Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[Robin L]

I don't understand how this one goes with the others. Other than buying a 10k$ DAC speaker positioning will make a huge difference which can easily make the sound too boomy or thin.

A $10,000 DAC is another symptom of Audiophilus Nervosa. The constant moving of a speaker indicates that nothing is ever going to be right, ergo, neurotic behavior.

 

[pozz]

I learned something on my audiophile journey. Just because something is rated better doesn't mean its gonna sound better, could even sound worse. (Ex: Me thinking a smsl sa300 would sound cleaner and better than my old sansui 2000a.)

Couple things to keep in mind there. First, "sounds better" is often a problematic concept. If one is accustomed to for instance the extra little bit of harmonic distortion some tube amps provide, one might feel that that tube amp "sounds better" then an amp that is providing perfectly clean amplification of the signal - and therefore doing it's job better than the tube amp. Now it's totally up to that person if he chooses to go with the tube sound, but it doesn't change the fact that the amp is essentially an effect pedal rather than just an amplifier. I've come to realize in my own audio journey that its worthwhile to challenge one's own preconceived preferences if those seem to lean towards inaccuracy. In other words, I've found that allowing a bit of time to "get used to" something that I know is actually the objectively better piece of gear pays off in the end.

Second, if the assessment of those amps wasn't done volume-matched and blind, it's suspect. I understand how annoying it is for that to constantly be re-iterated but it's simply the truth. Now there's nothing saying you wouldn't still pick the Sansui as your pref in a blind test, but it's pretty likely you wouldn't hear any difference at all. But without a good blind test...well, we're just slogging around in the muck again.

Now the fact of the matter is that setting up a good blind test situation is a chore. It isn't really an easy thing to do in most cases. But that doesn't change the reality that cognitive bias is an insidious factor in this realm. There's a way to get around it though. Instead of saying "I learned something on my audiophile journey. Just because something is rated better doesn't mean its gonna sound better, could even sound worse. (Ex: Me thinking a smsl sa300 would sound cleaner and better than my old sansui 2000a.)" which implies that there is something "wrong" or "unpleasant" about the smsl amp and that what your ears have told you is a correct impression, you could say "I bought an SMSL amp but even though it's rated better, I still preferred my old Sansui for some reason. Now I never did a blind test and it's entirely possible my ears are fooling me, but whatevs."

I've not read the whole thread, so apologies if this was already mentioned.

In this case, the report has nothing to do with unknown factors and does not require listening tests.

Both are of the amps mentioned are very low-wattage, and the specs for SMSL SA300 are especially poor. "No bass" does not necessarily mean linear distortion (wrong FR). It can point equally at clipping, which has a bright signature (a psychoacoustic effect: FR is the same, but the distortion components strongly affect the audible outcome).

 

[pozz]

I agree but few objectivists actually do listening tests either as they are "hard". It is much easier to purchase SINAD of 120 vs 110 and then armed with the knowledge of your wise scientific purchase never take the time to actually see if you can hear a difference. One thing though, I think the objectivist approach will tend to result is spending less money but it can also lead to weird and misleading "numerical comparisons" like JBL 305 has the same olive score as some Revel speaker which may cause some to miss out on enjoying better sounding equipment.

As a general comment: the main point of measured data is to help understand the behaviour of electronics so that you don't have to guess, rely on sparse info or perform labour-intensive comparisons. Like the following:

If the measurements are comprehensive enough you already have your answer. I'd say with a lot of confidence that we are there for electronics, but not for speakers.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I've not read the whole thread, so apologies if this was already mentioned.

In this case, the report has nothing to do with unknown factors and does not require listening tests.

Both are of the amps mentioned are very low-wattage, and the specs for SMSL SA300 are especially poor. "No bass" does not necessarily mean linear distortion (wrong FR). It can point equally at clipping, which has a bright signature (a psychoacoustic effect: FR is the same, but the distortion components strongly affect the audible outcome).

Yeah, I should clarify - I'm not familiar with either amp. I'm just more or less using these two amps as examples for discussion of a situation where one amp has great measurements and some other amp is said to sound different/better in comparison. When you know that one thing is doing everything "right" (aka flat FR, low distortion, etc) and another amp sounds different the assumption (barring something defective about the first amp of course) sort of has to be that the different-sounding amp is doing something "wrong" in order to sound different.

