What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[Todd]

First, that standard psychoacoustical theory that small differences are inaudible is confirmed

Well, if it's true in theory, it must be true.  No need to bother listening at all before offering an opinion on how something must sound.

[drogulus]

     We cross posted so I moved my latest behind yours, to avoid time travel.

     Here's a site that gives an engineering perspective on the controversy:

     Science and Subjectivism in Audio

     The question that occurs to me is.....why? Why would a problem be so hard to solve when it rests on technical considerations? One possible way to understand is that subjectivism is part of a larger social and intellectual trend that has spread along with "alternative" medicine and Ufology. There has been a decline in the perceived value of expertise across the board, and the vacuum is filled with whatever beliefs can find a foothold.

     

Well, if it's true in theory, it must be true.  No need to bother listening at all before offering an opinion on how something must sound.

     No, you have to test the theory even if it has been confirmed in the past. But how do you test the theory that what you hear is real if you don't think the test can tell you? If the test said you were right you wouldn't bother with how audiophile the test setup was, you'd say it confirmed what you knew. These tests have been run many times, on speaker cables, amps and preamps, CD players and various other devices. In every case the proponents have said that theoretically inaudible differences were in fact audible. When tested the differences could not be found. Furthermore, though I'm not an expert in audio theory and practice, this looks like a field where theory and practice move closely together. This isn't arcane stuff. We didn't just become smarter about acoustics in the 1970s when subjectivism first appeared. Theory, in this case, is well confirmed, which is why many people in professional audio have such low regard for audiophilia. They never bought it, unlike me. I did give it a whirl, but began to question the soundness of its assumptions. Upon examination, the whole house of cards came down.

[Todd]

These tests have been run many times, on speaker cables, amps and preamps, CD players and various other devices. In every case the proponents have said that theoretically inaudible differences were in fact audible. When tested the differences could not be found.

I'm aware of the general results of tests, and some specific results of some specific tests, but for me, unless the test includes truly objective measurements - eg, frequency response and CSD at the listening position, and even harmonic distortion for the hell of it - I don't really see the test as objective.  Differences in frequency response are (or can be) easily audible as well as measurable.  CSD differences, if they are large enough in magnitude, are also easily audible as well as measurable, and some stereos and components (especially speakers, headphones, and phono cartridges) will sound different and measure different.  If 20 people all say they can't hear a 3 dB difference at 1 Khz measured at the listening position, that doesn't mean that there is no difference in sound, that means that the test subjects couldn't or didn't hear it.  I can't imagine that being the case, but who knows?

Of course most audiophile press is hooey.  But there can in fact be, and in fact are, differences in sound between components.  A standard battery of measurements would almost certainly show why.  Most measurements I've seen of SS and tube amps show significant differences in distortion at easily audible levels, for instance.  A tube amp with 3% THD at 20 watts will sound different from a SS amp with .003% THD at 100 watts in almost any room with pretty much any speaker.  (Hitting 20 watt peaks is not particularly difficult in a medium or large room using insensitive speakers.)  If a SS and tube amp both measure at .05% THD at 100 watts, they will sound far more similar, and possibly identical.  Sometimes things that measure worse may be deemed to sound better.  Like LPs vs CDs as I mentioned before, or high distortion, low output tubes.

It's also worth noting that some people who work with recordings for a living have gone out of there way to build elaborate systems, or try to use specific gear.  Tony Faulkner and Bob Ludwig come to mind.  And they are renowned for engineering and mastering some of the better sounding recordings out there.  They probably could do so with lesser gear, as well, but why is that? 

[drogulus]

      Here's a discussion at AVS Forum on Thoughts on Meyer/Moran SACD/DVD-A vs. CD audio study? This is one of the more recent (2007) tests of audiophile assumptions. Not that recentness itself is significant, but it does confirm older tests, and that's worth noting.

     One point I'd make. As an empirical matter all of these tests are independent in that one audiophile assumption about, say, the importance of bit depth does not strictly invalidate another such assumption like, for example, the audibility of speaker cable differences where the cables measurements are infinitesimally different. But these subjective judgments travel together under a theory that conventional audio wisdom is wrong in an inexplicable way, so I don't think it's unfair to come to a preliminary conclusion that they all are suspect for the same reason, that nothing but subjective impressions supports them. Subjective impressions are creditable IMO only where they are allowed by what we know about the limits of human hearing, so gross differences are perceived and the judgments based on them don't raise a problem.

[Fëanor]

... These tests have been run many times, on speaker cables, amps and preamps, CD players and various other devices. In every case the proponents have said that theoretically inaudible differences were in fact audible. When tested the differences could not be found. Furthermore, though I'm not an expert in audio theory and practice, this looks like a field where theory and practice move closely together. This isn't arcane stuff. We didn't just become smarter about acoustics in the 1970s when subjectivism first appeared. Theory, in this case, is well confirmed, which is why many people in professional audio have such low regard for audiophilia. They never bought it, unlike me. I did give it a whirl, but began to question the soundness of its assumptions. Upon examination, the whole house of cards came down.

People who have owned a range of medium or higher quality equipment over a number of years will -- without exception -- assert that equipment doesn't all sound the same.  I'm one of those people. Yes, some of it is imagination and that is especially true where differences in sound are, by general agreement, very small in the first place, e.g. amongst interconnect cables.

In "double blind tests" (DBTs) differences might not be detected, but by their nature DBTs can only prove that differences are inaudible under the conditions of the test -- they cannot prove that differences don't exist.

[jlaurson]

In "double blind tests" (DBTs) differences might not be detected, but by their nature DBTs can only prove that differences are inaudible under the conditions of the test -- they cannot prove that differences don't exist.

No one doubts the power of psychology. But to establish that is not the goal of a DBT.

The argument that a negative cannot be proven (which isn't so much an argument but a truism) is fairly weak when compared to scientific -- i.e. falsifiable, repeatable -- attempts at getting at something resembling truth (not faith).

[Fëanor]

No one doubts the power of psychology. But to establish that is not the goal of a DBT.

The argument that a negative cannot be proven (which isn't so much an argument but a truism) is fairly weak when compared to scientific -- i.e. falsifiable, repeatable -- attempts at getting at something resembling truth (not faith).

But then again it's easy (for a trained experimenter) to define a rigorous DBT that isn't a realistic test. That is, it is a reliable test, (repeatable, etc.), but not necessarily a valid test because it doesn't test the aspects that matter under conditions that really matter.  This argument is commonly made by audiophiles, viz. such-and-such a test didn't permit the listener to become familiar with the sound of the different components before the test, or the portions for the test track or the listening interval weren't controlled by the listener, etc.  The non-audiophile tester might dismiss these criticisms as "excuses", but this isn't entirely fair.

[mahler10th]

My setup is as humble as hell can be humble.  These are the components I use to listen to music.  Not swanky and costs less than £100.  That is not to say that when I can afford to, I will not hesitate to upgrade to something to the tune of five grand.  But not at this time...so this does just fine.

[Bogey]

I am out of the loop on SACD's.  Do the newer Blu Ray players play these at an SACD level?  Is an SACD player worth getting, in your opinion?

[jlaurson]

I am out of the loop on SACD's.  Do the newer Blu Ray players play these at an SACD level?  Is an SACD player worth getting, in your opinion?

They will say it, if they do. Universal players like the Oppo-line (and those built on its technology, like Cambridge et al.) do.

Is it worth it? If you are ready/willing/planning to go to surround sound -- now or eventually, then I'd say it is -- because surround is really a game-changer. If you are not, then the difference is much smaller than between good and not-so-good 'regular' equipment. At least that's the impression I got from when I had a Marantz SA-11S1 (pure-stereo) SACD player, which is a lovely build, and pure pleasure to handle, but was much more a psychological improvement than it was a sound improvement.

[Bogey]

They will say it, if they do. Universal players like the Oppo-line (and those built on its technology, like Cambridge et al.) do.

Is it worth it? If you are ready/willing/planning to go to surround sound -- now or eventually, then I'd say it is -- because surround is really a game-changer. If you are not, then the difference is much smaller than between good and not-so-good 'regular' equipment. At least that's the impression I got from when I had a Marantz SA-11S1 (pure-stereo) SACD player, which is a lovely build, and pure pleasure to handle, but was much more a psychological improvement than it was a sound improvement.

Thanks!  Nope.  No intention of going surround.  In fact, with our home entertainment system I went 2.1.  I just like it better.

[bigshot]

In my system I have a kick ass 2:1 system supplemented with a center and rear channels. With a stereo source it plays 2:1. With multichannel, it plays 5:1. It isn't necessarily and either/or. The quality of the mains and sub are much more important than the center and rears. It can be quite inexpensive to go 5:1 if your 2:1 is covered well already.

I used to have a SACD player, but my amp wasn't able to handle analogue multichannel inputs. I did a line level matched A/B test between the exact same recording and mastering on SACD and redbook and I couldn't discern any difference. The SACD player is in the closet now. I don't want to invest in software for another format that doesn't give me any benefit. I prefer the multichannel formats on DVDs and bluray. They're more universal.

[Coopmv]

Thanks!  Nope.  No intention of going surround.  In fact, with our home entertainment system I went 2.1.  I just like it better.

I have quite a number of spare quality amps in storage and can go multi-channel by just adding the surround processor and extra speakers.  But this is more easily said than done since I have a few doxies at my house as well ...

[Kontrapunctus]

I switched to SACD several years ago, first two channel, then multi, and I've never looked back! Do those engineer types who claim not to hear a difference even know what real acoustic instruments sound like? SACD has far more detail, depth, richness--you name it, and on a good multi-channel system, the realism can be startling. I have a Sony SACD 5400ES, but we just ordered an Oppo BDP 95 to try and consolidate some of the audio/video gear (my wife does not share my enthusiasm for equipment!). I eagerly await the opportunity to A/B them when it arrives in a few days.

[71 dB]

Do the newer Blu Ray players play these at an SACD level?

Some models do. I bought a second hand Cambridge Audio Azur 650BD last summer for my first Blu-ray player. Cost me over 500 euros as it is modified region free.

Earlier I used a 200 euros Pioneer DV-575A DVD-player for playing SACDs. 

Is an SACD player worth getting, in your opinion?

It is worth getting for those who have a good multichannel audio system for movies and are into classical music. For other music genres the format is more or less dead, even useless.

The increased frequency range isn't the issue. Stereo SACD layer may theoretically sound even worse than the corresponding CD-layer because audio amplifiers can't handle ultrasonic frequences that well (performance has been optimised on audible frequency range). Intermodulation distortion can create distortion on lower audible frequencies. However, I don't think this is a major problem. On listening tests people can't differentiate stereo SACD layer from CD layer.

The increased dynamic range is not necessory actually. CD gives easily 90 dB of dynamics. The background noise level of a silent living room is about 30 dB and 120 dB roughly the threshold of pain. 90 dB dynamics of CD covers that.

Does SACD give anything then? Yes! It gives high quality multichannel sound on hybrid discs that can be player stereophonically with any CD-player. SACD-releases are also engineered very well and they tend to sound good because of that (the CD-layer too!)

High sampling rates and large 24 bits dynamic ranges are very useful in music production. When the recording has been produced, the levels can be optimiced for the 16 bits of CD. The 44.1 kHz sampling rate "protects" amplifiers from ultrasonics while covering the audible range of human hearing.

[71 dB]

People who have owned a range of medium or higher quality equipment over a number of years will -- without exception -- assert that equipment doesn't all sound the same.  I'm one of those people. Yes, some of it is imagination and that is especially true where differences in sound are, by general agreement, very small in the first place, e.g. amongst interconnect cables.

