Like

Interesting read from Harbeth...

 

Bronze Member
Username: Sanio

South Wester... Canada

Post Number: 59
Registered: Jul-07
http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?1569-Integrated-Amp-for-SHL5-( and-amp-comparisons)/page3


Interesting read... Alan Shaw Harbeth Owner and designer of the SHL5s re-asserts that Amps make no difference in over all sound quality.
He even offers up any set of his speakers in the veneer of your choice to anyone who can identify an amp in a blind test.

"if, in a controlled experiment with all variables accounted for (incl. differences in frequency reponse and within the power range appropriate to the amps) under instantaneous A-B relay switchover, driving any Harbeth speakers, if you can positively identify an amplifier by sound alone, I will give you, FOC, a pair of brand new Harbeth speakers, up to and including a pair of M40.1 in any veneer you fancy."


I'd be very interested in hear the forums views on this
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 15684
Registered: Feb-05
Love his speakers...disagree with his assertion about amps. Truth is I'm not going to get worked up about it one way or another. I'd love to hear what Nelson Pass would have to say about it.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 15685
Registered: Feb-05
Lots of talk about this over at Pink Fish Media if you would like to find a discussion well underway about it.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17200
Registered: May-04
.

If I were selling speakers and no amps, I would downplay the importance of amplifiers too. And CD players and turntables as well. But many audio designers have opinions similar to Shaw when it comes to the "if I can't measure it, it doesn't exist" approach to systems. In the British audio press - Shaw's home province - they are called "Flat Earthers" for what should be obvious reasons.


I suppose some less mannered folks will take to calling Shaw all sorts of names and impuning his lineage as being decended from certain farm animals. You'd have to ask who is the bigger fool in that situation. I generally have no problem with whatever anyone cares to believe unless they feel they have some right or duty to impose their opinions on my system.




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17201
Registered: May-04
.

Go grab yourself a drink ...

http://www.stereophile.com/features/141/
 

Bronze Member
Username: Sanio

South Wester... Canada

Post Number: 60
Registered: Jul-07
I am stunned that there is not more interest..

In fact it convinces me that what Harbeth is saying is in fact correct.

1. System built around similar technical specs will sound identical! If its is so readily apparent to the pundits who troll these forums that amps and cables and the rest of the minim that make up an audiophiles kit must be considered wholistically, why are you not jumping to prove Harbeth wrong? The incentive is huge! To win a pair of 12K speakers.

My guess is that the apathy is really just a concession to the above mentioned fact.


2. Todays audiophile is actually supporting the demise of the quality audio Industry.

The inability of the audiophile to distinguish between true technical performance and marketing spin removes any incentive for manufacturers to innovate. Why actually build a system that sounds better, when you can "spin" how the music sounds. Research is expensive, forum opinion and marketing spin are cheap.

Ladies and Gentlemen... What Harbeth is attempting to do, is a call to arms for all us who love and enjoy music.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17204
Registered: May-04
.

John, I'd say what Harbeth is trying to accomplish is to get some free face time. Kick the hornet's nest and see what comes flying out. Shaw already has your attention and apparently that of many others. What great free advertising. Yet, he's preaching to the choir and the rest of us don't really care.


I can't speak for anyone other than myself but this is a gambit frequently played by the objectivist, measurements-tell-us-everything crowd. "I'll bet that you can't tell the difference between ... " is pretty typical of those who rely on measurements for their opinion of audio gear. To give Shaw his due, he would look rather silly if he weenied on his bet and that is the intention of most objectivists who make such bets on audio forums. The ultimate trump card for such forum trolls is to make a challenge no one in their right mind would take them up on for any number of reasons.

But mostly I think the majority of subjective listeners just don't care enough at this point to discuss blind testing. In fact, many forums will stop a thread when DBT's are introduced as a weapon against another member's opinion. Why? Did you read any of the Stereophile discussion?


To be clear, DBT's alone are largely discounted in audio circles and the more preferrable ABX testing is the Rosetta Stone of objectivist decision making. Either way it doesn't matter to many of us. Whether the test is for the audibility of amplifiers, cables or any other "if it measures the same, it sounds the same" appliance in an audio system, the basic problem with blind testing of audio components is that the test is immediately failing at its most basic objective.

