1. Take a 990 and any other processor of any manufacturer at any price.
2. Set them up to operate the same amplifier and speakers in the same room.
3. Set levels between the two units to within .1db.
4. Set up all listening modes in both products to have the same parameters.
5. Listen to both for as long as you want to any musical material and source you want in any and all modes
6. The key factor is that you may NOT know to which processor you are listening. An ABX comparator or a willing, close-mouthed friend are two ways of accomplishing this.

Prediction: Not one of you will be able to tell which is the expensive brand and which is the Outlaw. If the test were done double-blind, you would not be able to discern if you were listening to the same or different processors much less opine on which is "better." For example, read the results of years of blind testing performed by Peter Aczel.

Outlaw, why don't you set up such a test?

It's a very interesting suggestion. The logistics of a true ABX test of this sort (especially at the level of complexity associated with surround sound systems) is said to be very challenging, and the results are many times disregarded (particularly by those it was intended to convince) because of that difficulty. That being said, it would be fun to see the results of such a test.

If that was the case, shouldn't we all just get $99 Sanyo receivers as our processor?

You think we should set our budget that high, Jed M?

lol, no I don't Gonk. That is a little steep for my blood.

I wasn't being sarcastic in my question. Why couldn't a $99 processor compete with the Outlaw if digital is digital? You mentioned "functionality, amplifier power, or build quality" would be the difference between a $99 receiver and the 990. First, if you are using them as a processor, the amplifier power is irrelevant. As far as build quality and functionality is concerned, neither should a make a difference for pure sound quality of a digital signal, right? So, according to your theory, why couldn't a $99 processor not compete with more expensive processor's on just a digital level?

And I wasn't sarcastic in my response. You said receiver, so I mentioned amplifier power.

There is a snobbish attitude among many audiophiles that high cost necessarily equates to high quality, an attitude hardly limited to audio. Yes, quality costs. The question is, how much? Some engineers overdesign to no purpose beyond satisying their egos. I heard a pair of Mark Levinson mono amps, each about the size of a small mid-range computer, too hot to touch, requiring a 220 AC line to operate, costing about $30,000 (I can't recall if that's for one or both, and rated at full power (300 watts) into .5 ohm. Who cares? (Professionals, maybe.) If you're into driving near short circuits, by it. Of course the MLs sounded good, but I doubt they would whoop a Bryston 4B-SST at @$2,500 driving any commercially available speaker system - assuming listeners weren't biased yourself by knowing to which amp they were listening and assuming levels were balanced as close to 0db as possible.

I reiterate that the Outlaw 990 should NOT be compared to other $1,000 units because of where and how it is manufactured and how it is marketed.

LOL, a group of audio enthusiasts recently did a comparison between a $4,000 Halo amp and a $250 Crown Pro audio XLS 402 amp. We posted our results in the "new amp is making me grin from ear to ear" thread in the AVS Forum. Nobody present could tell which sounded better. In fact, someone on that thread sold his Halo for multiple Crowns.

They are butt ugly but who cares!

A very good point, Jed. If the pre/pro were just a digital switcher, this test would result in exactly what tbng proposes - "not one of you will be able to tell which is the expensive brand and which is the Outlaw."

However, the perceived standard of quality for a pre/pro is in the quality of the components of, and design of, the analog signal path. If that were not the perception, we'd all be happily listening to our $99 Sanyos, oblivious to the Outlaw 990s of the world. I think we can all agree on that, yes?

Past that, what we hear as a result of the different D/As, circuit designs, potentiometers, etc., works within the boundaries of our perception to determine our particular sonic preferences, and therefore any further discussion goes down the same road as the premium cables vs. lamp cord debate. We can never truly know how much of what we hear is in the signal and hardware vs. what's in our ears and brains, only form an opinion based on the result.

I think that, just as everyone's tastes vary, were numerous people to attempt tbng's experiment, we would see an equally numerous diversity of opinion. (though I'm curious to see how a $99 sanyo would fare nonetheless )

I don't even think Sanyo makes a receiver.

