Technical reviews of AV receivers
Fri, Feb 3 2012, 1:42PM
#2
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
Does anyone agree with at least parts
of these observations: that the audio performance assessments of current
digitalized systems are largely hokum?
of these observations: that the audio performance assessments of current
digitalized systems are largely hokum?
Yes
Ideally evaluating audio systems
should be based on blind tests with experienced panels of judges using some
agreed rating methodology
should be based on blind tests with experienced panels of judges using some
agreed rating methodology
I quite agree.
Fri, Feb 3 2012, 5:55PM
#3
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
Does anyone agree with at least parts of these observations: that the audio performance assessments of current digitalized systems are largely hokum?
Yes
Because? Surely not that old saw 'Because they're digital, so they must all be the same'?
Ideally evaluating audio systems should be based on blind tests with experienced panels of judges using some agreed rating methodology
I quite agree
Why? It's not something we do in any other part of the magazine, and blind testing is only one way of looking at audio equipment, so to speak. It tends to be favoured by those more interested in the equipment than the music.
Sat, Feb 4 2012, 11:20AM
#4
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
Why? It's not something we do in any other part of the magazine, and blind testing is only one way of looking at audio equipment, so to speak. It tends to be favoured by those more interested in the equipment than the music.
Probably true, but not really what lies behind these persistent calls for double-blind testing of every piece of equipment under review. My guess it that it is a kind of code for having a dig at innovation one step further than the protagonist has himself taken. A kind of innovation-denial based on lab-tech theorising that wants to believe that beyond a certain point (where their own equipment reached) listening experience is all self delusion from industry-led hype. We have heard this since the introduction of digital processing: "all CD players sound the same." Remember that little gem? When I listened to three of the four levels of Linn DS players - from £2k, £5k to £11k the difference was blindingly obvious. (Whether worth the difference comes down to individual choice which it is churlish to scoff at.) We have been here before in the bit-rate thread of last July, I think it was.
Vic.
Sat, Feb 4 2012, 2:05PM
#5
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
Because? Surely not that old saw 'Because they're digital, so they must all be the same'?
... and blind testing is only one way of looking at audio equipment
What would you say if blind testing revealed no differences?
blind testing ... tends to be favoured by those more interested in the equipment than the music.
I'd suggest the opposite, actually. If the results of blind testing suggest that properly designed, inexpensive modern streamers/DACS/AV amps sound the same, then we can stop worrying about them and concentrate on the music - which is how it should be.
Sat, Feb 4 2012, 6:39PM
#6
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
I'd suggest the opposite, actually. If the results of blind testing suggest that properly designed, inexpensive modern streamers/DACS/AV amps sound the same, then we can stop worrying about them and concentrate on the music - which is how it should be.
I'm not sure many of us are "worrying", but I'm certain we are all "concentrating on the music".
Phileas, are you suggesting that if I had listened blind to those three Linn streamers, I would not have been able to distinguish between them? That if Andrew Everard had listened "blind" to that Naim unit he so admired recently against any "properly designed, inexpensive modern streamer" (off the shelf at Tesco for instance) he would have heard no difference? If not, why are you calling for "blind testing" exactly?
Or have I missed something here?
Vic.
Sat, Feb 4 2012, 9:32PM
#7
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
My machine is a BDP S370 (earlier version of the 380?). I only wanted to use it as a two channel audio player and I found the rest of the facilities and instruction book virtually incomprehensible and have no idea what HDMI is.
There is no problem playing 2-channel SACDs. The player recognises them automatically and plays the DSD layer by default.
If you want to use the BluRay player to play BluRay discs and send HD video to your HD television, basically you need to connect them with an HDMI cable either direct or via an A/V receiver.
Sun, Feb 5 2012, 8:59AM
#8
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
are you suggesting that if I had listened blind to those three Linn streamers, I would not have been able to distinguish between them?
Who knows? Would it do any harm to try?
There are many reports of blind tests which have failed to detect significant sonic differences between amplifiers, let alone streamer/DACs.
This is not aimed at you Vic, but non-blind testing can lead to all sorts of silliness, such as finding differences between HDMI cables which simply cannot exist.
Sun, Feb 5 2012, 9:35AM
#9
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
If the results of blind testing suggest that properly designed, inexpensive modern streamers/DACS/AV amps sound the same, then we can stop worrying about them and concentrate on the music - which is how it should be.
Like Vic, I'm not worrying at all. But you may be right about inexpensive streamers, DACs and AV amps all sounding the same, or at least similar, in that they all tend to demonstrate the same sonic limitations.
That's why at least some of the models above them are, IME, worth the extra expenditure.
Sun, Feb 5 2012, 9:49AM
#10
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
you may be right about inexpensive streamers, DACs and AV amps all sounding the same
Haha. What I meant to say was:
...properly designed, inexpensive modern streamers/DACS/AV amps sound the same as expensive ones...
Sun, Feb 5 2012, 10:31AM
#11
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
Haha. What I meant to say was:
...properly designed, inexpensive modern streamers/DACS/AV amps sound the same as expensive ones..
Anyone round here see where those goalposts just went?
Sun, Feb 5 2012, 10:54AM
#12
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
are you suggesting that if I had listened blind to those three Linn streamers, I would not have been able to distinguish between them?
Who knows? Would it do any harm to try?
So the suggestion is: Linn, for example, make four levels of DS player - £1k, £2k, £5k, and £11k, and there is no real difference between them? That when I described my listening experience of of the differences, "blindingly obvious", a blind test would have nullified that difference? That's a big claim to make Phileas! Is the whole industry in a giant conspiracy to deceive and reviewers and customers deluding themselves?
Vic.
Sun, Feb 5 2012, 11:28AM
#13
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
...when I described my listening experience of of the differences, "blindingly obvious", a blind test would have nullified that difference?
My suggestion is that you don't know because you haven't tried it.
Do you have any particular objection to blind comparison?
Sun, Feb 5 2012, 11:40AM
#14
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
Is the whole industry in a giant conspiracy to deceive
Not the whole industry and not always intentionally.
and reviewers and customers deluding themselves?
I believe it's disturbingly easy for people to delude themselves. There's no shame in it, it's just the way we're made.
Sun, Feb 5 2012, 12:19PM
#15
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
My suggestion is that you don't know because you haven't tried it.
Do you have any particular objection to blind comparison?
I have tried it, on many occasions, and my only objection to it is that it's pointless, and only for those who like to amuse themselves by doing such things. In my experience, those who believed there would be no differences heard no differences, while those expecting differences heard them even when they were played the same extracts three times on exactly the same equipment.
I've been in tests where industry members were so busy trying to spot their own equipment and that of their rivals they couldn't even tell you which – very well known – piece they'd just heard four times, and in others where at least one person described as 'cheap and nasty' his own company's flagship model.
It's on the basis of such experiences I have to ask why bother with such tests. Or maybe I'm just deluding myself...
My machine is a BDP S370 (earlier version of the 380?). I only wanted to use it as a two channel audio player and I found the rest of the facilities and instruction book virtually incomprehensible and have no idea what HDMI is. I merely connected the left and right audio out phono sockets to my amp and assume rightly or wrongly that if I put in an SACD the machine will identify it as such and play the SACD layer rather than the CD layer. Is this incorrect?