The "I use my ears to hear" Rant

McLoki

I have not read the entire thread (a few entertaining posts, but not the entire thread) and want to add this just to stir the pot (and perhaps bring the conversation to a nice simmer)....

If "listen and let your ears determine what is good and what is not" is the mantra of the day - Why is bose so universally hated in the audio world? My brother in law has a set of bose AM-10 speakers (5.1 with unpowered bass module) that he loves.

There are many arguments against bose mostly starting with poor build quality and cheap materials then leading to specifications so bad that Bose will not even print them. It is a company that is railed against for duping the uninformed by accenting the frequencies that most people can hear and not even reproducing frequencies that are more "subtle".

Isn't this exactly what many of us are promoting. If someone can get sound they like from speakers that fit in the palm of your hand - who are we to tell them differently?

For the record - I think my brother in laws system sounds fine. No better or worse than 100 other home theater in a box systems but just average for the type system it is. Granted he paid alot more than HTiB prices, but that is not really my concern any more than the deal he got when he purchases a house or car.

When he comes over, he talks about how nice his system sounds and I should listen to this or that movie or music because the other night he was just rocking out to it and it sounded great. Things that sound great on my system (in my opinion) sound average on his. Music or movies that sound like absolute crap on my system due to poor mastering, recording or any number of other issues - really doesn't sound that bad on his. No matter what he plays - his system sounds average. He is free to like music or not like it based on merits that don't include the sound engineer or recording studio used.

Where his system is average and he plays whatever seems to float his boat at the time, mine is much more detailed. I actually find myself listing to music or watching movies I don't reallly care for just because it is mastered so well. (or not watching movies or listening to music I do like because it sounds terrible on my system due to a poor recording.)

When push comes to shove and if it is all about listening to music that moves you - maybe his Bose system does have as many positive qualities as my Polk system does. Is everything being average a worthy tradeoff to some things you used to like sounding bad and other things you never considered listening to being magical?

We both let our ears decide and neither would trade the other for what we have. (ok, he would like my SVS ) Does that mean we are both right since we have both purchased what we wanted to hear???

What say you?

heiney9

snow wrote: »

so many people are stuck on specs and will purchase something simply on the numbers alone. its a good place to begin but will not tell you if your going to like how it sounds.

That's a good point and that's one of the reason's manufacturer's pad their specs. Because they know many people are (falsely) looking for "certain" numbers to appear on a spec sheet. It's sort of a catch 22.

heiney9

snow wrote: »

I think for Cathy and certainly myself, why we say 200wpc is a good place to start is this, for the most part you are only using very few watts while listening to music but even though you may only see 2 watts - 5 watts etc on the meters on an amp and it sounds plenty loud there are transients that occur so fast you will never see the needles move and those may take up the biggest part of 200 watts or more believe it or not. This is one of the reasons why 200 wpc is quoted by myself and others as being where you usally have enough power to drive your speakers comfortably without clipping the amp and it sounds so much better than a smaller rated amp or reciever at low volumes.


REGARDS SNOW

Yes, but to beat to death my example: Pass Labs Aleph 30 @ 30 watts/ch. will out perform many 200 watt amps. There are always great rules of thumb, but there are no absolutes. One must be a little bit educated about the hobby to make the proper choices. Specs can be one of the many tools we use.

H9

snow

heiney9 wrote: »

Yes, but to beat to death my example: Pass Labs Aleph 30 @ 30 watts/ch. will out perform many 200 watt amps. There are always great rules of thumb, but there are no absolutes. One must be a little bit educated about the hobby to make the proper choices. Specs can be one of the many tools we use.

H9

LOL ok im not going to beat your pass labs amp up because it is only 30 watts, it probally has a bigger transformer hence delivering more current and more capacitance than most 200 wpc amps do. its a class A amp which is a whole different animal than your standard 200 wpc amp is. and yes there no absolutes in audio, the same goes for tube amps wpc dont apply the same way there either.

I find out on a daily basis the more I know about audio how little I actually know about audio.

Theres a quote that someone can beat up if they like.

REGARDS SNOW

MacLeod

Here is a good example of manufacturers outright lying about their specs.

In this months Home Theater magazine they tested 3 receivers. A $450 HK, $1000 Sony and a $1700 Yamaha.