Blind testing a drug is one thing due to the immediate effect on the user. However, if you are using DBT's to test how well an audio component reproduces music, you have moved to both a secondhand response in which not all subjects are equal (and neither is the test music) and you end up testing the acuity of the test subject's perception for specific values which may or may not be of importance to them. In such a test, the test subject is placed in a situation which does not mimic how any of us listen to music on our home or at a live performance. The first fault of DBT's is actually their "immediacy" of a response where as a drug which is being blind tested will take into account several days, weeks or months of reactions. When I listen to music for enjoyment, I don't spend my time listening for subjective or objective values in the reproduction of music, I spend my time enjoying the music. Once you take that away from me and insist I listen only for certain values of reproduction - "differences", then my perception of the event is altered in ways that tend to be uncomfortable to most listeners. Once you have altered my perception in such a manner, the test is virtually useless. Am I judging the component or am I judging my emotional response to the music? This is where DBT's for audio equipment fail and since they are reliable failures, the objectivists latch onto this as proof they are sane and the rest of us are not. That's far from asking a test subject to report their long term reaction to a drug. Blind testing of audio gear is not a good test of anything other than how poorly the test can be arranged.

When Shaw states "all variables accounted for", what exactly does that mean? If there are variables, which variables are we taking into account? Are the tests to be performed with amplifiers which measure identically in respects to THD? To frequency response? To rated power output? If THD, what about amplifiers which have varying degrees of low order vs high order harmonics? Wouldn't that be a variable we need to take into account? An amplifier with high amounts of high order harmonics will sound unlike an amplifier that has low levels of high order harmonics. That is a fairly well known and widely considered truth in home audio amplifiers. But that isn't what we eliminate when we select an amplifier for home use. Therefore, either we haven't taken everything into account or we have narrowed the test to two amplifiers which are not representative of how most of us select an amplfiier. I'll leave it to you to decide whether a $300 mass market Pioneer receiver which "measures the same" in those few areas would be indistinguishable from, say, a $10k Nelson Pass current dumping amplifier. The absolute objectivist will say they are identical in sonic signature.

You say ignoring this challenge is stifling innovation yet the basic reason for the Pass design is innovation which explores beyond conventional measurements. Therefore, John, which measurements would you take into account and which would you ignore? Just saying "all things accounted for" leaves a tremendous amount of variation in what you are taking into account.

Finally, the test which is proposed by Harbeth still has a few specific holes in it, as do all DBT's of audio gear. If we are doing instantaneous switching between amplifiers, what is between the two amps and the speaker which might account for the perception of the listener? Switches are not always invisible in their effect on the music and I have no switches between my amplifier at home and my speakers. Certainly, if there are transformers or some other sort of volume compensation devices employed to ensure the louder amplifier is not chosen just because it is louder, then those transformers are always going to have some effect on the circuit made between the amplifier and the speaker load. This is an important matter to consider since no one listens to their home system with such switching or volume compensation devices in their system. A transformer or pot which matches volume levels will also serve to isolate an amplifier from the load of the speaker. Should the amplifier not be directly connected to the loudspeaker, then the amp isn't capable of delivering either the subtleties of its character or the full potential of its design. Yet another bad test set up, eh?

Is the one amplifier selected typical of the all of that amplifier's production? Take two amplifiers with sequential serial numbers and there will be noticeable differences in just the most basic measurements? How then do we ensure the amplifier chosen is representative of all similar amplifiers? And how does it respond similarly to the existence of switches and transformers between it and the load? What test would be required to ensure both amplifiers are identical when operating into a transformer coupled load? And, how would that test relate to the est we are about to perform on the amplifiers? The most essential problem with tests of audio equipment is they are never capable of duplicating the manner in which audio gear is sued by the listener. An amplifier on a test bench running single sinewaves into a load resistor is not the same amplifier that I would subjectively consider when I wished to reproduce music?

If the amp is now isolated from the speaker load by way of switches and transformers, which speaker are we using for the test? A speaker with very wide impedance swings and dramatic electrical phase angles will require a hefty, high current amplifier to adequately drive it. If the amplifiers are not capable of supplying the required current to the load, the sound will suffer. That's not audiophile voodoo, that's basic physics. How do we make compensations for that requirement of many modern consumer loudspeakers? If we place a Zobel network between the speaker load and the amplifier, we have once again given the test a chance to show "no difference" since that is the purpose of a Zobel network. If we select a speaker which never challenges any amplifier, then we don't have a representative speaker when many consumer loudspeakers have significant reactance values in their load characteristics. Exactly how would you propose we go about deciding which speaker we should use? One that is typical of most consumer speakers? Or, one that will favor a "no difference" result?


John, if you prefer to believe Shaw, fine. As I stated in my earlier post, I don't really care one way or the other what anyone prefers to believe as long as it doesn't harm me and they do not make any attempt to impose their belief systems on my experience. Even those skilled at creating well constructed DBT's all too often fail when it comes to the second or even thirdhand nature of considerations required for a truly useful subjective test of audio equipment. And, lest you think these tests are invincible which feeds your desire for further proof all components other than speakers sound alike when they measure alike, please place "Michael Fremer and The Amazing Randi" in a search engine.


These "challenges" from the objectivists have been going on for decades and they will never cease as long as one believer thinks they can stymy a subjective listener. That's why discussions of the sort you are trying to incite here are seldom allowed to take place on most forums. It's also why most forum members simply ignore such requests for a battle.


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 15692
Registered: Feb-05
"I am stunned that there is not more interest..

In fact it convinces me that what Harbeth is saying is in fact correct."

"My guess is that the apathy is really just a concession to the above mentioned fact."

Couldn't be further from true. I simply am tired of arguing the same old tired audio forum arguments. Double blind testing is one of the most tired subjects on the internet. Those who believe it reveals all truths will not be convinced otherwise and those of us who believe that in the context of audio it tells you many things, none of which is what audio component or speaker sounds best, will not be convinced otherwise. For me there far too many variables that can not be controlled for that ABX testing in the context of audio is simply irrelevant.

I agree with Jan and if you look carefully at HUG (Harbeth Users Group) you will see a sly admission of it. This is Alan's way of getting more publicity. His speakers are fabulous and he deserves all of the sales he gets but I find HUG a tedious read. Especially as nearly every post or comment is accompanied by a "moderator's comment".

Let me add one piece. I know someone who has been to Alan's home and is quite convinced that Alan believes most of what you see on HUG. Who really knows?

Damn fine speakers those Harbeth's.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2723
Registered: Oct-07
Face time is good advertising. Many will read this stuff without comment, but it'll be in the ol'e brain cell for later recall.
It's easy to make such an offer with great assurance it'll never be acted on....
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17205
Registered: May-04
.

Even if it is and Shaw looses the bet, it's very cheap advertising for those who want to get all wound up in a never ending battle. Should the winner prefer the $12k Harbeths, at appproximately an industry average of five to one/cost to retail MSRP, Shaw will be out a little over $2k. You can't buy that sort of advertising for that sort of money.

As they say, all press is good press as long as they spell your name correctly.



.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Sanio

South Wester... Canada

Post Number: 61
Registered: Jul-07
I do not buy that this is a marketing ploy, a ltittle too cynical IMO. There are WAYYYYY better ways to get free publicity for your product then posting to a obscure product Forum.

And with all due respect I think you maybe missing the point... The idea is to remove the emotions and intellect. These, while still very imporatnt serve to colour our impressions and lead us to make subjective assessments, that go beyond the pure technical capabilities of the amp.

The question we are try to answer and understand is that all other things being constant (emotions, intellect, speakers, wiring, volume, room setup, THD,Watts, Frequency Range etc etc ) is there a audible difference between amp A and amp B.

Further, I think what Shaw and others are saying is that the wholistic emotional response is what is being tapped by the advertisers at the expense of true innovations in high end audio.

A beautifully construct amp is a wonderful thing, but it is still bound by the laws of physics and the board of electrical standards.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 15697
Registered: Feb-05
You are missing the point. It's the emotional part that you can not control for...period. People will respond differently to auditory stimuli in an unfamiliar place where they may feel differently than they would at home in the comfort of their favorite chair. How different and in what way will differ as much as the individuals involved. I only mentioned one variable that may have an affect on our perception. Add all of the others such as whether or not there is an audience and so on and it becomes clear that there is no way to know how perception will be impacted. Without controlling for these you may as well be measuring how cool the listener is under pressure. It's as valid to say that person X hears this at home but not in this setting therefore his perception is impacted in this setting by factor X, Y or Z as it is to say that Person X never heard it at home because he can't repeat it here.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nickelbut10

Post Number: 3704
Registered: Jun-07
Blind tests are useless.

What engineers also dont account for is that they take two designs that are identical in which they can measure but put them together with different constructive parts making up the design. This to me would change the way that design will sound but in many ways in this regard they can not measure it. Therefore how can an engineer say because I can not measure it means that it doesn't exist. I am an Engineer (not audio) and in designing two identical products I have seen both run and function in two totally different manners. I have no explanation to as why that it. But unlike a lot of Engineers I can come to the conclusion that humanity and science simply does not know why that is. In amp design we simply are just not there yet or finding out why measurements really don't mean squat. So as humans our defense is, if its not measurable it doesn't exist. Fact is, they are dumb. Amps, weather its the same design or not, sound very different. Anyone with two ears and a heartbeat can figure that one out.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17208
Registered: May-04
.
"And with all due respect I think you maybe missing the point... The idea is to remove the emotions and intellect."


What good does that do if my intent is to judge the quality of music being reproduced? I buy a piece of audio gear for the emotional connection it allows me to the music I prefer. If that is why and how I purchase audio gear, then my decisions are not based upon the mechanicals of the device. They are certainly not based on the device as used in a manner not similar to how I would use it in my home. Why do you doubt that the construction of a well designed DBT test would favor making decisions about how to connect the components which would favor a "no difference" result? Eeither we use speakers which will actually test an amplifier or we use speakers which will show little difference between amplifiers of any quality. Either we wire the test to compensate for the actual differences between amplifiers or we do not?

Shaw wants amplifiers which are equivalent, does he not? "All things taken into account"? To account for a "no difference" result I'd say. Why not just allow for two amplifiers, Shaw's preference and my own? That's how I would select an audio component, not by matching all specs but by selecting amplifiers with dissimilar qualities. Maybe arrange a comparison between a tube based amp and a solid state amp. Wouldn't that be more in keeping with how we as listeners go about selecting our system? Just what is it Shaw is trying to take into account do you think?

If the speaker is a truly reactive load (as are the vast majority of high end consumer loudspeakers), they will "react" with the output impedance of the amplifier's output devices. Should we then select amplifiers which only have a very low output impedance? Or, should we insert a coupling transformer to match the final output impedance of the amplifier? Either would minimize the differences with reactive speaker loads but it would not be how most people select or use home audio gear. As I said, if we place a Zobel network between the amp and speaker, then we have intentionally made the decision to even out the results of "no difference" rather than allow for subjective system matching. In the end, a "no difference" result is the most likely when a proper DBT has been constructed.


Have you read any of the Stereophile comments, John?

Have you ever tried to construct a useful DBT of audio gear, John? If not, you would be surprised at what the test set up reveals about the desired results. If we switch amplfiers instantaneously, what are we judging? And, would the results have been different if we didn't demand instantaneous comparisons? Even should the listener know which amplifier is in line with the speakers, is that a guarantee the listener will prefer that amplifier? This seems to be the crux of the objectivist argument, that knowing places the listener in a position to prefer one amp over the other. Yet, why isn't it just as likely the listener will prefer the other amp just for some reason rather than they know amp "X" is in line? The point of the objectivist seems mostly to center around their perceived gullibility of those who spend more on audio than the $150 Sony receiver using objectivist does. Or that all subjectivist reviewers are dishonest snake oil salesmen. Which is your point here, John? That we are fools for buying more than you did? Or, that we have fallen prey to the infernal list of audio reviewers who are up to no good?



A conventional DBT of audio gear places me in an awkward situation when I am being asked to make instantaneous decisions regarding is this amp "X" playing or is this amp "2" playing. As a seeming proponent of DBT's, can you tell me any other test when blind testing is utilized where an immediate subjective response is required for "no difference" results? You can test, say, juice drinks and ask me to taste two different drinks, but you've already told me the two drinks are not alike and you are testing for a preference. My decision is I prefer "X" over "2" in this case. Yet in an audio DBT I am trying to decide, is "X" the same as "2" or not? With the juice drink my subjective impressions are my subjective impressions and they relate to my experience with the juice drink. With an audio DBT, my subjective impressions of a second hand product - the music - are exactly what are not wanted. As you say, the intent of the audio DBT is to irradicate emotional and intellectual responses. An audio DBT turns the purpose of the test on its head. In the drink test I'm only asked to be right and either choice is still correct, they are my subjective impressions. In the audio DBT, my ability to form instantaneous subjective impressions is what is being put to the test - the test is of my ability to perform like a trained chimp. And, if I happen to instantaneously guess incorrectly due to the situation I find myself in, the objectivist crowd turns that into treating me like a trained chump.

Why? What does it matter to you what I buy? The objectivists are the only ones who are constantly trying to tell someone else how to spend their someone else's money. I have never seen this debate be started by a subjective listener.




John, is this all about you not wanting to believe your new Harbeth speakers are outclassing your current amplification chain? Do you not accept the idea your music reproduction would improve if you upgraded the electronics? Or, if you upgraded your QED 78 cable? When you purchased the NAD, did you truly think it was no better than a $300 receiver with equal THD and wattage specs? If so, why then didn't you buy the receiver?



"Further, I think what Shaw and others are saying is that the wholistic emotional response is what is being tapped by the advertisers at the expense of true innovations in high end audio."



Exactly which innovations have we been missing due to subective impressions of how audio gear performs? Can you name something that would have happened should we have continually stayed on a path which explored nothing beyond watts and THD? If we had only pursued higher watatge and lower distortions? If you cannot, then I would say your argument is not up to snuff here, John. Please, enlighten me with new discoveries gone the way of the dodo due to my listening manner.


A "holistic emotional response"? What is that? Is it getting your britches in a knot over what Allan Shaw thinks?




"A beautifully construct amp is a wonderful thing, but it is still bound by the laws of physics and the board of electrical standards."


Who is claiming anything other than that? But, tell me, what is your concept of a "beautifully constructed amp"? One that measures 0.001 THD? Or, one that reproduces music well? Quite honestly, I've not seen that combination in one amplifier.




"I do not buy that this is a marketing ploy, a ltittle too cynical IMO. There are WAYYYYY better ways to get free publicity for your product then posting to a obscure product Forum."


Just the amount of time and effort already spent on this thread on an obscure audio forum is far more than any Harbeth ad in Stereophile would have generated. And, for a just over $2k outlay, Shaw couldn't have purchased a half page ad in Stereophile or HiFi News for more than one issue. You may be interested in music and audio, John, but you're not indicating you are a smart businessman.




.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17209
Registered: May-04
.

The Blind Leading the Blind ... "As a result of this and dozens of listening tests since, whenever I come across a group of guys (it's always guys) going on about ABX or blind listening tests and how they prove/disprove that there are/aren't differences between components, cables, etc., I picture them all standing around a pile of apples, discussing whether or not their tests can determine which oranges are the good ones. They're arguing about the wrong thing, and it gets boring pretty quick. "

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/805awsi/index.html


.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Sanio

South Wester... Canada

Post Number: 62
Registered: Jul-07
Sound is not an emotional factor. It is simply a stream of compressions and rarefactions in an elastic medium. As such it is totally and completely described and defined by well understood physics. These are laws and not open to interpretation. ANY!!!! ANY!!! Emotion, Impression, feeling is entirely overlaid by the human and has NOTHING to do with the technology.

What is not well understood is the psychology, how we as humans react to various stimulus and that is why a blind test DOES work.. we limit those stimulus so we can better judge tonal qualities without the distracts around us.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nickelbut10

Post Number: 3705
Registered: Jun-07
I have done Blind amp tests, and clear as day have heard the differences two similar priced amps sound, and have been able to pick them apart every time. Even my wife, who is no audiophile by any mean could hear the differences, and 4 out of 4 times picked the CA distinctively from the Naim. Using same setup, just switching the amp. Both use A/B amp design. The Naim has a small board with a simple PSU attached. Very simple. The CA, same technology, completely different layout and hardware utilizing the A/B design. Your telling me they both sound the same based on measurements provided by A/B design technology? Not trying to argue, just trying to clarify on what you mean by there is no open interpretation to how sound is measured. Are you stating that there is no interpretation as we simply do not know how to measure anything beyond what we can? Or are you saying we as humans, have figured out how to measure every possible skeet in the design itself? Just curious.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Sanio

South Wester... Canada

Post Number: 63
Registered: Jul-07
I repeat what I said earlier in this thread... Amps built around similar technical specs will sound identical! Everything else is purely subjective and imposed by the listener.

If you have, as you have said, heard the differences and can clearly identify between two different Amps in blind tests then I would expect that you would be jumping at the opportunity to win those Harbeths.

An email, outlining your plan needs to go to.. a-btest@btconnect.com

So Nickelbut10... When are you submitting your proposal?
 

