Technical reviews of AV receivers
Tue, Feb 14 2012, 6:26PM
#2
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
So to clarify your position Phileas, the points you list above, and not sound quality, separate the two products I exemplify, do they? Sorry to knit-pick, but you are either stating there is no difference in sound quality between all (for instance) DS players or you are not.
Vic
I think the simplest way to respond to this is to say that my "research" leads me to believe that all properly designed & made streamers & DACs (which will include many low cost ones) should sound identical in a properly controlled double blind ABX test. To put it slightly differently, these devices should be audibly "transparent" and impart no character to the sound.
My opinion regarding amps would be a slightly weaker version of this.
An unequivocal statement to that effect would be more definitive than anecdote and selected examples of tests
The examples may be selected but they are typical - I've yet to find a counterexample. (I'm not going to provide links to all the "evidence" because I'm too lazy).
Tue, Feb 21 2012, 1:42AM
#3
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
I see that Andrew states that "just about every universal player offers the
ability to convert DSD to multi-channel Linear PCM and send it over
HDMI" but I'm not sure if this applies to the BDP-S380?
I recognise that this thread might not have been the best place to enquire about using the Sony STR-DH820 AV receiver with the Sony BDP-S380 BluRay/SACD player (as recommended in the February 2012 issue) given that it has got bogged down with the pro/anti double-blind testing argument that has raged, unresolvable, for more than 20 years, but I would appreciate some advise from Andrew.
If the BDP-S380 can be set to output PCM signals from the HDMI jack when playing SACDs, can the STR-DH820 process these as 5.1 surround sound and does the sound quality match what it would have been had the STR-DH820 been able to process DSD signals or indeed if the BDP-S380 had 5.1 analog outputs - as Sony's older reasonably-priced SACD players did?
Wed, Feb 22 2012, 5:32PM
#4
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
I recognise that this thread might not have been the best place to enquire about using the Sony STR-DH820... given that it has got bogged down with the pro/anti double-blind testing argument
I don't want to sound rude but perhaps you should start a new thread - this one was about blind testing from the start (see the OP).
Fri, Feb 24 2012, 5:09PM
#5
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
Blind testing has been in the news recently in the violin world. Blind testing including professional violinsts showed a preference for new violins over, amongst others, a Strad. Everyone was surprised that there was no clear preference of old instruments over new.
I've gradually updated my hifi system over the years and have always believed that the more mechanical items (speakers, cartridges etc) had the most influence and cables etc had none.
A few years ago, following reviews in Gramophone and elsewhere, I auditioned an expensive amps against my Audiolab amp and found that, not only was the mono block Exposure system better, but with it in place, I could actually hear the difference between quality phono leads and cheap ones. I remain sceptical that there is any difference between different brands of quality leads.
I later upgraded to a descrete DAC and again found a small but noticeable change and prefered the result.
I later tried the DAC in my computer system (with bookshelf speakers and NAD amp) and noticed no real change. By the way, it sounds ok, just not as good as the Quad electrostatics.
Systems are usually as good as the weakest component and this may well explain why some system changes are not really noticeable.
Mike
en very sceptical of been surprised to
Fri, Feb 24 2012, 6:11PM
#6
RE: Technical reviews of AV receivers
This has been a delightful thread to follow, well-argued on both sides. I find myself somewhere in midstream. Over the years I’ve tried changes that work, others that don’t. One of my most recent and rewarding tweaks was a rewiring job.
When we had the house built I buried speaker wire to many rooms and ran speaker connections from the main-floor amp through QED switches (one of which included a headphone jack, since my amp didn’t have one).
As technology changed, this arrangement made less and less sense. Through upgrades of my main set-up I’ve been able to disperse very acceptable, dedicated sound systems onto other floors and my Sandisk gives me excellent sound if I’m wandering around. So I unhooked the QEDs and ran the connections from my prime amp directly to the main-floor speakers. The difference is huge, a much more precise sound stage, cleaner bass, calmer upper-midrange.
Which sort of echoes Mike’s point and tells me that before we go shelling out hard-earned cash for state-of-the-art gear, a return to basics is sometimes warranted.
It still seems that potentially the weakest link in any sound system is the speakers. Back in the day when Gramophone used to publish square-wave test results it was evident that while those from most amps would conform very well to the originals, the results from speakers were all over the shop.
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
Also, in reply to DKH, my argument only encompasses electronics, not transducers i.e. turntables and loudspeakers.
Phileas, I appreciated that your 'no detectable difference' argument specifically related to digital streamers and electronics. I was also making a more general observation on various testing methods which, I think, is equally applicable when considering any piece of kit, including digital streamers. Apologies if I didn't make this clear.
JKH