Mcintosh MC7106

[voodooless]

Why do I need to determine anything more than I already have? It’s an opinion

An opinion based on a known to be highly flawed comparison technique.

 

[SIY]

Why do I need to determine anything more than I already have?

You stated it as a fact. It is... dubious, to be generous. I take it from your response that you didn't even do any basic ears-only listening comparisons; it may be enlightening for you to try some.

 

[Deleted member 43957]

An opinion based on a known to be highly flawed comparison technique.

A friend of mine, with $400k invested in his one rig, who absolutely refuses to "believe" in measurements, recently told me definitively... "I know what I know". I replied... "You believe what you think you know". We have since mutually decided that the other was an azzhole and no longer communicate. (I made a post about value rigidity when this happened) As a rather zealous atheist, I've had this repeat itself with past friends who "believe what they believe"... they didn't bother with measurements either.

Value Rigidity

Every time that I've tried to discuss value rigidity with anyone, it has ended with disconnect. The best short example, for me, is from Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" where he explains it as a Monkey Trap. It seems not a day goes by where someone, even on ASR, posts the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[TheDudeAbides]

You stated it as a fact. It is... dubious, to be generous. I take it from your response that you didn't even do any basic ears-only listening comparisons; it may be enlightening for you to try some.

“Keep the 7106. It’s six channels bridgeable to three x 300w… You are unlikely to find something similar and it sounds quite a bit better than any Emotiva amps I’ve heard. If you want to spend money, just get it checked and order a box (if you don’t have one) directly from McIntosh.”

The original post solicited opinion, not charts, not measurements...

It’s bridgeable to three x 300w, that’s fairly unique - that is a (fairly) objective statement and I phrased it as such. I also find that characteristic of the amp useful in my day-to-day use.

“…it sounds quite a bit better than any Emotiva amps I’ve heard,” which is a blatantly and transparently subjective statement based upon whatever personal experiences I have had, which has little to nothing to do with fact. It was in no way misleading, as I didn’t didn’t suggest I had conducted exhaustive measurements… I’ve had 20-ish amps in and out of my system and I subjectively prefer some over others… Your mileage may vary.

Way to science, people. I applaud you… Put down your measurements and get back to the language arts, haha.

I. Prefer. The. Sound.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

A friend of mine, with $400k invested in his one rig, who absolutely refuses to "believe" in measurements, recently told me definitively... "I know what I know". I replied... "You believe what you think you know". We have since mutually decided that the other was an azzhole and no longer communicate. (I made a post about value rigidity when this happened) As a rather zealous atheist, I've had this repeat itself with past friends who "believe what they believe"... they didn't bother with measurements either.

Value Rigidity

Every time that I've tried to discuss value rigidity with anyone, it has ended with disconnect. The best short example, for me, is from Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" where he explains it as a Monkey Trap. It seems not a day goes by where someone, even on ASR, posts the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I believe in measurements… I am sure they impact the sound - objectively, in terms of 1’s and 0’s, and subjectively, based on the importance I give those 1’s and 0’s… Even, perhaps especially, with the measured evidence, your subjective experience is going to be impacted and when it comes to your enjoyment of what you’re “hearing.” I’m confident if you take the measurements and “believe in them” (no reason not to!), they are likely to alter your experience of the sound, making your ultimate experience subjective whether you rely on them or not.

I’d imagine the placebo effect works for acoustic measurements just as well as it does with medical trials… Just like it does with brand and “value,” which can be inherently subjective, depending upon the metrics applied, the circumstances of the person applying the metrics, and their environment.

Google AI:
Yes, sound measurements can influence subjective experience and potentially operate as a placebo effect
.
Here's why:

• Expectations and Confirmation Bias: Knowledge of sound measurements (or other technical specifications) can create expectations about how something should sound. If a listener believes that a specific measurement indicates high quality, they may be more likely to perceive improvements, even if the actual sonic difference is negligible. This is related to confirmation bias, where individuals tend to seek out and interpret information that confirms their existing beliefs.
• Cognitive Biases: Subjective auditory perception is influenced by various cognitive biases, including opinions of experts, influencers, product appearance, branding, and advertising. When these factors suggest a product is high-quality, they can lead listeners to perceive enhanced sound quality, regardless of objective measurements.
• Placebo Effect: The placebo effect demonstrates that a person's belief in a treatment's effectiveness can lead to real improvements in symptoms. In the context of sound, the belief that certain sound measurements or features will improve the listening experience can lead to a perceived enhancement, even if there's no actual difference in the sound produced.

