Is ABX finally Obsolete

[microstrip]

(...) So get that record out where you can hear the singer catch her breath on the new amp and demonstrate it was inaudible on the old one. That's what the best reviewers do. Then let the engineers figure out why.

I would not be so sure that the catch her breath amp would be inaudible in the old amp, but as it was much more difficult to listen it was inaudible (as it was never heard) until you know it was there using the new amplifier. Then, as soon as you know it was there you listen it in any of the systems.

As most of us do not train ourselves for music listening and most of the time only listen once or twice to the same music in everyday listening we naturally establish a preference for what we consider the better system along time.

I am listening now to the new ARC REF150 tube amplifier in my ARC setup and I am getting fantastic new detail in many CDs I know pretty well. I am using an old all Quad setup as a control system. Volumes were calibrated, in cases where the difference exceeds .2 dB I use the higher volume in the Quad system. The difference between both systems is astonishing - the Quad system is neutral, but the dynamics much more restrained and if I increase volume it shouts much bellow the clipping point. Imaging is precise but not spacious.

The gradation of detail with the ARC REF150 is very natural, but you listen to more studio ambiance, small effects, many small thinks that make you fell more "there".

The way the new tube amplifier shows the music in the ESL63 is really unbelievable. (End of commercial ). But if I listen just for the details in the Quad setup after I have found them they are there - no magic here. But much less evident.

 

[amirm]

Harmon is trying to sell product. Like any business. They embrace a standard that believe will endorse that effort. In that they are no different than the subjectivists.

That's not correct or fair Greg. You only have to read the stories of Sean's early work that proved an internal engineer to be wrong to have designed a speaker to please German's to know that they don't have strict self interest in mind in that they do. They certainly are way, way different that typical subjectivist evaluations, having sat through the kind of testing they do.

Yes, they are a commercial company. Yes, not everything they do is driven to please man kind at the expense of making money. Show me your speaker manufacture does objective testing like they do and has no money interest and I believe you are going somewhere useful with that argument . Otherwise, it not a remotely acceptable claim.

 

[amirm]

You might recall that the Furetech Demag debate was already had, complete with blind test courtesy of Gary . A difference was heard.http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2701-Reviewing-the-Furutec-Demag

And we showed those differences were caused not by the demag device, but by lack of repeatability in LP playback. Surely nothing to brag about there .

 

[Gregadd]

And we showed those differences were caused not by the demag device, but by lack of repeatability in LP playback. Surely nothing to brag about there .

I respectfully disagree. That was a hypothesis not a proof. I believe Gary followed up with a an example that dealt with repeated playbacks.

 

[amirm]

We proved that if you play the LP multiple times, the sound changes. That was very clear. We further showed that those differences were as great as what was heard in the original test. This invalidates any conclusions reached regarding effectively of that device.

 

[Gregadd]

That's not correct or fair Greg. You only have to read the stories of Sean's early work that proved an internal engineer to be wrong to have designed a spehttp://www.whatsbestforum.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gifaker to please German's to know that they don't have strict self interest in mind in that they do. They certainly are way, way different that typical subjectivist evaluations, having sat through the kind of testing they do.

Yes, they are a commercial company. Yes, not everything they do is driven to please man kind at the expense of making money. Show me your speaker manufacture does objective testing like they do and has no money interest and I believe you are going somewhere useful with that argument . Otherwise, it not a remotely acceptable claim.

Amir this is a difficult subject that is probably not properly addressed by my flippant remark. I almost expected your reponse to be written in green. I suppose it can happen, but its rare that that a company will abandon "hot sales" for a philosophical point of view. See the movie Jerry McGuire. I don't know that the sales figures were at the time or what their motive was for making the change. It was a preference test as I recall. Their approach to design is included in their marketing. It goes without saying that they hope their approach will appeal to their customers. http://www.harmankardon.com/EN-US/aboutus/ScienceofSound/Pages/PioneersofSound.aspx
I don't have a speaker manufacturer. My opinion on so called objective testing is well documented on this forum.

 

[Gregadd]

We proved that if you play the LP multiple times, the sound changes. That was very clear. We further showed that those differences were as great as what was heard in the original test. This invalidates any conclusions reached regarding effectively of that device.

I beleiive that is a hypothesis not proof.
Gary rebutted your hypothesis here: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2701-Reviewing-the-Furutec-Demag/page45 post #446. Sorry to drag you into this Gary.

 

[microstrip]

And we showed those differences were caused not by the demag device, but by lack of repeatability in LP playback. Surely nothing to brag about there .