Loudspeakers have their own sound. Ampliers and sound sources sound almost the same. All the rest of the equipment is practically "soundless". It's crazy to think about interconnect cables when moving your head two inches causes 1000 times bigger changes in perceived sound due to different arrival of sound waves into your ears.

Investing your money to best possible loudspeakers and taking care of the acoustics of your listening room gives by far the greatest improvement for the buck in perceived sound quality as long as the rest of the equipment is "good enough".

In "double blind tests" (DBTs) differences might not be detected, but by their nature DBTs can only prove that differences are inaudible under the conditions of the test -- they cannot prove that differences don't exist.

The question is what kind of differences do matter and when? People are very good at creating excuses expanding insignificant differences out of proportion. No wonder most "clear" differences dissappear in controlled blind tests.

High Fidelity is for a big part pure subjectivism. We enjoy getting audio gear we like for subjective reasons and in order to justify our decisions for ourself and others we create excuses in the form of imagined sound attributes. There is nothing wrong with this as we are subjective human beings. The entanglement arises when this subjectivism is thought to be something objective and measurable. We need to learn to live with two truths; objective and subjective.

[Bogey]

With my amp being the same as this :





I am not sure if I should even give it a go.

[Bogey]

FWIW, heading here today:

http://www.denvermodernism.com/vintage%20voltage%20expo.html

[rickardg]

How difficult is it to set up a surround system for music? I'm about to get a new system and thinking of going surround, but I don't want to get caught up in endless tinkering (it can be fun, but I just don't have the time now).

Also, any suggestions for such a system? I'm preliminarily thinking about something like Denon AVR-1612 with Dali Concept 6 speakers.

Any gotchas I should be aware of?

[71 dB]

How difficult is it to set up a surround system for music? I'm about to get a new system and thinking of going surround, but I don't want to get caught up in endless tinkering (it can be fun, but I just don't have the time now).

Also, any suggestions for such a system? I'm preliminarily thinking about something like Denon AVR-1612 with Dali Concept 6 speakers.

Any gotchas I should be aware of?

For music I recommend a 5.0 system with "large" main speakers capable of deep bass reproduction. That way it's easier to integrate bass into the sound image.

However, all the speakers should be identical in terms of phase and frequency response apart from bass frequences, at least front speakers. The problem is to find a suitable center speaker. Some loudspeaker manufacturers have smaller versions (e.g. Chorus Compact 662) of larger models (Chorus Compact 682) with identical sound apart from bass. That's a perfect solution. The smaller model identical as surround speakers too.

I have a "5.passive" -system where the subwoofer is passive and the signals of main speakers (left & right) are routed through it. All my five speakers are identical. Center and surround speakers are handled as "small" by my amplifier and their lower bass content is routed to main speakers (that is to the passive subwoofer for most part) This solution works if you can integrate the passive subwoofer into the sound image. This is kind of a compromise between music and movies but such systems aren't widely available. My speakers are actually self-made (after construction instructions).

I also recommend that the distance to all speakers is as similar as possible. Identical speakers and distances mean minimal tinkering with channel delays and volumes.

My center speaker is lower than the main speakers. this is because I don't want to put it in front of my tv screen.  The center speaker is about 20 cm from the floor, pointing at an precise angle up toward my ears. However, this proximity of floor makes the sound a bit boomy. I have compensated this having a 100 μF capasitor* in series with the center speaker to attenuate lower frequences between 100-300 Hz a bit. Lower frequences than 100 Hz are routed to main speakers. So, it is good to know what you are doing. Multichannel system is more difficult than stereo system to set up correctly. I suppose most people ruin their multichannel system with wrong or badly positioned) center channel (the most important part of the system and the one that can cause a lot of problems). Avoid "horizontal" center speakers with one treble dome between two bass drives. Those look nice but they radiate sound very differently from your typical main speaker.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
*Actually there is also a 10 μF plastic capasitor for high frequences parallel to the 100 μF bipolar capasitor.