• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Is the source the most important aspect of a sound system?

If speakers had a flat FR, there wouldn't be much use for an RTA, would there...? ;)

speakers have thier own sound apart from thier frequency curves.
Click to expand...

Send a woofer enough power in a large enclosure and you get this neat thwackthwackthwackthwackthwackthwack sound from the coil meeting the backplate :D But other than that, not sure what you're referring to.
 
marc mc said:
I got in crap with the science crowd on the "Flat Frequecy " thread because I said that speakers have thier own sound apart from thier frequency curves.

marc mc
Click to expand...

I believe they do/can sound different too, since FR is only one part of a speaker's performance.

If one assumes all other factors of the speaker's performance are same, then I would tend to agree if both have the same FR curve, they're both going to sound the same.
 
I remember back in the late 70s, an old Hi Fi chain here in Michigan (and probably other states) called Tech Hi Fi suggested that, for a basic system (two speakers, receiver, tt and cart) that you allot 50% of your system's budget on your speakers, 25% on your receiver, and the remaining 25% on your tt and cart. It was published in one of their catalogs, and I've always liked that approach (though 5.1 and beyond as well as the appearance of mega-expensive cables have thrown this ratio all outta whack, I suppose).

So, even though my collection is pretty much balanced between LPs and CDs, my bias toward the speakers pre-dates the arrival of digital media.

Early on, someone mentioned GIGO, and, with that in mind, I started thinking about the storage media - the vinyl or the cd, and I know for a fact, and I'm sure that anyone who's ever bought or listened to a MoFi or other high end disk will agree that there are huge sonic gains to be had from improving the quality of your media.

Just as there are tons of badly recorded CDs today, I'd be willing to bet that the proportions of badly recorded vinyl back in the 70s were very similar to badly recorded digital media today.

I think it would be interesting (if not incredibly difficult) to do some double-blind AB comparisons to see what people really like. But would people hear that tell-tale vinyl surface noise and use that to taint their responses?
 
I think it would be interesting (if not incredibly difficult) to do some double-blind AB comparisons to see what people really like. But would people hear that tell-tale vinyl surface noise and use that to taint their responses?
Click to expand...

I don't mind one way or the other what people like - it's their own personal preference. However, if someone wants to make a statement either way, hopefully they've actually listened to both sides :) Not just a "I've heard it sucks, so it sucks". That's all that bothers me ;)
 
Jim: there's no doubt that trying to win an argument over which option tastes better or sounds better is a losing proposition. People like what they like (no matter how wrong they are .... ;) ).

That being said, the point I was trying to get to is that it would be interesting to see how many people, with an avowed preference for one format or another, to sit through a series of blind tests to see if the sounds they actually reported liking were from the source they stated they preferred. Like I said, it'd be awfully difficult to rig up.

Anyhow, I know this next point is sort of off the target, and I'm sure that this link has been posted elsewhere here in AK-land (though I've never seen it)...

Still, I thought this was an interesting article: http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm
 
cwall99 said:
Still, I thought this was an interesting article: http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm
Click to expand...

Interesting sidebar!

I wouldn't be able to pass the test but I think the test is rigged so no one will ever take his $10,000. The test erroneously infers that because no one can pass, no one can tell the difference and therefore buying a low cost reliable amp is the optimal choice. Having compared dozens of amps and receivers in my home, I can determine a difference and will not settle for junk.

Back to the main topic.:D
 
SoCal Sam said:
Having compared dozens of amps and receivers in my home, I can determine a difference and will not settle for junk.
Click to expand...

But, did you compare them in a blind, level matched test?

If not, then you didn't make your determination in the same manner as the "challenge" therefore it's an apples-to-oranges comparision.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that everyone do a blind, level matched test prior to buying anything...heaven knows I don't.

However, I have done something such as that test, and the results may (actually probably will) surprise you.
 
SoCal Sam said:
Interesting sidebar!

I wouldn't be able to pass the test but I think the test is rigged so no one will ever take his $10,000. The test erroneously infers that because no one can pass, no one can tell the difference and therefore buying a low cost reliable amp is the optimal choice. Having compared dozens of amps and receivers in my home, I can determine a difference and will not settle for junk.

Back to the main topic.:D
Click to expand...
Actually they are referring to car amps in this challenge :yes:



REGARDS JIM
 
whoaru99 said:
But, did you compare them in a blind, level matched test?

If not, then you didn't make your determination in the same manner as the "challenge" therefore it's an apples-to-oranges comparision.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that everyone do a blind, level matched test prior to buying anything...heaven knows I don't.

However, I have done something such as that test, and the results may (actually probably will) surprise you.
Click to expand...

Why would a blind and level matched test be an apple to orange test when it's common knowledge that objectivity is a non-existing aim?

"dolph"
 
whoaru99 said:
But, did you compare them in a blind, level matched test?

If not, then you didn't make your determination in the same manner as the "challenge" therefore it's an apples-to-oranges comparision.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that everyone do a blind, level matched test prior to buying anything...heaven knows I don't.

