably truly believes that he's furthering the advancement of audio reproduction technology, and is supplying his customers with innovative products and good advice. It just makes the whole thing exponentially more sad.
 
Now Danny philosophizes about how silver coated copper speaker cables works. What kind of word salad has he now thrown together? :oops:

Danny:
Silver coated copper creates a phase shift...higher frequencies tend to travel along the surface while lower wavelengths tend to travel through the wire. According to Danny, this leads to: The higher frequencies are pushed forward in the soundstage.

You can check for yourself, starting at 3:50 into the video:

Sounds like the old skin effect malarkey…which does exist but only at frequencies well above hearing range and then only very marginally until much much higher frequencies. So yes technically very high frequencies will tend to conduct along the outside of a wire. But this has zero relevance to the frequencies used for audio reproduction or the lengths of wire one could ever use inside a building.

And then he implies the completely bonkers notion that AC electricity conducts “faster” in silver than copper. and that the difference is large enough for a 1ft to say 200ft run of wire that we can hear it. Not to mention the implication that such a difference is audible over issues like crossover phase shifts, diffraction patterns between drivers, room reflections, or even driver alignment.

My conclusion from claims like these is either: 1) person making them has bought so deeply into a mystical belief system that they just can’t see what they are saying is nonsense; 2) they are purposefully lying in a cynical attempt to separate consumers from their cash. Or both. One can believe things honestly but dishonestly use such beliefs.

Danny should watch electroboom’s recent video on skin effect.
 
Last edited:
Some things are just better to leave unshared. The nutty world of op-amp swapping is one of them, IMO.
Op amp rolling is the new tube rolling. Though op amps do not have the manufacturing variations and distortions of tubes…. I guess it’s possible one op amp could perform differently than another within a circuit. Not necessarily “better” but different. i guess it’s even possible that it might be different enough to be demonstrated in proper series blind testing.

Ps: In my old tube preamp I swear I have heard differences between different tubes. Not in blind testing mind you. So I am fully aware my ears/memory may be deluding me. And in any case, if there are audible differences, I am aware that any preference is due to the different distortion and noise those tubes produce (aka, non-linear equalizer filter). But then again, if I am using that tube preamp it’s for the fun of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom