Alexx V arrive in NJ

[Carlos269]

On the contrary, the main rule remains the same: am i buying the 2nd amp or not because it produces better sound with my system? If by placing it with the existing speaker location, it sounds worse, but by moving the speakers 2 inches, it sounds better than the original system with the old amp...I am going with the 2nd amp and moving the speakers 2 inches.

Let me repeat myself: You know at the end of the day audiophiles can and will do whatever they want to convince themselves on the amplifier they “want“.

 

[dcathro]

Ok here we go: In order for the assessment to be a fair comparison between the amplifiers they have to perform under the same conditions. If I need to break that down for you, you cannot compare the performance of the amplifiers unless everything else in the system stays the same. There has to be a datum or reference for the comparison and that is the other amplifier’s performance. This is a relative comparison. Comparing the ”ABSOLUTE” performance of an amplifier as you described, under “optimal” conditions, against the “ABSOLUTE” performance of a different amplifier, under its own “optimal” conditions, is not only ill-defined as the possible permutations are not only endless but unknown but more importantly meaningless to the end users as they would provide no meaningful information. I could go on if you want me to.

I think this is where reviews are ultimately limited. A reviewer has his reference system tuned to his liking in his room.. A component under review is not going into an ideal level playing field. A reviewer can only describe behaviour of the DUT in the context of his system in his room according to his taste. Someone else's experience can be completely different.

 

[LL21]

Let me repeat myself: You know at the end of the day audiophiles can and will do whatever they want to convince themselves on the amplifier they “want“.

Yes, consumer psychology. A whole mess of a topic.

However, in the case of my example, the bottom line of evaluating any equipment (at least for me)...is what sounds best in my system. For example, would I really keep the old amp instead of the new one just because the old amp sounds better than my new amp in someone else's system? Of course not. Hence why while in theory an evaluation without making any changes to the system is "scientific"...it also fails to give me the answer I want...which is which amp is going to contribute to the better sound in my existing system.

For me, the only conclusion of the evaluation that matters is whether at the end of the evaluation I have better sound or not from the introduction of that one piece (keeping everything else even if I have to readjust it). If I get better sound with the new piece under evaluation, I declare a winner. It would be the dumbest thing to keep the old amp and leave the speakers in the old position when for 2 inches of movement, I get better sound with the new amp.

I think this is where reviews are ultimately limited. A reviewer has his reference system tuned to his liking in his room.. A component under review is not going into an ideal level playing field. A reviewer can only describe behaviour of the DUT in the context of his system in his room according to his taste. Someone else's experience can be completely different.

100%

 

[K3RMIT]

i can see Carlos point but it does have an elephant in the room he ignores. If this was headphones he is right.
Without sidetracking this thread think about this. most use set tube amps on horns. try a SS amp most run away. it can be the same reason as this an SS amp over power horns leading to compression. but a fight will break out trying to prove it hahaha. anyway where is poor Marty in this lol. outs his place and he has a very good setup and ears to boot. the amp maker jumps up amd down calming trying to make his point too. it’s tough to prove things in audio

 

[Carlos269]

I think this is where reviews are ultimately limited. A reviewer has his reference system tuned to his liking in his room.. A component under review is not going into an ideal level playing field. A reviewer can only describe behaviour of the DUT in the context of his system in his room according to his taste. Someone else's experience can be completely different.

So you don’t believe that in an ideal level playing field the better amplifier will outperform the inferior amplifier? In the case of the reviewer, his well tuned system is that level playing field or any other static setup that is common to both amplifiers. The well tuned, optimal, synergistic, whatever you want to call it is a pipe dream and an excuse as you cannot define an optimal configuration without testing all permutations; And furthermore the information derived, whether conclusion, inferences or assumptions would be meaningless to anyone else.

 

[Carlos269]

Yes, consumer psychology. A whole mess of a topic.

However, in the case of my example, the bottom line of evaluating any equipment (at least for me)...is what sounds best in my system. For example, would I really keep the old amp instead of the new one just because the old amp sounds better than my new amp in someone else's system? Of course not. Hence why while in theory an evaluation without making any changes to the system is "scientific"...it also fails to give me the answer I want...which is which amp is going to contribute to the better sound in my existing system.

For me, the only conclusion of the evaluation that matters is whether at the end of the evaluation I have better sound or not from the introduction of that one piece (keeping everything else even if I have to readjust it). If I get better sound with the new piece under evaluation, I declare a winner. It would be the dumbest thing to keep the old amp and leave the speakers in the old position when for 2 inches of movement, I get better sound with the new amp.


100%

Wrong AGAIN! In your example you did not reach a valid conclusion because you attributed the derived improvement to the amplifier even though said amplifier could have an inherent deficiency that was masked by moving the speakers 2 inches. Your corner is going to throw in the towel at any minute, you are needlessly taking a beating here.