Yeah, I know this debate, I was just playing devil's advocate. I tend to side with your point, sluggo, that D/As, circuit design, etc do make a difference.

That being said, I wouldn't stake anything on passing a blind test. There is some serious personal phycological warfare and pressure in blind testing. The reason you never see the #1 company promoting blind tests is because they know blind tests are set up to make the taker fail, in other words, look inconsistent. Nobody wants to look like a chump and the stress and second guessing usually produce results that would reflect somebody who can't tell the difference. I've read about wine tasters who can't tell the difference between red and white wines while doing blind testing. When was the last time you saw any blind test conclude with a clear and definitive winner? Usually its the underdog claiming to be just as good as the big guy because everybody couldn't tell a difference. I just think there is more to the eye when it comes to blind testing. No pun intended.

So buy a 990 and be done with it.

But, the 990 does not have Logic 7. DPL IIx and Logic 7 have the same end goal in mind: 7 channels of output info from 2 to 5 channels of input info. They are similar, but not the same. There will be audible differences.

Also, because the 990 digitizes the 5.1 inputs, there can possibly be differences there as well vs a pre/pro with a straight through analog path.

Plus, some people consider more things than just audio quality when making a buying decision like this. Build quality, ability to do hardware upgrades, where the unit is manufactured, etc.

If it was as simple as you put forth, then all of us would already have a Rotel 1068 (which had DPL IIx long before the 990) and life wouldn't be interesting at all.

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it - if it makes a sound is it in mono, stereo, or surround?

Actually, since by definition there must be an actuator, vibrator, transmitter and receiver for sound to exist, if the tree falls and nobody hears it, there is no sound since we are lacking the receiver! BTW, a real star wars would be absolutely silent since there is no transmitter in the void of outer space!

Jay

True story : a tree fell in a forest belonging to my parents. No sound until it hit the ground. But along the way it caught the skin of my friend's thumb and brought it all the way to ground while he remained standing up. The tree hitting the ground was mono, the scream was mono. The echo of the scream was surround and lasted a long time.

Get me a processor for $ 99 that does what the 990 does and I'll use the savings on getting better speakers or source. A cheaper processor may therefore mean better sound.

Rent or pick up the DVD's for Firefly (Joss Whedon's very short-lived space/western TV series), or catch the movie this September ("Serenity") - there are no sound effects during scenes taking place in a vacuum.

Hey, if there wasn't a big rumble at the passing of a star destroyer, what would I need a home theater for?

I'm new to this whole "audiophile" discussion, but not new to music in general. After purchasing an SVSubwoofer two months ago, I realized that the rest of my gear (Sony et al) that I had been happy with for the past 7 years was weak. Since then, I've gone outlaw, axiom, and onix.

I am a critic and skeptic about most things, especially overpriced things. But I'm also a learner and researcher, which is how I found this place, as well as the others.

I can't comment on differences I did NOT hear (i.e., cables, break in, etc) but on the differences I DID hear...

RE: The $1000 Receiver vs. the $99 - I promise you will hear a difference. I had the blind willing person nearby, and then we reversed roles.

I picked the Outlaw over Sony 100% of the time.
So did she.

Why? All-in-one-power vs. separates, better DACS, nicer remote, who knows - but the difference was obvious as can be.

I WANTED to NOT hear a difference. I wanted to SAVE my money and NOT buy this overpriced stuff (not realizing at the time what a value outlaw is).

RE: The CD player...Onix XCD88 ($299 - and like Outlaw, a great value) versus Kmart Special ($39) - Again, sorry, the difference was there. Again I picked it 100% of the time. Better D/A? Some other "jitter" BS I don't understand? Beats me...but there is no doubt one is better than the other.

(Ok, I admit "better" is subjective, so we can just agree on "different." I like my music clear, smooth, without distortion, and as the performer intended. That's "better" to me.)

I didn't pay that much expecting to HEAR it, though. I expected to get ripped off. But what I did get is something that is a MUCH better build quality, is not going to die from over use, has features I never dreamed of, and, in the case of the CD player - a motor whose spinning I cannot hear. (Before ya comment - I left BOTH run while doing the test, lest I be fooled by THAT racket...)

Anyway - between $1000 and $5000 - I doubt the difference is there - the weaknesses were tackled when you jumped to $1000. Between $99 and $1000 -there is a difference, believe it.

Why is $1000 the magic number? What about a $750 processor? I don't understand this argument at all.

Because the 990 is roughly $1000, that's how this got started.

In any case, I think the distinction was between the every-day off-the-shelf mass produced consumer machines, and something a little better (and more expensive).

That was as opposed to the distinction among high-end gear, where the argument is that once you cross the threshold of PRETTY GOOD EQUIPMENT, you're not going to hear the difference between models, despite a super high price.

I think I understand the basis of BeethovenRocks' argument, and I agree with the concept. When you look at very inexpensive receivers (or DVD players, or whatever other mass produced product you want to name), there is a point where the low cost comes at the expense of good design, construction, and quality control - units that quite simply don't work the way they should. As you move up the price tag food chain, the overall quality level will typically also improve. (There are cases where the overall quality does not improve but the added price is due to effective marketing - the Bose Acoustimass speaker systems spring quickly to mind - but we'll let those be the exceptions that help prove the rule.) At some (impossible to define) price point, you should reach a point of rapidly dimishing return.

Look at the DVD player market, for example. There are a number of manufacturers (almost to the point of being countless, it seems like sometimes) making very inexpensive players. In theory, they all play discs the same way. At the bottom end of the price range, however, you have a significantly higher percentage of players that exhibit incompatibility with complex discs, players with unacceptably high failure rates, and players with shorter life spans. A $79 DVD player may be able to provide as good a picture on a standard definition TV as a $900 DVD player. On the other hand, the $79 player is also more likely to not work when you first take it out of the box, to simply die for no reason after fairly little use, or to have some other unfortunate design weakness.

With surround sound processors, you have a somewhat different environment. When the Model 950 was still available, it was the least expensive SSP on the market that I was aware of (looking solely at "new from the manufacturer" products). Later this year, AV123's LMC-1 will probably take over that title (at the same price point that the 950 had at the end of its production run). Because of the smaller and more demanding market for SSP's, there has not (and likely never will be) a "$99" bracket where the product "worked" but was clearly identifiable as "cheap" to the point of almost not working, so we've always been looking at a market where we focus on much more relative subtleties.

I understand, but now I hear the 990 sounds better than the 950, why is that so when they are both PRETTY GOOD EQUIPMENT?

my buddy had a sanyo that was a tv tuner,radio tuner,vcr,dvd,but the amp was in the sub,so i think you are right

it was a real turd too.

Some of you have gone off the deep end in making extreme price comparisons. No, a Yorx brand won't touch a Mark Levinson, but that was not what I was talking about originally. Let me give you just one real-life example of "golden ear" absurdity.

In the late '80s, Stereophile, along with its sister publications, hated CD sound until one of its writers declared that he had FINALLY found a way to make CDs listenable (and I do not exaggerate the emphasis): Polish them with ArmorAll, said he, not to mention put a rubber band (an expensive one, of course) around the CD, put a weight on it (if possible; many players then opened to the top), and paint the edges green with a special pen made of pixie dust, I suppose. Of course, you had to play them in a $4,000 transport and matching D-to-A converter. They preached this gospel with a fervor Jimmy Swaggert would admire.

At their '89 show in New York, they put on a single-blind test comparing a doctored CD played on a very expensive transport vs. an untouched CD played on an off-the-shelf Philips unit. Both players were connected digitally to a common and expensive D-to-A converter. Seven varied musical examples were played each two times. The idea was for test participants to decide if they were listening to the same player/CD or two different players/CDs. More than 1,630 people took part, and not one of them got a perfect score. If I recall, only one or two got six out of seven. Stereophile took a very long time publishing the results and did as little as possible to bring attention to them. Later, it was discovered that ArmorAll could damage the CD substrate.

In short, you could have obtained the same results with 1,630 deaf participants making guesses. Why? Because there was no difference to be heard, notwithstanding Stereophile's enthusiastic endorsement of every CD tweak and overpriced transports. Anyone disagreeing was literally insulted as having an inadequate system, hearing, or both. I know. I disagreed vocally at the show.

I could give you other examples.

This, in fact, makes total sense, since the only changes in this a/b test are in the digital realm. Despite the preponderance of snake oil in terms of CD weights and digital cable magnets, since it's all 1s and 0s, there is no effective difference without a D/A.

This is quite different from comparing pre/pros, whose whole purpose is to act as the analog gateway for digital (and analog) signals. Like speakers, pre/pros deal with analog signals, although the signal path is more complex in a pre/pro. If you believe that similarly priced speakers can sound different, does it not follow that pre/pros would be capable of at least some variety in sonic characteristics?

I see you're from Red Lion - is that the Red Lion in chester or york county?

The reason they call them "Golden Ears" is because they make you shell out more gold to satisfy them. If you have the misfortune to have an organic variation that makes your ears better and more accurate listening instruments, that is a curse, not a blessing.

I think the $1000 figure is a good guestimate at where the average person will start to see diminishing or non-existent returns for each dollar they spend. But that point is going to change based on an individual's organic predisposition as well as to how much time they have invested "Learning to listen" critically.

Bottom line, I don't think a $99 system will be sonically equal (on average) to a $1000 preamp driving the same setup. IO think that is true even if the $99 system is just used as a PRE/PRO. I migrated to separates slowly, and I could hear a difference between my $200 Kenwood Receiver as a Pre/Pro and the Rotel I bought, and so could others who came to listen.

So all of the supporters of this arbitrary magic price minimum (ie $1000) would have to say either one of two things.

1. Sonically there is no advantage of moving from the 950 to the 990 considering they are both good quality.
or
2. That the 950 is the equal of a $99 piece of cr*p.

I guess I just want to know what side you fall on?

Someone thought that my "golden ear" example was too obvious, that comparing "snake oil" was not the same as comparing amplification devices. I agree that CD preparation is snake oil, but the $4.000 transport vs. the Philips wasn't. In any event, the specifics of the test are not the point. That so-called experts make outlandish claims of audibility their own tests disprove, is. If you weren't happy with the first example, here are two more.

Golden Ear Foolishness Example Numero Dos

In 1988, Stereophile performed its first single blind test at its then annual show, this one comparing the Adcom GFA555 and VTL amplifier, the latter being tube monoblocks about eight times more costly than the mass-produced, solid-state Adcom. (Speakers used in the test, as they were the following year, were B&W 801s.) I was not involved in this test, but Stereophile published a lengthy, detailed article. Testing was performed in the same manner as previously described here. Once again, participants fared no better than guessing - with one possible exception, and I say "possible" because the numbers are not definitive. On a Telarc CD of the Faure Requiem, a recording with rich, natural bass in a church, participants were correct about 64% of the time. I suggest that if sharper-eared participants heard anything, it was the superior damping factor of the solid-state Adcom, i.e., it better controlled the 801's woofers. Nonetheless, the "golden ears" at Stereophile continued to tout the glory of the VTL and tube amps in general.

Golden Ear Foolishness Example Numero Tres

This one is from those record-philes at The Absolute Sound. They were present when the venerable Mercury Living Presence recordings were transferred to CD. While admitting they could not hear the difference between the finished CD and the analog master tapes, TAS nonetheless concluded the recordings sounded better on record. They never explained how records were able to improve on the master tape.

These are magazines ostensibly on the cutting edge of audio, staffed by so-called (often self-proclaimed) experts. For certain, they have a major effect on the audio retail market in spite of the fact their opinions are scientific claptrap. Worse, they have influenced decades of audiophiles to fear admitting the emperor is naked. Folks, too often he's butt neked!

Double blind testing is usually a humbling experience. Having participated in a number of such tests over the years and dealing with double blind testing in other scientific fields, I can unequivically state that the results with auditory tests involving electronic components are usually unrevealing and that differences can easily be obscured rather than highlighted.

One such test involved comparing two CD players in the 1988. One of the players had a patently defective DAC that truncated the data to about ten bits. Listening to the player at home induced a pounding headache after two or three tracks of just about any disc that I tried. Gritty, grainy, hashy, noisy, and "electronic" are all terms that could be used to describe the sound eminating from that forlorn component.

Several musical selections were chosen for the test and included both classical orchestral material and a pop track. The playback system was of high quality and both players produced nearly the same output voltage, so no complicated level matching was necessary. Four experienced audiophiles were involved, and each listener could take as long as needed for the tests. Only two of us could consistently identify the defective player. I had the advantage of knowing what to listen for, but passed only on the classical selection. No one could pass with the pop music despite repeated attempts. Following the conclusion of the test, I sent the defective player home with one of those that couldn't pass with either program. That next day he called and explained that the CD player must have been damaged in transport to his apartment, because it sounded terrible! The moral of the story - be very careful when interpreting data from this type of auditory test.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread claiming that you have to spend $1000 to get good sound. In fact, the baseline discussion (which is essentially an absurdly exaggerated case) has been a purely theoretical one between $100 vs. $1000 - nice round numbers an order of magnitude apart.

If double blind testing does not reveal a statistically significant difference between component A and component B it does not prove that a difference does not exist. It only indicates that the double blind test being used was not able to reveal the differences (if they exist).

Have any of you read Blink? Has an interesting discussion of the coke v. pepsi taste tests in the 80s. Pepsi won, but the sales of Pepsi didn't rise as much as they thought. Coke saw Pepsi was coming and made New Coke. What they later discovered was that they didn't love the sweet taste of Pepsi for a whole can, just the sips at the beginning. So the double blind isn's always accurate.

Shawn

But why does my car seem to run better/faster after a good wash and detailing?

It's the magic of Armor All [again].

Please remember that statistical analysis is not intended to prove anything, just to provide evidence for something. Of course double-blind testing doesn't establish whether or not a difference exists, especially when the situation in point is only a case study, and a very VERY small sampling in the study as well.

Regarding:
Originally posted by tekdredger:
But why does my car seem to run better/faster after a good wash and detailing?

Answer: I always wondered if it due to decreased wind resistance (dirt etc off)

As a musician I've always been able to listen "through" the medium to the underlying musical content even if was a scratchy 78 rpm record. (Anyone else old enough to remember them?)
I also believe in the law of diminishing returns. To gain commensurate improvement in performance as one approaches the limits takes more and more capital. Any car sold nowadays can hit 125 mph. To drive at 150 mph costs +$50K.

I'm listening through five Mackie powered monitors and the lfm-1 and am very content. I really like the accuracy and flat response. I can relax and really listen to the music.

Jay

I would believe that #1 is more accurate. I don't own either at the moment, and I am still on the fence as to if I will try and get a used 950 or a brand new 990. There are processing enhancements in the 990 which make a difference to some ears (Newer design (everyone makes and learns from mistakes) , PCM upsampling/ newer, more capable DACs / different processing algorithms etc) Mind you the "difference" may simply be that-- a difference. Not better, not worse, just different... right up until someone decides they like one sound better than the other. The great thing about a Market economy, is that no one has to spend their money on something they don't want, and as long as they feel good about it, why rain on their parade? We can't even assume those who spend big $$$ buy for the sonics- there are other factors like ergonomics, processing modes, inputs/outputs etc.. Maybe they just buy to see the looks of envy on their friends faces. I don't personally think that is a good use of my money, but others may derive significant satisfaction from it, and well, they are spending their money, not mine.

One thing I am sure of, even a $99 Reciever will sound better than my completely dead, no sound through it at all, Rotel.

I think we have a couple different debates going here.

First, there is the original "double blind test" concept - which is a very interesting issue that is something of a "holy grail" among many in the hobby (as a way to try to prove either the value of highly exotic cables or the lack of difference between mid-priced and high-priced gear). It is often considered the most effective way to debunk extreme audio tweaks, although (as has been mentioned several times) the tests that have actually been conducted are often disregarded by the very people they were meant to disprove. Double-blind testing, the methods for implementing it, the results it can yield, the statistical meaning of those results, and the reactions those results have produced in the past are all extremely interesting, and there's some good general stuff in this thread.

Then there is the debate about whether there is (or should be) any audible difference between surround processors at different price points, and that debate seems to be trying to focus on the benefits (or lack thereof) in the 990 as compared to a less expensive product such as the 950. In my reading of this thread, I still don't see anyone claiming that you have to spend a specific amount of money to achieve satisfactory performance. The suggestion that a piece of equipment available below a particular price is automatically going to be cheap junk should clearly be recognizable as a flawed over-generalization (especially around here, since so many of us came to Outlaw looking for as much bang for our buck as we could get). There have been numerous Model 950 owners over the last few years (myself included) who have greatly enjoyed the 950 - the availability of a new product does not in any way invalidate that enjoyment. It certainly doesn't relegate the 950 to the level of "cr*p" or push it into the same class of product as $99 receivers that are going to be riddled with cost-imposed compromises. How will the 990 compare to the 950? In theory, improvements should be incremental - new processing modes that offer benefits, superior DAC's that may yield benefits in overall sound, and similar changes. The sonic advantages of the 990 may (depending on how the unit performs once we actually have them in our hands) be enough for some people to justify an upgrade - for them, the cost involved is worth the incremental improvement. Others may find the sonic advantages (whatever they may be) to not justify the cost, but the added features and capabilities may lead them to make a purchase. Many will simply pat the faceplate of their 950 (or their Rotel 1068, or their Yamaha receiver, or whatever they have) and decide that any benefits that might exist aren't enough to justify changing anything - that what they have now is just as good for their needs and their ears.

It's quotes like these that made me start questioning this mythical $1000 barrier. I didn't mean to take anybody out of context, that's just how I read it.

I think the $1000 is just a generality arisen from the proximity to price of the 990. More important than the comparisons between $99 receivers, $1K and $5K pre/pros, is the fact that you can actually purchase a fully-outfitted pre/pro for around $1K nowadays. I remember when I first looked into separates, that stereo-only preamps went for $1500 or more, and HT models even higher.

Kind of strange that decent, entry level pre/pros have come down in price in recent years, and yet the top end receivers keep getting more expensive ($6K at last check). Well, perhaps not quite so strange as gratifying...

My intrepretation of the comments by BeethovenRocks and Cerebus matches sluggo's - we're dealing with generalities, and the nice round number of $1000 came about as a result of the 990's pricing (since we're in a 990 forum).

I like your comment about pre/pro pricing, sluggo - it is a pretty satisfying trend for the consumer.

What can I say? $1000 is about where I personally stopped being able to hear a difference. Its a completely subjective, Rule of thumb. The value of money is constantly changing as is the value of good (Is the 950 a $500 processor (used) , $700 (new) , $1000 (3 years ago) (what was the rate of inflation over the last 3 years?)
$1000 just seems to me to be about where you need to be to be guaranteed of getting into that "pretty good" system area. Are there devices below $1000 that might get you there... maybe. Is the 950 one of them. Probably.

All I can say definitively is that;
1) there is a Price/Performance Curve and in my experience this curve is NOT linear, and it is certainly NOT flat.
2) Separates in my experience sound better than integrated solutions
3) A device designed as a standalone Preamp will, in my experience, sound better than a Integrated Solution being used as a pre-amp.

If I had to guess as to why this may be true (in my experience), it would be the combination of Higher Noise components (amps, even if they are not driven, still amplify whatever noise is there, and transmit it to some degree back via the power supply or through induction) with Low voltage signal paths

I don't think $1000 is some sort of magic number and that the 990 is going to be worlds different from the 950, or maybe even a receiver at the same price level(If I buy a 990, it won't be because I think the sound is so much better than a 950) Sound differences (if any) in the 990 will be due to those factors I mentioned before (new design, new DACs etc)

Some people may be able to clearly hear the difference between a $1000 device and a $5000 device in a blind test. Having never done one, I can tell you right now, I can't. Consequently, I will never spend the money on a more expensive solution.

In response to the questions raised about my 1988 double blind CD player comparison, I would clarify that both players produced the "standard" output of 2.0 volts with a 0dB DFS test signal. They were measured with a high quality VTVM and the difference was only about 0.03V - far less than even 0.1dB. If there had been a substantial difference in level, it should have been easy to differentiate the CD players, and this was not the case. The point of the test was to determine the sensitivity of the double blind test with actual music in a case where significant differences actually existed. I believe that the results show how insensitive these tests can be, even with well-controlled methodologies and experienced listeners.

This conclusion is not a defense of "golden-eared" reviewers seeking to convince others of the superiority of one component over another, it is simply an illustration of how double blind testing is not very effective in revealing differences that may exist. Varying the test conditions and signals used in evaluations may provide better results in some circumstances, but it seems that the routine ABX methodology leaves a lot to be desired.

Over the years it has become clear to me that some electronic components are audibly superior to others, even given similar measured performance. This is even more true in the case of loudspeakers where measurement techniques are more variable and often yield complex data that is difficult to interpret. A thorough evaluation requires both listening and measuring. Comparisons between components are critical; however, double blind tests using routine methodology seems to add fairly little.

I have always considered myself to be a quasi-audiophile. I love good sound but will only pay for obvious differences. I am well aware that companies have a competitive price point in their products where they put forth their best effort. From that price point up you start getting diminished returns in their line. I remember hearing these 20k italian speakers, with leather and made out of who knows what exotic material. They were being fed by Krell amps and preamps. I was so excited to hear the top of the line in audio. Man was I dissapointed!!! I was never made so aware of the point of diminishing returns. My "crappy" system in my humble opinion sounding at least as good. Great link Gonk it was a very interesting read.

If the theory holds that a blind test does NOT work because you need time with a piece of equipment in a relaxed environment, that definitely sounds like a doable test. Hopefully someone tries it. Conceal the equipment in a generic box with only the cables exposed and a universal remote. Let the person have it for X amount of time in their home. Replace with box 2.

Just curious:

I do not understand why some people here are using the phrase "double-blind", which as most of you know means something very specific in experimental design.

A couple of you above are just using the word "blind" to describe these listening tests, which is perfectly understandable. But I wonder if those who are using the expression "double-blind" know what they are saying by that?

The description I've always heard for a true double-blind test is that neither the person being tested nor the person doing the switching know when unit A or unit B is active - that way the switcher can't reveal (inadvertently or otherwise) which is which to the test subject.

Exactly. I'm wondering if this is what everyone has meant when throwing around the expression "double-blind" here...

I think this will fuel the fire.. http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

The only problem with Peter Aczel is that never comes to the point or speaks his mind. {:>) He also happens to be right because he has science on his side.

I just subscribed to The Audio Critic, which is now strictly an Internet publication. And it only costs $13 for life!

Well, I for one believe there is a lot of voodoo in the audio industry. I don't however believe that science has all the answers.

There is a lot of monster companies, that make big profits on items that would make good welding cables.

The reason I think Outlaw builds good products is there is a lot of heart, sole and science that goes into the product, which make good sound. A lot of foreign products are built on straight science. It should sound good, because the science says so on paper..

And yes, weight does make a difference... and yes, that has to do with science..

God, I haven't read anything from Peter Aczel since the 80's! Always liked his no nonsense, rational point of view.

Electrons have changed since the 80's so it may not be relevent anymore..

Other voodoo babble from the pages of Stereophile et al. I swear that none of it is made up.

1. Put a brick on you amplifier to dampen vibration. Not just any brick, mind you, but an expensive one from VPI.
2. Put your equipment rack on tiptoes. This also reduces vibration and improves sound. We're not talking turntables either.
3. Clean your contacts with Brand X contact cleaner for better sound. By that I mean you will get better sound than by using Brand Y of contact cleaner.
4. Preamp A has more "air" than preamp B, some genuius said, listening to the two units six months apart. What a memory!
5. Purchase this special clock that has been "bombarded" with electrons, pixie dust, or whatever. Once plugged in, it will properly align the electrons in your house's AC line and VASTLY improve your audio system's sound quality. By the way, the clock came from Radio Shack and cost $20 - $30. After bombardment, it was more like $450.
6. Mobile Fidelty Sound Labs, whose re-mastering skills have created excellent recordings, came out with gold-plated CDs some years back and insisted that gold sounded better than aluminum. Yep, those 1s and 0s really care what kind of metal on which they exist. The FTC took umbrage at that little advertising slogan and put a stop to it. Yes, gold will last longer than aluminum - assuming you store your CDs outside without a case.
7. A young salesman in a nationally-known Chicago hifi store showed me a headphone amp/volume control the store had built and were selling for $350. It was powered by a 9-volt battery, but he warned me to use Brand A battery because it sounds SO much better than Brand B's battery. He never suggested that Brand B couldn't deliver 9 volts under load conditions, just that it sounded worse. You gotta admit the kid was good. He could hear DC.

Remember, these are all things that so-called self-professed "experts" have insisted made significant improvements, sometimes shocking them or sucking the breath from their lungs. I am not exaggerating those claims. Sadly, they also have powerful influence. That they have any at all is a disgrace.

Didn't I just go through this discussion?

BTW, you for got 'burn in' of electronic and cables. Stereopile is really big on that.

And my personal favourite tweak: Michael Green's clamp-racks. You place your gear between the adjustable height shelving and squeeeeeze the equipment until it produces good sound. They call it "tuning"; I call it for what it is: torture.

I cannot look at this thread any longer without commenting. Regarding the information in the link a while back revealing "lies" in the audio industry he makes some good points, but over all he is makes himself out to be exactly like the “self proclaimed experts” he is putting down. As a soon to be engineer, I disagree with the RCL comments he makes regarding interconnects and speaker wire. He does not make any mention of skin effect or current bunching in conductors, which become a problem as frequencies rise (in the audible realm). So I guess I am taking a different side than many of the other engineers and saying that science is on my side as far as cables go. http://www.analysis-plus.com/ this is a good link regarding the more complex properties of conductors, and they are able to explain the information so that everyone can understand. I am taking a class in signal analysis for mechanical engineers right now so this stuff is rather fresh in my head. I also understand that this is a manufacturer’s web site and they are trying to sell a product. As far as speaker cable goes no one can tell me that there is no audible difference and that all the change is psychological, and no I have not done any blind testing of any kind, but when my mom can hear a positive difference in cables she didn’t even want me to buy, that really sells it for me.

Sorry if this is off topic, but I just figured somebody needed to stick up for the other side of this argument.

I might suggest at this point that this thread has long ago left any hint of dealing with the 990. Perhaps if people would like to continue the discussion, it could be moved somewhere a bit more appropriate.

Edit:

Took my own advice. Here's the new thread .