The Bob Carver Challenge

I think we are on two different tracks.

The quality differences between two drivers can be extremely marked. In fact you won't find any two models of similar deriver that measure the same. The differences are stark - I mean gross!

The same isn't true of many passive components parts. It is extremely difficult to find any measurable difference between an Alps and Noble 20k pot, or between the pot and a stepped attenuator for that matter when the same attenuation is selected.
The difference in this case boils down to pure subjective assessment, and as you know I am deeply suspicious of such assessment unless some unsighted evaluation is involved.

Look at the old cable test if you doubt this.
The stepped attenuator sits in the signal path - it is merely contact & resistance in the same way that cables represent a contact and a resistance. So if folk cannot hear rusty nails and tinfoil, why do you expect them to detect 'special pots or switches?

Essentially, high quality low distortion drivers are expensive. High quality passive circuit components are cheap. Go to any major supplier such as RS and look at what good high tolerance passive parts cost compared to the audiophile version.

 

The Kensai crossover has no particularly boutique parts. Good speakers are not made cheaply, great state of the art amps and DAC can be.

Point in case, I've got Rob's CA DAC-Magic here. It measures better than a Benchmark DAC1, and an unamed multi-thousand pound CD player I've also had here. for the record, the modded DEQ I use is somewhere between the DAC-Magic and the Benchmark. The performance of amps are similarly unrelated to price. If an expensive amp sounds better than something like the CA 840 then it's because it is different, not because it's 'better' with more detail or less distortion.

 

Well over ten years ago I wanted to retire my Cyrus One and went shopping for something new to put in front of the ESL-57s.

I listened among others to the Cyrus III and the 34/306 combo.

The III was, by far, the worst of the lot (unlistenable), and the 34/306 the best.
Also in the race was the Copland CSA-14 that I desperately wanted to like and took home for a longer trial. But in the end wisdom prevailed and I bought the unfashionable Quads.

 

To be blunt Rob, I don't see that there is much point in downloading the test you mention - I don't care how many people tell be that Stork tastes the same as butter - I know that it doesn't to me and I'm not changing my view just because some people can't tell the difference.

 

If there was so much difference between the Cyrus III and the Quads that one sounded great and the other unlistenable, then one of the amps was broken.

 

How can you not see this......

Stork is entirely different to butter.
The ingredients are entirely different, and more importantly, anyone blindfold will identify the two with, I'd suggest 100% accuracy.

An amplifier is designed to do a job of work.
To do so properly it needs to reach a certain minimum technical benchmarks. We can satisfy this benchmark at a few hundred pounds cost.
Human ears aren't good - lots of noise, lots of distortion, a performance that is variable from day to day and even minute by minute as their relationship with the room is changing with the slightest of head movements. They have strictly limited resolving ability even with the brain filling in the gaps.
So long as the amplifier reaches a performance bar sufficient to satisfy the ear/brain's limited resolving power, the model you choose is entirely irrelevant.

That's what blind tests reveal time and time again.
If you choose to ignore them and rely on sighted testing, you do yourself a disservice IMO.

 

My thoughts entirely

________________

All blind tests prove is that they are only capable of distinguishing the largest of differences - many people cant tell the difference between speakers in blind tests..................

 

the biggest problem I find is ''masking'' (my term).

Namely - the contribution of the ROOM to the equation is so spectacularly HUGE that MOST people's rooms MASK differences because of the GROSS DIFFERENCES the room induces.

Until you hear some absolutely outstanding rooms with modest equipment in (not talking to anybody in specific here) they you can't understand how seemingly 'minor- cant be heard blind' tests completely FAIL to reveal differences... all the attention to 'blind'..... and not the physical room.

An analogy would be trying to listen for bird song on the M25.

When you have a superb listening space, then differences that may have seemed small grow to epic proportion.

 

Not so.

I give you Needledrops.

Some quite subtle testing going on - you did one with matts IIRC.

The differences are readily apparent even with the supposed digital degradation that is taking place.

 

Use headphones?

Uber Stax if you like. They still won't reveal a difference between an Alps and Noble pot, or cheap carbon jobbie from Maplin.

But yes rooms are a huge variable and truly deserving of efforts (and cash) to get them right.
That's kind of what I mean with all this 'electronics sound the same' stuff. Put things into perspective and the little differences you might get here and there just don't matter.

 

I think that Stax headphones sound dreadful, can't stand them.

Just an impression.

I can certainly hear differences with headphone amplifiers and Senn HD600's however.

Not so much between this or that cheap creek or arcam or whatever, but certainly the best head amps sound a world apart.


I suppose this is a similar comparison.

 

Strangely, my feeling is that when you have great acoustics, the differences between kit seem smaller, because you already have 99% right.

 

No comment on the Stax

On hearing differences between the headphone amps, well worth looking up some of work done by Keith Howard on amp/phones matching.
The issue of output impedance and power transfer with speakers is just as relevant, but arguably more so as the headphone amp specs vary hugely. Do look at the research - the effect on the response of the headphones is anything buy subtle.

 

linky?

 

Rob, I've had the benefit of listening to Ynwans set-up and hearing him do mat changes live in the room without knowing which was which and having no preconceptions about the sound. What I hear on rips of these differences are just a pale facsimile of what I hear in his room and I have literally hundreds of hours experience of his set-up. In fact i know the sound of his set-up better than my own because I've spent so little time in front of my own hifi since i moved house.

I don't doubt a well set up ADC can make an almost perfect transcription, but if you think what people are producing for most of these needledrops via a phonostage and a mac input comes close to reality then your experience and mine are completely divergent.

i don't doubt it can be done, but it isn't being done.

Despite its small size Ynwan has quite possibly the best room I've ever heard how he integrates a 200 watt sub into a 14x 7 foot space god only knows, but it's seemless and boom free.

 

Small.....but perfectly formed - boom, boom

 

I've not heard Mark's ADC and directly compared it to his direct feed so cannot comment. It is of course unlikely that the internal soundcard of a laptop is going to be entirely transparent.

What I can say is that enough of what constitutes the differences between mats, arms, cartridges, and TT tweaks is getting through for people to hear them under what are often blind condition.

That's my only point.

 

My A2D and D2A is nothing special - I only do the needle-drops as a bit of fun; I don't make (haven't made) any decisions based on them.

 

That should maybe tell you something important, no?

Chris

 

I wonder how many would pick their wives out in a blind dem? Imagine their voices altered to level the playing field prior to a Q&A session. Imagine the results (or consequences ;-)