In summary: While sound measurements provide objective data, subjective experience is complex and influenced by various factors, including expectations and cognitive biases. Therefore, knowing sound measurements can contribute to a placebo effect, leading individuals to perceive improvements in sound quality that are not necessarily reflected in the measurements themselves.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

I hate to burst your collective measuring bubbles, but many environmental factors influence how sound behaves. Temperature, air pressure, humidity, reflective surfaces, the presence of barriers… They all influence how sound waves propagate and are perceived. Specifically, temperature affects the speed of sound and humidity and air pressure have the ability to alter sound's intensity and clarity. I hope your sound tests include a barometer, thermometer, exact room dimensions, layout, wall construction, occupancy, humidity… Heheh <3

Google AI:
Yes, sound measurements are valuable when assessing a speaker's subjective performance, though they don't tell the whole story.

Here's why:

• Objective measurements can predict subjective preferences: While subjective experience is inherently personal, research shows that certain objective measurements correlate with listener preferences. For example, a flat and linear frequency response with consistent off-axis performance is associated with high subjective ratings in blind listening tests and more consistent room-to-room performance.
• Measurements provide a basis for comparison: Measurements offer a way to compare speakers objectively, leveling the playing field and reducing the impact of subjective biases, such as expectations about price or brand reputation.
• Measurements help diagnose and address issues: Uncharacteristic measurements can indicate potential problems with a speaker's performance, which can then be investigated through subjective listening. For example, a sharp peak in the frequency response at high frequencies might correlate with subjective impressions of a speaker sounding "bright" or "spitty".
• Measurements provide valuable design insights: Engineers rely on measurements to design and optimize speakers, aiming for better performance based on quantifiable data.

However, it's important to remember:

• Subjective evaluation remains crucial: Ultimately, sound quality is perceived and experienced by the listener, and subjective impressions are essential in evaluating a speaker's overall performance.
• Not all measurements are equally relevant: While some measurements, like frequency response, have a strong correlation with subjective preferences, others may not.
• Context matters: A speaker's performance in a real listening environment can differ from its performance in an anechoic chamber, and room acoustics can significantly affect the listening experience.

In summary, objective sound measurements offer valuable insights into a speaker's performance and can help predict subjective preferences, but they are not a substitute for subjective listening and evaluation in a real-world setting.

 

[SIY]

I hate to burst your collective measuring bubbles, but many environmental factors influence how sound behaves. Temperature, air pressure, humidity, reflective surfaces, the presence of barriers… They all influence how sound waves propagate and are perceived. Specifically, temperature affects the speed of sound and humidity and air pressure have the ability to alter sound's intensity and clarity. I hope your sound tests include a barometer, thermometer, exact room dimensions, layout, wall construction, occupancy, humidity… Heheh <3

Google AI:
Yes, sound measurements are valuable when assessing a speaker's subjective performance, though they don't tell the whole story.

Here's why:

• Objective measurements can predict subjective preferences: While subjective experience is inherently personal, research shows that certain objective measurements correlate with listener preferences. For example, a flat and linear frequency response with consistent off-axis performance is associated with high subjective ratings in blind listening tests and more consistent room-to-room performance.
• Measurements provide a basis for comparison: Measurements offer a way to compare speakers objectively, leveling the playing field and reducing the impact of subjective biases, such as expectations about price or brand reputation.
• Measurements help diagnose and address issues: Uncharacteristic measurements can indicate potential problems with a speaker's performance, which can then be investigated through subjective listening. For example, a sharp peak in the frequency response at high frequencies might correlate with subjective impressions of a speaker sounding "bright" or "spitty".
• Measurements provide valuable design insights: Engineers rely on measurements to design and optimize speakers, aiming for better performance based on quantifiable data.

However, it's important to remember:

• Subjective evaluation remains crucial: Ultimately, sound quality is perceived and experienced by the listener, and subjective impressions are essential in evaluating a speaker's overall performance.
• Not all measurements are equally relevant: While some measurements, like frequency response, have a strong correlation with subjective preferences, others may not.
• Context matters: A speaker's performance in a real listening environment can differ from its performance in an anechoic chamber, and room acoustics can significantly affect the listening experience.