The HK rates it at 40 watts per channel. According to the test it did 78 watts at 1% THD with all channels driven at 8 ohms.
HK specs

The Sony is rated at 100 watts per channel 20-20KHz at .09% THD. On the test bench it did 54.2 watts at 1% THD with all channels driven at 8 ohms.
Sony specs

The Yamaha is rated at 140 watts per channel. On the test bench it did 62.6 watts at 1% THD with all channels driven at 8 ohms.
Yamaha specs

As you can see, both Sony and Yamaha are bald face liars! No way to spin it. Whats more insulting is the receiver that costs 4 times more than the HK is the worst offender. Overstating their power by 3 times!

On the other hand, Harmon Kardon underrates their receivers so youll cleanly and easily get the power that youve paid for. If it were my money, Id take the $450 HK over any of the other 2.

Kudos to Home Theater for finally bench testing receivers. I buy issues of them from time to time and although Ive seen several receivers tested Ive never seen one bench tested and the results posted. Good for them.

Systems

MacLeod wrote: »

On the other hand, Harmon Kardon underrates their receivers so youll cleanly and easily get the power that youve paid for. If it were my money, Id take the $450 HK over any of the other 2.

Good on HK:) There are others that come to mind ,such as NAD in the budget to upper mid price range and Bryston at the higher end that spec their products conservatively.Most of their amp designs will usually surpass their rated power specs by a comfortable margin and in the case of Bryston their noise figures will usually be 3db or so better than rated.

I guess the stiff competition in the HT reciever market has some of the big boys fudging their numbers just abit.:eek:

jakelm

MacLeod wrote: »

Here is a good example of manufacturers outright lying about their specs.

In this months Home Theater magazine they tested 3 receivers. A $450 HK, $1000 Sony and a $1700 Yamaha.

The HK rates it at 40 watts per channel. According to the test it did 78 watts at 1% THD with all channels driven at 8 ohms.
HK specs

The Sony is rated at 100 watts per channel 20-20KHz at .09% THD. On the test bench it did 54.2 watts at 1% THD with all channels driven at 8 ohms.
Sony specs

The Yamaha is rated at 140 watts per channel. On the test bench it did 62.6 watts at 1% THD with all channels driven at 8 ohms.
Yamaha specs

As you can see, both Sony and Yamaha are bald face liars! No way to spin it. Whats more insulting is the receiver that costs 4 times more than the HK is the worst offender. Overstating their power by 3 times!

On the other hand, Harmon Kardon underrates their receivers so youll cleanly and easily get the power that youve paid for. If it were my money, Id take the $450 HK over any of the other 2.

Kudos to Home Theater for finally bench testing receivers. I buy issues of them from time to time and although Ive seen several receivers tested Ive never seen one bench tested and the results posted. Good for them.

Then my Hk635 rated at 75 wpc should be way over 100wpc. WOOOHOOO.:D

No wonder why my 100wpc @ 8 ohm Hafler cant beat it.

jakelm

Mac, where did you find those bench testing specs?

TroyD

JHC, I want ten add'l minutes credited at the end of my life.

As to the original rant. BOO-freakin'-HOO. Of course it's an obvious statement. However, when presented with an equally retarded premise of 'we need to establish STANDARDS of what constitutes good sound' or something of that nature, it's a perfect answer. Personally, I think the folks who think that you can establish meaningful, universally agreed upon standards is either incredibly naive or a moron. Take your pick.

As for the rest of it. If you use numbers to disqualify a piece of gear without hearing it, you are wrong. There are tube amps out there that measure HORRIBLY but sound fantastic. Or, for example...you have a Jeff Rowland amp that is 60wpc, say, or an AssWhopper 1000 that is 834 wpc....are you going to disqualify the Rowland on numbers alone? Amp A. has .0005 THD and amp B has .5% (or a tube amp with 1.0%)....are those numbers meaningful? 25wpc? 25 wpc (in terms of 75 or 100wpc) is UTTERLY MEANINGLESS.

Christ, there are WAY too many frigging variables out there to establish any sort of 'rule'. So, in the end, I'll use my ears to HEAR and DECIDE.

Some of you guys REALLY make me wonder.

BDT

TroyD

..and while I'm at it...

If it's such a retarded statement, consider again the retardedness of the concept of add'l standards in gear.

I mean, for speakers...most companies have the FR response graphs, so you can theoretically determine if it's flat enough, has enough bass, enough treble extension. You can determine if the impedance is friendly to your upstream components. The same type of measurements exist for amps/preamps/sources etc etc...

So, if we are talking about **** that doesn't make sense.....just where does this notion of us needing MORE goobledygook fit in??

BDT

snow

What I want to know is this......