 

[pozz]

Yeah, I should clarify - I'm not familiar with either amp. I'm just more or less using these two amps as examples for discussion of a situation where one amp has great measurements and some other amp is said to sound different/better in comparison. When you know that one thing is doing everything "right" (aka flat FR, low distortion, etc) and another amp sounds different the assumption (barring something defective about the first amp of course) sort of has to be that the different-sounding amp is doing something "wrong" in order to sound different.

Ah, gotcha.

 

[Wes]

People do sometimes come across as needlessly condescending or make jokes.

There two (or more) types of visitors here. [1] people who have been (mis)informed by salesmen or just don't know something (and know they don't).

[2] Subjectivist Trolls, often from other internet forums, (and who don't know what they don't know).

It would be best to hold fire until you are certain which type you are dealing with.


Finally, as a scientist, I find that it is never a good idea to push a result found with one set of experimental conditions too far into a different area. Toole often focuses on things we don't really know, and occupants herein might emulate some of that.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

May not set you ‘free’ but will save you some $£€
Keith

Of course if you've already dropped a five figure sum for a Denafrips, let the cognitive dissonance begin!

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Couple things to keep in mind there. First, "sounds better" is often a problematic concept. If one is accustomed to for instance the extra little bit of harmonic distortion some tube amps provide, one might feel that that tube amp "sounds better" then an amp that is providing perfectly clean amplification of the signal - and therefore doing it's job better than the tube amp. Now it's totally up to that person if he chooses to go with the tube sound, but it doesn't change the fact that the amp is essentially an effect pedal rather than just an amplifier. I've come to realize in my own audio journey that its worthwhile to challenge one's own preconceived preferences if those seem to lean towards inaccuracy. In other words, I've found that allowing a bit of time to "get used to" something that I know is actually the objectively better piece of gear pays off in the end.

Second, if the assessment of those amps wasn't done volume-matched and blind, it's suspect. I understand how annoying it is for that to constantly be re-iterated but it's simply the truth. Now there's nothing saying you wouldn't still pick the Sansui as your pref in a blind test, but it's pretty likely you wouldn't hear any difference at all. But without a good blind test...well, we're just slogging around in the muck again.

Now the fact of the matter is that setting up a good blind test situation is a chore. It isn't really an easy thing to do in most cases. But that doesn't change the reality that cognitive bias is an insidious factor in this realm. There's a way to get around it though. Instead of saying "I learned something on my audiophile journey. Just because something is rated better doesn't mean its gonna sound better, could even sound worse. (Ex: Me thinking a smsl sa300 would sound cleaner and better than my old sansui 2000a.)" which implies that there is something "wrong" or "unpleasant" about the smsl amp and that what your ears have told you is a correct impression, you could say "I bought an SMSL amp but even though it's rated better, I still preferred my old Sansui for some reason. Now I never did a blind test and it's entirely possible my ears are fooling me, but whatevs."

Isn't it better to get the transparent amplification channel, and, if you prefer it in some situations, to dial in the precise tonal coloration you're looking for with eq, or buy a software that does that for you, rather than counting on the random and haphazard interaction between the amp's output impedance, and the speakers' input impedance to hit the bull's eye on tonal shading--at a multi kilobuck premium, no less.

 

[Robin L]

Isn't it better to get the transparent amplification channel, and, if you prefer it in some situations, to dial in the precise tonal coloration you're looking for with eq, or buy a software that does that for you, rather than counting on the random and haphazard interaction between the amp's output impedance, and the speakers' input impedance to hit the bull's eye on tonal shading--at a multi kilobuck premium, no less.

But you don't get the scent of overheated capacitors outgassing that way.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Isn't it better to get the transparent amplification channel, and, if you prefer it in some situations, to dial in the precise tonal coloration you're looking for with eq, or buy a software that does that for you, rather than counting on the random and haphazard interaction between the amp's output impedance, and the speakers' input impedance to hit the bull's eye on tonal shading--at a multi kilobuck premium, no less.

I'd say so yes. As would most of us here I think...

 

[steve59]

@Sgt. Ear Ache man, you're good.

Your first post here hits the nail on the head on how a con works. I tried to explain this a thousand times, but people often like themselves too much to even accept this as a possibility.

Imagine a group of three people; one's a conman, one a buyer and one is a buyer's friend. Conman does a number on the buyer and the buyer believes him and buys, let's say, cable risers. Now, as soon as he gave his trust to the conman, he invested a huge amount of ego - he made a decision based on a con and any rectifying will ask of him to admit this.

Now the friend comes sad to see how the guy got conned and he tries to set him straight.

IMPORTANT: This is where we all make a mistake and expect something that is totally false, and totally contrary to human nature; we expect the conned guy to burst in laughter, to be happy, to thank his friend for correcting him and then he or the two of them will pay a visit to the conman and say fuck you buddy!!

But no!! Never! Conned guy has to admit directly or implicitly to being an idiot. He has to admit that even as a grown person he bought into such crap, he fell for the oldest, he got suckered with something as simple as fairy tales. He usually takes his friend's warning as demeaning, as an insult, he usually thinks "it is you who is trying to put it that I'm stupid, it's not the fact that I bought the cable risers, but it's you who is insulting me and implying I would fall for such crap" and the most important "how can you think so low of me".

And very often this ends in "we can't really be friends".

Furthermore, the conned person becomes the loudest, the fiercest DEFENDER of his conman. Conman rests comfortably while the conned fight his battle for him although with a different reason in their minds; they will endlessly fight the notion of being idiots and this will imply justifying the conman.

can anyone say :xxx news?"

 

[egellings]

Tube amps are best for home constructors who are fascinated by them. Compared to S. S. amps, they are relatively simple in circuitry, and there's a higher chance of a successful outcome. If an error is made, tubes often withstand a temporary overload condition, while S. S. attempts usually go out in a puff of smoke. So I can see tube amps in that light. To pay for an assembled one is overly expensive and not worth it, unless the aesthetics of glowing tubes means all that much to the user. My home-mades are of a circlotron design, so starting with a low output impedance, and reasonably applied feed back loops gets Zo down to a pinch under a third of an ohm, which is quite useable. Granted, this is a troublesome way to get amplification, and unless tubes and their circuits are a hobby, I would not recommend one to a person not interested in how the music is made to get out of the speaker.

 

[MattHooper]

Couple things to keep in mind there. First, "sounds better" is often a problematic concept. If one is accustomed to for instance the extra little bit of harmonic distortion some tube amps provide, one might feel that that tube amp "sounds better" then an amp that is providing perfectly clean amplification of the signal - and therefore doing it's job better than the tube amp. Now it's totally up to that person if he chooses to go with the tube sound, but it doesn't change the fact that the amp is essentially an effect pedal rather than just an amplifier. I've come to realize in my own audio journey that its worthwhile to challenge one's own preconceived preferences if those seem to lean towards inaccuracy. In other words, I've found that allowing a bit of time to "get used to" something that I know is actually the objectively better piece of gear pays off in the end.

Second, if the assessment of those amps wasn't done volume-matched and blind, it's suspect. I understand how annoying it is for that to constantly be re-iterated but it's simply the truth. Now there's nothing saying you wouldn't still pick the Sansui as your pref in a blind test, but it's pretty likely you wouldn't hear any difference at all. But without a good blind test...well, we're just slogging around in the muck again.

Now the fact of the matter is that setting up a good blind test situation is a chore. It isn't really an easy thing to do in most cases. But that doesn't change the reality that cognitive bias is an insidious factor in this realm. There's a way to get around it though. Instead of saying "I learned something on my audiophile journey. Just because something is rated better doesn't mean its gonna sound better, could even sound worse. (Ex: Me thinking a smsl sa300 would sound cleaner and better than my old sansui 2000a.)" which implies that there is something "wrong" or "unpleasant" about the smsl amp and that what your ears have told you is a correct impression, you could say "I bought an SMSL amp but even though it's rated better, I still preferred my old Sansui for some reason. Now I never did a blind test and it's entirely possible my ears are fooling me, but whatevs."

As someone who loves his tube amps....I agree!

 

[steve59]

Good poke. I buy a pair of speakers that sound glorious at the shop. first con
once home speakers sound awful and salesman says they need hours of break in. 2nd con
not surprisingly return time expires before breakin completes. 3rd con
Everything that follows is chasing that glorious sound from the first day, oh well.

 

[killdozzer]

can anyone say :xxx news?"

What does this mean? I don't understand it.

 

[steve59]

Consider social media. How saying one thing enough times makes it real and how that could apply to this thread

 

[PierreV]

I wouldn't be so negative tbh

Good poke. I buy a pair of speakers that sound glorious at the shop. first con

either
the customer can't pay attention or doesn't know what he wants very clearly.
or
the speakers can potentially sound glorious.

yes, the shop's listening room can be optimized acoustically to sell speakers (that's something I would expect), yes, the dealer can potentially manipulate a comparative listen, simply by changing the volume a bit but the dealer doesn't have all the responsibility here, the customer can and should do his homework.

once home speakers sound awful and salesman says they need hours of break in. 2nd con

glorious to awful is a very long road. It could be due to inadequate amplification, but the dealer probably has enquired about it as it gives him an opportunity for an additional sale. But assuming a speaker goes from glorious to awful, it is most probably because of speaker/room interaction. I don't doubt there are dishonest dealers who would sell you full range towers for a 4m by 4m room but, in general, dealers will ask about the listening conditions at the home, if only to avoid huge problems, lots of discussions and impact on their reputation.

On the customer's side, since the customer knows the speakers can sound glorious, he could investigate a bit the aspect of EQ and room positioning plus treatment. That's the most important thing anyway. And one can't expect a reseller to know how speakers will behave in all types of rooms beyond obvious mismatches.

not surprisingly return time expires before breakin completes. 3rd con
Everything that follows is chasing that glorious sound from the first day, oh well.

It is again the customer responsibility imho. He had the opportunity to listen and essentially borrow speakers for a while. I today's world, that is a privilege and the dealers don't have an easy life in the current market.

Speakers that you can listen to and test drive at home are not the zone where people are conned, I believe. Upselling fancy cables and eventual accessories on the other hand...

The only area where dealers are systematically dishonest, in my experience is when they are comparing what they sell to what they aren't selling. The competition they don't carry is always poor in comparison to the wares they peddle.

Let's face it: most of the bad things that happen to audiophiles are self-inflicted. Your fancy cables were a con? Your fault. You can't hear the difference between the perfectly serviceable $200 DAC you had and the $10000 one you bought because there isn't any. Your fault again.

What is a dealer supposed to do when a customer comes in and wants "better cable"? Spend half an hour of his time trying to convince the customer cables don't matter, with absolutely zero chance of changing his mind?

 

[killdozzer]

Consider social media. How saying one thing enough times makes it real and how that could apply to this thread

No, go on. You tell us.

 

[Mnyb]

We could need a sticky regarding so that some things all the drive by noobs (or trolls ? ) posts . It seems to be all the same old chestnut all over

We dont need more USB noise treads or which cable tread etc.

Whcih DAC or amp give me best soundstage

Matching amp to speakers treads . maybe someone could describe whats really required and that will fit all situations . that's its rarely this amp and this speaker makes some synergy .

There is a lot of things repeated ad naseum .

Whats most confusing to me is that everyone of these post begins "new reader here , I've been lurking and reading for a while and now have this question" .
No you have not ! the questions asked makes it obviously clear that you have not read anything on this or similar sites

maybe a questionary before the first post ?

 

[Mnyb]

Hi again . I've been a squeezebox fan for years and have the server and several players.

Sean Adams their CEO once wrote this hilarious checklist to read before engaging in the audiophile part of their forum.

This is obviously a bit of a joke , but it could be used as a base for a serious sticky

"
You claim that an:

• audible
• measurable
• hypothetical

improvement in sound quality can be attained by:

• upsampling
• increasing word size
• vibration dampening
• bi-wiring
• replacing the external power supply
• using a different lossless format
• decompressing on the server
• removing bits of metal from skull
• using ethernet instead of wireless
• inverting phase
• installing bigger connectors
• installing Black Gate caps
• installing ByBee filters
• installing hospital-grade AC jacks
• defragmenting the hard disk
• running older firmware

Your idea will not work. Specifically, it fails to account for:

• the placebo effect
• your ears honestly aren't that good
• your idea has already been thoroughly disproved
• modern DACs upsample anyway
• those products are pure snake oil
• lossless formats, by definition, are lossless
• those measurements are bogus
• sound travels much slower than you think
• electric signals travel much faster than you think
• that's not how binary arithmetic works
• that's not how TCP/IP works
• the Nyquist theorem
• the can't polish a turd theorem
• bits are bits

Your subsequent arguments will probably appeal in desperation to such esoterica as:

• jitter
• EMI
• thermal noise
• existentialism
• cosmic rays

And you will then change the subject to:

• theories are not the same as facts
• measurements don't tell everything
• not everyone is subject to the placebo effect
• blind testing is dumb
• you can't prove what I can't hear
• science isn't everything

Rather than engage in this tired discussion, I suggest exploring the following factors which are more likely to improve sound quality in your situation:

• room acoustics
• source material
• type of speakers
• speaker placement
• crossover points
• equalization
• Q-tips

"