In summary, objective sound measurements offer valuable insights into a speaker's performance and can help predict subjective preferences, but they are not a substitute for subjective listening and evaluation in a real-world setting.

AI is not a reliable way to learn something. Subjective is fine but with controls if you want to actually know. The rest of this stuff generated by AI is irrelevant noise.

 

[Deleted member 43957]

@TheDudeAbides... totally agree with @SIY. Please stop. Your own input is welcome, AI doesn't give it more credibility, just more noise... and we all know that noise is the enemy.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

@TheDudeAbides... totally agree with @SIY. Please stop. Your own input is welcome, AI doesn't give it more credibility, just more noise... and we all know that noise is in

 

[TheDudeAbides]

LOL.

The two people questioning my posts are asking me not to respond. Classy - lucky for you both, that’s also a subjective assessment. =)

 

[TheDudeAbides]

AI is not a reliable way to learn something. Subjective is fine but with controls if you want to actually know. The rest of this stuff generated by AI is irrelevant noise.

The point is, folks here almost certainly lack sufficient controls to make a consistent, repeatable in multiple environments, assessment, so it’s unlikely the measurements produced will be useful when applied to other variously uncontrolled environments or produce anything much better than opinion, practically speaking.

 

[Deleted member 43957]

LOL. The two people questioning my posts are asking me not to respond. Classy - lucky for you both, that’s also a subjective assessment. =)

That's your takeaway? Really? If you reread my post, I implied that your posts were credible and explicitly stated were welcome, without AI noise. Odd that you missed that here..."Please stop. Your own input is welcome, AI doesn't give it more credibility, just more noise"

Please post prolifically. The ignore button is available to all... subjectivists too.

 

[SIY]

The point is, folks here almost certainly lack sufficient controls to make a consistent, repeatable in multiple environments, assessment, so it’s unlikely the measurements produced will be useful when applied to other variously uncontrolled environments or produce anything much better than opinion, practically speaking.

That's blatantly untrue, putting aside all the extra noise tacked on. It's an easy thing to do. Excuses for not using controls when making sonic claims are invariably lame.

So if you're going to make an unlikely sonic claim, back it up or what you're doing is spinning fairy tales. If you have no interest in what's actually true, science-based discussions are probably not for you.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

It may be circumstantially inaccurate but I think saying it is “blatantly untrue” is almost summarily overstatement.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

AI is not a reliable way to learn something. Subjective is fine but with controls if you want to actually know. The rest of this stuff generated by AI is irrelevant noise.

It’s not a reliable way to learn something - no doubt there - but I wasn’t using it to learn, I was using it to supplement my position. If you or anyone else is relying on it to learn, I cited my use of AI and folks are welcome to ignore that section entirely as noise, copy it and use it as truth in their own posts, or conduct their own research to verify it - just like anything else posted in a forum.

Meanwhile, I am heading out to coffee with @Astoneroad ’s former friend group - they said there was an open seat at their table ;-)

 

[SIY]

I wasn’t using it to learn, I was using it to supplement my position.

It did a poor job.

 

[norman bates]

So, we have learned not to post opinion without scientific tested proof.

I get it, this is audio-SCIENCE-review.

How do you measure transparency in an amplifier ? Noise floor ? Sinad ? Intermod ? Distortion ?

What about our ears liking distortion, especially harmonic distortion ?

Yea, we’ve tested that the amp that looks nicer, sounds nicer…..

I’ve had the same don julio Blanco taste great when on a date but only so-so at home….

I’d use the McIntosh and be happy it probably will never lose value.

And it’s pretty……..

Might be time to lock this thread.

 

[voodooless]

What about our ears liking distortion, especially harmonic distortion ?

Given the level of harmonic distortion that is needed before it becomes audible, this is quite unlikely. You’ll need a rather poorly performing amp, and most really aren’t that poor. Obviously some amps do reach those levels, notably some tube amps (but not exclusively), and there is some evidence to support that high second order harmonics sounds pleasing. Overall though, typical amps reach nowhere near these levels, certainly not the amps discussed here.