 

[LL21]

Wrong AGAIN! In your example you did not reach a valid conclusion because you attributed the derived improvement to the amplifier even though said amplifier could have a deficiency that was masked by moving the speakers 2 inches. Your corner is going to throw in the towel at any minute, you are needlessly taking a beating here.

On the contrary, I reached exactly the correct conclusion! I got better sound. That is the ONLY thing that matters.

 

[LL21]

Wrong AGAIN! In your example you did not reach a valid conclusion because you attributed the derived improvement to the amplifier even though said amplifier could have an inherent deficiency that was masked by moving the speakers 2 inches. Your corner is going to throw in the towel at any minute, you are needlessly taking a beating here.

And in my example the ORIGINAL amp had the deficit which was masked by having to move the speakers back 2 inches. By doing so, leaving the speakers in situ actually make the better measuring amp (the new one) sound WORSE by having too much bass.

 

[Carlos269]

On the contrary, I reached exactly the correct conclusion! I got better sound. That is the ONLY thing that matters.

With customers like you no wonder high-end audio manufacturers keep raising their ridiculous prices. You ever heard the saying there’s one born every minute.

 

[Carlos269]

And in my example the ORIGINAL amp had the deficit which was masked by having to move the speakers back 2 inches. By doing so, leaving the speakers in situ actually make the better measuring amp (the new one) sound WORSE by having too much bass.

How do you know that? What validates the first amp’s deficiency? The second amp’s performance after the repositioning of the speakers? Walk me through the logic and validation that allows one to reach an educated and irrefutable conclusion.

 

[K3RMIT]

Marty help here it’s your place

 

[Carlos269]

How do you know that? What validates the first amp’s deficiency? The second amp’s performance after the repositioning of the speakers? Walk me through the logic and validation that allows one to reach an educated and irrefutable conclusion.

Well?

 

[adyc]

That sounds a little CCP, tbh.
Maybe Ron you mean you'll set amended rules and we'll all agree.
The saying in the UK is "your pub, your rules".

Please stay out of politics in WBF. What CCP has anything to do with these?

 

[PeterA]

The practice of repositioning speakers to compare amplifiers is so flawed that I will go as far as to state that repositioning the speakers disqualifies any comparison of the amplifiers. After all it’s simply physics……for the reasons that you stated in your previous post.

This disclosure certainly puts the reviewer in new light.

I spend two years fine tuning the location and orientation of my former Magico Q3 speakers. This was all with my long term Pass electronics and specifically, the Pass XA 160.5s amplifiers. Once I thought they were fairly optimal, I changed tried Lamm tube electronics and specifically the Lamm M1.1 100 watt Class A SS monoblocks. The sound was dramatically different.

I, and other listeners, one a musician, thought the Lamm's presented the same music in a much more convincing, realistic, and natural way. Noting that the speaker positioning had been to my ears optimal after two years of experimenting, what can be made of this observation? Even though the sound was much more natural with the hybrid Lamms, should I have concluded that the speakers were in the right position for the Lamms and not for the Pass?

I do not think so. The Lamms simply sounded better than the Pass with these speakers in this room. I had heard all I needed to hear.

 

[LL21]

With customers like you no wonder high-end audio manufacturers keep raising their ridiculous prices. You ever heard the saying there’s one born every minute.

Carlos269,

I was clear this was to be a friendly discussion. In the end, for me and for many consumers, the bottom line is better results. If Amp B comes along and with a few very acceptable 'free' movements of a speaker by 2 inches, Amp B results in better system sound, then Amp B is the only logical choice and conclusion.

 

[LL21]

How do you know that? What validates the first amp’s deficiency? The second amp’s performance after the repositioning of the speakers? Walk me through the logic and validation that allows one to reach an educated and irrefutable conclusion.

The irrefutable conclusion is simple. If the first amp and the speakers set back 2 inches sounds worse than the second amp with the same speakers 2 inches forward, I am getting the second amp. That's all that matters. Everything else is academic.

 

[marty]

If Marty is confused, frustrated and disappointed by his experience with the M10s, he absolutely has my sympathy. As a member of the press, I feel his pain but sadly, it does not surprise me. He has carried out a process – and I’m sure that he has carried it out meticulously – that not only have most of us (reviewers and magazines as well as dealers) been telling him to do for years, most of us have been doing it ourselves. The results are as perplexing as they are contradictory: not because of the products involved, but because the process itself – a process pretty much the entire industry stands behind – is just plain flawed. It’s an almost inevitable consequence of an industry and magazines that have become obsessed with product over process. Despite the appeal of the notion, the answer to every audio issue or performance upgrade isn’t simply a different box.

I’d love to see a return to the consideration and understanding of system – or even better, system within the room. High-end audio started as a hobby and became an industry: As that happened, we forgot about the ‘practice’ and instead started concentrating on the ‘consuming’. To me, this whole saga just underlines the role of ‘practice’ in achieving performance, just how critical set up is and how much more critical it becomes with every step you climb on the performance ladder.

Roy, I enjoy your writing and thanks for your thoughtful comments, however I regret I must disagree with much of your opinion. It takes no more than switching out the JL Gothams to hear the sluggish bass response of the M10 driving the Alexx V full range with anything less than 20% feedback (which I found unacceptable for the mids/highs). With the JC1+, the Soulutions, or the Mephistos, on the range where the bass overlaps, it is easy to hear the Alexx V and Gothams are entirely temporally aligned. With the M10, they were not. Furthermore, no phase adjustment on the Gothams was able to get them in synch. Simply put, the performance of the Soulution, JC1+ and Mephisto, driving the Alexx V alone (as well as with their excellent integration when driving the Alexx V w the Gotham v2s) further suggest it is indeed the M10 as the lone unit that delivered unsatisfactory bass performance with the Alexx V. That's 3 amplifiers which performed beautifully in delivering the high quality bass that I believe is a performance strength of the Alexx V. The M10 simply did not. You suggest that changing an amp will change the bass and character of a speaker's output. I totally agree it might. But why does it seem so difficult to appreciate that CH themselves state clearly in their manual that one should increase the feedback if you want more "grip"? This is basically an admission of a dampjng factor deficiency that must be altered with feedback to deliver satisfactory bass under select conditions which can easily be a certain speaker, particularly one with a difficult load impedance. One need not resort to other nefarious explanations such as speaker wire, the cycle of the moon, or speaker position to explain what I am hearing, In fact, speaker position is critical, but that will effect frequency response predominantly. What I am experiencing is not a quantitative difference in frequency response but a qualitative one and a dramatic one at that. It's a disconnect in the temporal domain with the rest of the range that the M10 does so well in everything save the bass. There is also a discernable sluggishness in comparison to what the bass delivers from the Gothams, which is a useful comparator. Believe me, I wish it wasn't so. I adored the midrange, top end, and dynamics of the M10. But the bass? Painfully disappointing (with 14% feedback which is highest I could bring myself to use) in comparison to the other amps mentioned. Again, this is my conclusion and when 3 fine amps deliver the goods and one does not, under identical circumstances it's the amp until proven otherwise. BTW, I believe disappointed is a far better term than confused here, and of course YMMV. If I am correct, I believe you did not use the M10s with the Alexx V. When you do, let's chat and see if we are in agreement. You may hook up the M10s and move the Alexx V around the room all you wish and let me know what you find. Then play them with the JC1+ (at 1/10th the price of the M10), move the speakers anywhere you want and then, let's chat. As we say in the lab, first do the experiment!

 

[Carlos269]

Carlos269,

I was clear this was to be a friendly discussion. In the end, for me and for many consumers, the bottom line is better results. If Amp B comes along and with a few very acceptable 'free' movements of a speaker by 2 inches, Amp B results in better system sound, then Amp B is the only logical choice and conclusion.

That’s not how it works. Someone can come along and put a £1 cheater plug, ground break/disconnect plug, on amp A and the system could sound better than with Amp B with the speakers moved by 2 inches. Reaching any type of conclusion under these test conditions is utter nonsense. [rude, insulting and obnoxious comment deleted]

 

[LL21]

...With the JC1+, the Soulutions, or the Mephistos, on the range where the bass overlaps, it is easy to hear the Alexx V and Gothams are entirely temporally aligned. With the M10, they were not. Furthermore, no phase adjustment on the Gothams was able to get them in synch. Simply put, the performance of the Soulution, JC1+ and Mephisto, driving the Alexx V alone (as well as with their excellent integration when driving the Alexx V w the Gotham v2s) further suggest it is indeed the M10 as the lone unit that delivered unsatisfactory bass performance with the Alexx V. ...

Hi Marty,

Glad to hear the initial signs are the Mephistos did not fall down at the first hurdle (bass). You are always very methodical, so I am imagining you will take your time on evaluating them. Look forward to reading all about it.

 

[LL21]

That’s not how it works. Someone can come along and put a £1 cheater plug, ground break/disconnect plug, on amp A and the system could sound better than with Amp B with the speakers moved by 2 inches. Reaching any type of conclusion under these test conditions is utter nonsense. [rude, insulting and obnoxious comment deleted]

Actually, it is not dumb at all. By adding a £1 cheater plug, that has introduced a 3rd variable which goes against everything we are talking about.

We are taking ONE new piece of equipment (the amp...(not 2 the amp plus a cheater plug)...and simply saying 'how do we choose between Old Amp and New Amp'?

If by moving a speaker 2 inches, New Amp sounds better, we keep New Amp. If only by moving speaker 30 inches does New Amp sound better, then I am keeping the Old Amp because I am not moving the speaker that much.

What would be dumb is keeping Old Amp if I would have been happy to move the speaker 2 inches and ended up with better sound with New Amp.