Where can I buy an AssWhopper 1000 that is 834 wpc

LMAOOOOOO thats priceless. :D


REGARDS SNOW

PolkThug

Early B. wrote: »

How often should we state the obvious?

At least one more time

TroyD wrote: »

So, in the end, I'll use my ears to HEAR and DECIDE.

cfrizz

ROTFLMAO!!!! Amen Snow, Amen!

Drool!:D If you ever see one let me know & vis versa!:D

Once again BDT knocks it out of the park!:D

snow wrote: »

What I want to know is this......

Where can I buy an AssWhopper 1000 that is 834 wpc

LMAOOOOOO thats priceless. :D


REGARDS SNOW

MacLeod

jakelm wrote: »

Mac, where did you find those bench testing specs?

Theyre in the current issue (November 2007) of Home Theater magazine.

Frank Z

If my lobes get all tingly...screw the spec. sheet.

MacLeod

But if youre paying for a 100 watt receiver and only getting 45 - the spec sheet comes in pretty handy.

treitz3

MacLeod wrote: »

But if youre paying for a 100 watt receiver and only getting 45 - the spec sheet comes in pretty handy.

That's when I digress and get a 16w tube amp. The BS abounds.

reeltrouble1

McLoki wrote: »

What say you?

Acoustech is Awesome

BAT is Beautiful

Dodd is Delightful

Manley is Magnificant

Musical Fidelity is Fantastic

Polk is Perfect

Rega is Rythmical

and

Bose

---

well it blose

No watts were harmed in the formulating of the above RT1 Random Thoughts.

RT1--enjoy the music.

dorokusai

MacLeod wrote: »

But if youre paying for a 100 watt receiver and only getting 45 - the spec sheet comes in pretty handy.

HK exceeds their numbers, most likely due to a smart, higher current power supply design. The increased wpc numbers for them are very telling of that fact.

It is misleading but remember that they are also using two different testing methods. Sony's is biased towards better wpc figures where a magazine test is usually set for a more accurate, real world picture. I have no doubt that the unit is capable of that figure but at what cost, and what other variables are being manipulated to reach it. We'll never know and it's a good indicator of things when you see these spec's, if for anything, perspective.

MacLeod

I dont think its so much that the HK is using a fancier amp in their receivers but rather just a more powerful one with more accurate, real world ratings.

Im sure the Sony could make its 100 watt rating but with only 1 channel driven with a 1000 Hz tone at 10% distortion. So technically theyre not lying, theyre just extremely misleading.

Now if Sony wouldve rated that reveiver at 50 watts per channel, it wouldve cleanly exceeded its ratings as the HK did. And while it wouldnt have as much appeal to the average dumbass buying a reveiver, its stock would rise quite a bit with enthusiasts I would think.

If more magazines would include bench testing in there receiver and amp reviews, I think this would do a long way to instilling some honesty in manufacturers.

I think thats why car audio amps are usually almost always underrated - all the magazines (at one time 5 different ones) had amp reviews in every issue and they all had bench testing reports with true, real world power plainly shown. If say MTX was making 100x2 amps that were only making 50x2, theyre reputation wouldve been crap pretty quick. Instead, most MTX amps nearly DOUBLE their rated power.

Another thing I wish home audio would do would be adopt a standard rating system. There is a move in car audio to do this with the CEA2006 rating. A majority of manufacturers are on bored with this now and basically it sets a standard system for rating specs and you have to meet these standards in order to get the CEA2006 seal stamped on your gear.

I would like to see home audio would get something like this as well. For one, it would drastically cut the ratings of these pieces and as a side benefit it would drastically cut the price of them as well. Its hard to charge $1000 for a 140x7 receiver when it only makes 50x7. Same with amps, there is no need for a home audio amps to cost 10 times as much as car audio amps. A decent 100x2 amp is what, $600? Thats insane! You can get a 100x2 12V amp for $150!

But I realize that the vast majority of home audio consumers couldnt care less and are perfectly happy with a Bose HTIAB and true enthusiasts like us here are the minority where in the 12V world, the majority of consumers are enthusiasts so there is stricter scrutiny of the gear and manufacturers claims.

dorokusai

I disagree with the HK comment as I firmly believe it's the robust power supply, not a groundbreaking amplifier design. All of them are generic designs at best or they would allude to the fact they are otherwise. I agree on your Sony comment as it would most certainly herald back to the days when they actually made good amplifiers.

Oh well, it's all about how you look at it.