However, I have done something such as that test, and the results may (actually probably will) surprise you.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I could pass a simple ID the amp test. I still think there is value to doing unmasked comparison listening. I will never settle for junk and believe me, I had heard the worst of the worst. Comparison listening has paid off for me and I stand by my methodology.

As far as blind testing goes, no I am not surprised. Identifying an amp through blind comparison testing is very difficult. However, determining which is smoother, which is faster and more articulate, which is less fatiguing, etc., etc., is very possible.

That guy's test does not attempt to reconcile sound quality with simple amp identification and that is a major flaw that calls into question the value of his test. For me, sound quality is very important and I am ruthless when it comes to switching out gear for better sound quality.
 
niklasthedol said:
Why would a blind and level matched test be an apple to orange test when it's common knowledge that objectivity is a non-existing aim?

"dolph"
Click to expand...

Your statement surprises me considering you own the finest tape decks and have chosen them for undoubtedly subjective AND objective reasons.
 
in an 'affordable' analog system...source 1st, amp 2nd, speakers 3rd would appear the most cost effective route to a decent sounding system... further up the food chain at hi fidelity price levele, the cost ratio becomes less important than the synergy between the components and your listening environment...

whatever musical information is lost at the source cannot be retrieved...no matter how good the amp or how expensive the speakers..
 
Last edited:
niklasthedol said:
Why would a blind and level matched test be an apple to orange test when it's common knowledge that objectivity is a non-existing aim?

"dolph"
Click to expand...

I don't understand your question.

My point was only that SoCal Sam seemed to be comparing his evaluation with the blind test. If his evaluation was not a blind test, then comparing or even insinuating any sort of result between the two is apples-to-oranges.
 
Last edited:
SoCal Sam said:
As far as blind testing goes, no I am not surprised. Identifying an amp through blind comparison testing is very difficult. However, determining which is smoother, which is faster and more articulate, which is less fatiguing, etc., etc., is very possible.
Click to expand...

We must be talking different objectives for the experiment.

The objective of my blind test experiment, and those I've seen discussed, never has been to identify a specific piece of gear. In other words, the goal is not to guess if it is the Pioneer or the McIntosh, the goal is to match an unknown, random selection to itself.

The type of test experiment I did, and that I'd suggest, is the ABX methodology. Meaning, there are two pieces of gear in comparison, one piece is A, the other is B. A and B remain A and B thoughout the duration of the test. Then, at random, either A or B is played, you are not told and cannot see which it is. This becomes X.

So, you listen to X then you get to change/switch between listening to X and A or X and B, as many times as you want, but eventually have to choose whether X=A or X=B.

For any given test (one choice) the relationship of X to A or X to B does not change. Once you choose X=A or X=B, the relationship of X to A or X to B is again randomized prior to the listen and the subsequent choice.

This randomization and matching/selection process is repeated as often as desired. Typically a minimum of ten times.

At the end, you get your "score" of how many times you correctly matched X to A or B.

The premise, of course, is that if there is an audible difference between A and B, matching X (which is either A or B) to itself should be easy. ;)
 
Last edited:
whatever musical information is lost at the source cannot be retrieved...no matter how good the amp or how expensive the speakers..
Click to expand...

why is it that something so simple is so hard to accept..... (maybe a "good" room can retrieve it)

If your room sucks - everything else will too. That is the most important thing to good sound. Then speakers as they really work together for sound.
Click to expand...

....huh.... i dont think so...

imagine ebay feedback if room was "so critical"....

..... I bought an a400.... and guess what....it sounded "decent" at sellers place and at my address with similar and completely different speakers. cd cource may not be as critical but "type"(ie cd, vinyl, cassette, tape, radio etc.. ) of source isn t questioned rather its importance in chain...

cheers
dino
 
NDKsilver said:
why is it that something so simple is so hard to accept..... (maybe a "good" room can retrieve it)dino
Click to expand...

Because no matter how good your source is, an inadequate pair of speakers isn't going to reveal it.

See, it's merely a circular argument that goes 'round and 'round. :yes:
 
What does it matter if your source can retrieve ultimate levels of detail if your pre/amp can't pass the information, or your speakers can't reproduce it? I'm not talking about crap gear with a great source. I recently saw an excelent review of a nice pair of monitors. What does it matter if your tt can accurately reproduce a 30hz organ tone, when those monitors roll off output fairly sharply at 60hz? These aren't crap speakers, they just aren't designed to go low. Likewise, I've heard of older speakers that roll off the top end at 10khz (and plenty that drop like a rock after about 14khz). Well, there went your top octave. In neither of these examples am I talking about using crap gear, jusr gear with different design goals than flat 20-20khz response. Reguardless, if you choose poorly, then your excellent source won't sound half as nice as it could. This is why I say source and speakers are equally important. To use another analogy, what is the point of upgrading your source to try to get a better sound-stage if your speakers have poor imaging and the change in source is likely to be minimal at best? Just my thoughts....
 
As much as I think I've said my piece (peace?), I'm drawn back.

Is there a way to put a thread on ignore, but not the people in it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom