Active Speakers

[Pianoman]

A very sane reply - most of these magical differences usually disappear anyway under blind listening tests...

[jayne lee wilson]

A very sane reply - most of these magical differences usually disappear anyway under blind listening tests...

Ooh, blind tests...! Organised by whom, under what conditions...?
What does "magical" mean? Does it mean that I, who heard the differences reported above (without any expectation or financial commitment), must defer to you, when you weren't even here? Can you magic them away?

What a can of worms you evoke... but tonight, I don't feel like opening it... (again...)

[Pianoman]

Ha, I see it's got to you - just my own experience of level matched testing, where perceived differences (like moving a piece of kit and hearing a difference) suddenly are much harder to hear - and it especially irks those who have spent mega-bucks on a system and become the 'golden eared' experts - not you, of course, usually fat middle-aged blokes with beer guts...

[jayne lee wilson]

I guess you've already seen this, PIanoman? Witty and wise... and a great read (sorry to mention it YET again...)
http://stereophile.com/asweeseeit/705awsi

[johnb]

The author seems to be saying that when he used the two amplifiers, long term, within his own audio system he preferred one to the other therefore blind testing doesn't work. However, presumably his own audio system was not identical to the music source/pre-amp/loudspeakers/room(/cables added with trepidation and some doubt) used for the blind testing. So it might be that the two different setups had an influence (even if you ignore the possible unconscious attraction of the glowing tubes of the M&A valve amp).

I can't help but think there is a risk in deciding that blind testing is invalid - we end up in a world of spin, angel dust and the worst aspects of the HiFi industry.

[Pianoman]

I guess you've already seen this, PIanoman? Witty and wise... and a great read (sorry to mention it YET again...)
http://stereophile.com/asweeseeit/705awsi

Of course - I've also read this many times

http://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge

[Beef Oven!]

Isn't there a story about Schumann, while reviewing Mendelssohn's Scottish Symphony, talking about smelling the garlic, tasting the cannelloni, feeling the Bora and being bathed in south-Mediterranean sunshine because he had erroneously believed that the title of the item being heard was the 'Italian Symphony'!!??

[Phileas]

I can't help but think there is a risk in deciding that blind testing is invalid - we end up in a world of spin, angel dust and the worst aspects of the HiFi industry.

Quite, but fortunately there seems to be absolutely no reason to reject it. :)

[remdataram]

Earlier this year I was a goner for 24-bit downloads, I was planning major changes to bring them in en large. But the purchase of a 2ndhand DAC (T&A DAC8 replacing Cambridge DACMAGIC) made CDs sound so good I lost interest in the files... so now I have the more traditional problem back again - the invasion of coffee tables by new CDs.
(Having fondly imagined the CDs already here would keep me occupied... )

Behaviour is very telling - the more you listen and buy (enthusiasm aflame), the more you know you're going in the right direction with the system. A point about choices: the impression left in your memory AFTER listening is often the truest one. You'll know if it's right or not, and you can't deceive yourself over that.

An interesting comment. I'm listening to Streamed music from a DAC Magic, a Unison Research Unico Secondo amplifier and Spendor S6e speakers. Jayne's enthusiasm about the T&A DAC8 make me wonder if there's more detail to get from CD/Flac files than I thought. A simple aside that may start me on an upgrade path!

[Pianoman]

Go for it - everyone is free to spend their hard-earned how they wish.

I have a friend who has spent nigh-on 20k on his system, and it sounds mighty fine, but I will never be doing that anytime soon for a) I haven't got that sort of money; b) if I had, I still don't believe I'd get 20k actual improvement (it would be marginal at best ie.having to listen hard and convince myself the differences were there; and c) taking part in a blind test years ago which showed that my big old Rotel amp was just as good as the shiny new one I'd bought...

My own view is that speakers and room have the biggest impact on audio quality and that the 'trickle-down' factor means budget gear is better than it's ever been, both in value and quality. Re. the original thread, I don't have active speakers but have heard plenty and if I do swap again, that is the route i will take.

But then I'm deaf.

[jayne lee wilson]

johnb - Hmm... no, I think you should re-read it really - Atkinson's main point was that longer-term sighted listening is at least as valid a means of assessment, given that is how we usually listen to music (classical especially!); and that the technical assumption that "all amplifiers sound the same" misled him into living with one he didn't enjoy. Also that extra-musical factors (visually attractive designs etc.) don't always tend in the direction you might expect.

If you set up a blind testing scenario, the variables are huge - aren't they? Will you use all kinds of music including compressed pop? If classical only, short excerpts or whole movements, or...? And do you include both experienced and inexperienced listeners, and how would you allow for listening fatigue affecting results? My pet hate is rapid A/B switching, I tend to find that I hear differences at first, and then rapidly become too bored and confused to make any useful judgements. So with a home trial all I do is plug in a new component, run it in a bit, then just live with it and listen as I normally do, only switching back to the resident piece after a few days. I usually start with classical works, Haydn, Mozart etc. - because these are always a good guide to tonal neutrality and purity, and the soundstaging, the orchestral layout, is very familiar. (Those big Hindemith passacaglias can come later...)

Well, it works for me - I'm sure others may have other approaches.

Pianoman - what exactly does "20k actual improvement" sound like? If you did get it, could you recognise it after 5 minutes?
...agree with you about the room's influence, but speakers? They can only reveal the vices and virtues of what you feed them...

[Ferretfancy]

Go for it - everyone is free to spend their hard-earned how they wish.

I have a friend who has spent nigh-on 20k on his system, and it sounds mighty fine, but I will never be doing that anytime soon for a) I haven't got that sort of money; b) if I had, I still don't believe I'd get 20k actual improvement (it would be marginal at best ie.having to listen hard and convince myself the differences were there; and c) taking part in a blind test years ago which showed that my big old Rotel amp was just as good as the shiny new one I'd bought...

My own view is that speakers and room have the biggest impact on audio quality and that the 'trickle-down' factor means budget gear is better than it's ever been, both in value and quality. Re. the original thread, I don't have active speakers but have heard plenty and if I do swap again, that is the route i will take.

But then I'm deaf.

Perhaps I shouldn't comment, as my current system did cost me a lot, but I absolutely agree with you about speakers and the room. Above a certain price level the law of diminishing returns does set in. I have had several different set ups in my living room, and every one of them has needed a balance shift to the left, even though the speakers have been symmetrically positioned. Dimensions, carpets and furniture can have considerable effect, and I did have to do quite a bit of tweeking with my most recent installation before I was satisfied.

[Nevalti]

Those here who believe there are no differences between components are presumably happy with a £50-£100 system? I very much doubt it.

If you take the trouble to spend a few hours at a 'proper' hifi show, you will hear some exorbitantly priced equipment which may sound very ordinary or perhaps dreadful BUT, hidden away in that show, you are likely to come across several rooms where your first impression is 'wow!' and it need not necessarily cost a fortune either. Only by exploring and listening to the options open to you can you begin to appreciate how vast the differences are between the musical presentation from different equipment. 'They all sound the same' - really? Have you ever tried really listening? If they all sound the same, why did YOU spend more than £100?

A/B 'testing' using music which is easy to reproduce tells you virtually nothing. How do they compare when you get a complex crescendo? What happens to that delightful quiet instrument when the orchestra volume swells? Can you hear it still or did it just get swallowed up? Is that quiet music down near the noise floor reproduced clearly at all volumes? How well is the timbre of a voice or instrument reproduced? Does the sound get 'hard' as it gets louder? Does the spectrum balance all go wrong when you raise or lower the volume? Does that amplifier drive YOUR speakers without sounding compressed or as if it is struggling? There are dozens of things that A/B testing simply will not tell you. I have had amplifiers which sound wonderful until the music gets tough to reproduce and then they get it all wrong.

When I audition potential new equipment, I am likely to use 10 or more CDs selecting passages that I know are testing and revealing as well as just playing some beautiful music. How can you possibly do that in A/B testing? How can an A/B test possibly be a fair and honest test?

Some active speakers are fine. I have been pleasantly surprised how good some sound for the money BUT don't forget that they are the modern equivalent of a radiogram. The reason radiograms disappeared is that we found that we could get better sound out of separates even though the radiogram manufacturer had all the advantages of component matching and testing - the argument often presented in favour of active speakers. Why does anyone think that these modern 'radiograms' magically sound better than separates? Why do all the manufacturers offer a range of active speakers if the cheap ones are 'perfect' anyway? Why do all manufacturers improve their active speakers every few months? Were they not as good as possible to start with? Of course they were not! So, having spent hundreds of pounds on active speakers and found you can get better sound elsewhere, what do you do? You can't upgrade them - can you? Oh, yes you can, you can give even more money, on trust, to the manufacturer and trust that he got it to sound right this time. Did he? Is that as good as he can get it? Hmmm, maybe it is better to buy separates.

[Gordon]

A/B 'testing' using music which is easy to reproduce tells you virtually nothing. How do they compare when you get a complex crescendo? What happens to that delightful quiet instrument when the orchestra volume swells? Can you hear it still or did it just get swallowed up? Is that quiet music down near the noise floor reproduced clearly at all volumes? How well is the timbre of a voice or instrument reproduced? Does the sound get 'hard' as it gets louder? Does the spectrum balance all go wrong when you raise or lower the volume? Does that amplifier drive YOUR speakers without sounding compressed or as if it is struggling? There are dozens of things that A/B testing simply will not tell you. I have had amplifiers which sound wonderful until the music gets tough to reproduce and then they get it all wrong.

I'm a bit confused about what you mean by an A/B test. Surely any test is a means to find someting out and so the test will be designed to that end. What do you think is involved in an A/B test? Describe one as you believe it to be.

BTW the subjective spectrum of sound DOES change with volume level - Fletcher-Munson. That's why it's important to listen to reproduced sound at a level that is the same as that used by the recording/mastering engineer.

When I audition potential new equipment, I am likely to use 10 or more CDs selecting passages that I know are testing and revealing as well as just playing some beautiful music. How can you possibly do that in A/B testing? How can an A/B test possibly be a fair and honest test?

So what are you doing in your evaluation using your CDs and revealing passages? Let's assume it's done at home. Surely you are comparing the CDs/passages using different candidate reproduction systems, or elements of one, eg an amplifier say, swapping between them? Isn't that an A/B test of sorts?

Have a read of this

[Phileas]

Have a read of this

"The “double-blind triple-stimulus with hidden reference” method has been found to be especially sensitive, stable and to permit accurate detection of small impairments. Therefore, it should be used for this kind of test."