Gold Member
Username: Nickelbut10

Post Number: 3706
Registered: Jun-07
"Amps built around similar technical specs will sound identical"
Your not being clear. This is where I am confused. Do you mean that all similar class of amplification design will sound the same, or amps that are identical will sound the same? lol We all know identical amps should sound the same. Here are pictures of two Class A/B amps below. Same amplification amp design. Yet built completely different in the process. Are you saying they will sound the same?


r:3,s:12,i:104,http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=Naim+Nait+5i-2&hl=en&client=firefox -a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1024&bih=638&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=4fVcFhn3 ONKdxM:&imgrefurl=http://hificlub.co.kr/web/board/brd_ds_list.asp%3Ftable%3Dbrd_ 10180%26cat_gb%3D%26mkr_code%3D1537%26next%3D81%26f_lid%3D%26lid%3D%26cond%3D%26 s_text%3D&docid=cE7c17wHo3Wy6M&imgurl=http://hificlub.co.kr/upload/board/brd_101 80/NAIT5i-1.jpg&w=800&h=537&ei=LGqIT5LIHY-o8ASK4cHiCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=709&vpy =357&dur=55&hovh=184&hovw=274&tx=152&ty=127&sig=101248833920053369359&page=2&tbn h=144&tbnw=193&start=12&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:12,i:104



r:3,s:0,i:72,http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=Cambridge+Audio+840a+V2&hl=en&client= firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1024&bih=638&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=u HAXxPnXKfJ-kM:&imgrefurl=http://www.studio-22.com/cambridge/840a-v2.htm&docid=Pz v09HUfmkYllM&imgurl=http://www.studio-22.com/cambridge/images/18698679_3d5ef6e5c 6.jpg&w=450&h=365&ei=sWqIT_bzFZCk8QT2yay5CQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=734&vpy=147&dur=2 220&hovh=202&hovw=249&tx=157&ty=116&sig=101248833920053369359&page=1&tbnh=138&tb nw=170&start=0&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0,i:72
 

Bronze Member
Username: Sanio

South Wester... Canada

Post Number: 64
Registered: Jul-07
I am not sure that I can be clearer..

You take 2 amplifiers with similar specs for power, distortion, frequency range, amp class, S/N ratio etc etc etc etc...
 

Gold Member
Username: Nickelbut10

Post Number: 3707
Registered: Jun-07
"You take 2 amplifiers with similar specs for power, distortion, frequency range, amp class, S/N ratio etc etc etc etc..."

Ohhh ok, so the Naim Nai 5i-2 would sound identical to the NAD 326bee. Got ya...understood......

Now where do I apply for my free Harbeth speakers again? Oh yes. On it. lol
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17210
Registered: May-04
.

John, this is where all DBT threads end up, one person or a group of DBT advocates insisting everyone else is wrong and only they are right. You refuse to answer any questions which might place your "theory" in doubt and you refuse to accept any input from those who disagree. In fact, you get downright surly with those who disagree. I never have understood what that attitude is all about when you're the one who started the thread. Were you just looking for a fight? Why didn't you go kick your neighbor's dog instead?

Since there is no discussion to be had with someone who is convinced only they are right though you can't prove your claims - or more appropriately Shaw's claims - any more than we can by yacking on a forum, this is where this thread ends for me.


Enjoy your speakers. If you are still dissatisfied with their presentation, try a different amplifier. Just not one with the same specs as your NAD. You've already decided how that would sound.


Look up "no-cebo" in a search engine just for grins.



.
 

Gold Member
Username: Hawkbilly

Nova Scotia Canada

Post Number: 1519
Registered: Jul-07
"I'd be very interested in hear the forums views on this"

Apparently, not so much.

You can't fill a cup that is already full.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Sanio

South Wester... Canada

Post Number: 65
Registered: Jul-07
Ahhh sigh.....


I guess there is no point in having a discussion here cause it always ends up in someone getting their feelings hurt?


Sorry you feel that way Jan... I guess I will just recede in to black again.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 17212
Registered: May-04
.

Why does it always end with someone apologizing after they have been surly for no reason?

John, we tried to have a discussion with you. It turned into John Sanio telling us what was absolute audio truth as he heard it from Allan Shaw who happens to be trying to promote his speaker line - not his amplifier line.

That's not a discussion, John, that's a second person monologue. You didn't "discuss", you preached! And you insulted.




You have done this forum thing before, haven't you?



.
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Add Your Message Here

Bold text Italics Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image Add a YouTube Video
Need to Register?
Forgot Password?
Enable HTML code in message
   

Facebook

Shop Related Deals

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us