I would suggest a little changer:

And we showed those differences COULD ALSO BE caused not by the demag device, but by lack of repeatability in LP playback. Surely nothing to brag about there .

 

[Orb]

We proved that if you play the LP multiple times, the sound changes. That was very clear. We further showed that those differences were as great as what was heard in the original test. This invalidates any conclusions reached regarding effectively of that device.

Well,
to be closer to conclusive it would had help if one further test was done using a very good test LP, that say has fixed tones,etc.
This would make it much easier to see any trends.
I did think of this but bailed before I could post the suggestion, meant to follow up with Gary on this as hopefully he had a quality test LP.
Thanks
Orb

 

[Gregadd]

...I would not be so sure that the catch her breath amp would be inaudible in the old amp, but as it was much more difficult to listen it was inaudible (as it was never heard) until you know it was there using the new amplifier. Then, as soon as you know it was there you listen it in any of the systems...

True enough. But it dies not invalidate the fact that amplifier A revealed what you were not looking for and did not hear it with Amplifier B. Remember todays breakthrough is tomorrows standard.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

its rare that that a company will abandon "hot sales" for a philosophical point of view.

It is. It is also rare, though much less so, that a company will make a long-term investment in a strategy based on careful analysis, knowing that it will change products that are selling well, possibly losing customers in the short-term, because they believe it will be good for business long-term. But I think that's exactly what HK did when they began using scientific methods to test customer preferences and challenge conventional wisdom, and develop multiple lines of products based on the feedback from those studies.

The conclusion they've reached - that both trained and untrained listeners prefer a more accurate sound - pleases me. But if they had discovered that people like bloated mid-bass and rolled-off trebles and now Infinitys, JBLs and Revels all presented that sound at different price points, it wouldn't change what they're doing as a business. You're right. They're not bucking consumer preference to adhere to a design philosophy. They're bucking conventional wisdom and taking a risk, to execute against what their research has told them consumers will prefer.

Does that make sense?

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

Tim there is a fundamental difference between agreeing and understanding. It is my understanding on which my disagreement is based. In "cheeky" declarations I have stated before subjectivists dominate the high end. Rightfully so since they created it. Measurements and blind tests may expose some incompetence. But for the most part it's not even close. There's nothing wrong with a company trying to break in the establishment by designing a different metric. "Mine must be better because I use science." When the music comes on there's no contest. That's been true for the entire 40 years I've ben involved in audio.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim there is a fundamental difference between agreeing and understanding. It is my understanding on which my disagreement is based. In "cheeky" declarations I have stated before subjectivists dominate the high end. Rightfully so since they created it. Measurements and blind tests may expose some incompetence. But for the most part it's not even close. There's nothing wrong with a company trying to break in the establishment by designing a different metric. "Mine must be better because I use science." When the music comes on there's no contest. That's been true for the entire 40 years I've ben involved in audio.

Interesting. Almost totally unrelated to my post, but interesting. I was agreeing with you that Harman develops products that they think will make money, not products that support some philosophical point of view. I gave a bit more nuanced answer than "they're only in it for the money," but nonetheless, I was agreeing with you. I would have thought the two word affirmative opening was a dead giveaway. Or perhaps the "You're right" in the second paragraph? What were you talking about?

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

..."they're only in it for the money," ...

I don't recall saying that. I am always uneasy when you"agree" with me. Allowing me to "indulge my preference" gives me no solace.

My point is that there scientific endeavors are tied to the bottom line as are the sighted tests of subjectivists.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I don't recall saying that. I am always uneasy when you"agree" with me. Allowing me to "indulge my preference" gives me no solace.

My point is that there scientific endeavors are tied to the bottom line as are the sighted tests of subjectivists.

Fair enough. I will bet my bottom line on real research, however. YMMV.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

I think it is time to bring this thread to a close.
I'll give myself the last word(unless someone else wants to speak). I don't' know much about philosophy. There has to be a yin and a yang to life. As much as the human race has learned we have barely scratched the surface.

I spent the last coupe of days reading (listening to) the debates between the likes of Ethan Wiener, Michael Fremer and Arny Krueger. Not only is there money and ego at stake, but the survival of the source material and equipment that brings us pleasure is at risk. I was reading Shakespeare and Romeo calls on the sun to rise and slay the envious moon The moon is already pale and weak. So much of the vial debate is a battle between those who want to drag us into the future and those of us who cling to the pass. While surely the sun will set and the moon will enjoy its glory, technology can disappear forever. That prospect is attractive to some and frightful to others.