Stax vs. Senn Round 1

[spritzer]

"Says the man with the electret"

That's electret-dynamic system to you, son!

Seriously though, I try not to look at audiophile as the 'dirty' word that some do. Am I an audiophile? Without a doubt. What non audiophile customizes his stereo equipment, uses tubes, spends more than $100 on headphones, etc.

I recently showed a picture of my office to a couple coworkers. They both liked the color scheme, and commented on my Wife's Mac (were in IT and support an all PC evironment), but one said "What's that thing with all the little lightbulbs?" and the other said "Nice valve amp!". I bet you can guess which is the audiophile.

I guess I've just become jaded over the years following the newer is better crap and seeing people throw thousands at a system they were "supposed" to like. All these hopeless souls on head-fi in an endless FOTM merry-go-round. The same can be said about the speaker side of things with people always claiming they've found the next great thing.

[spritzer]

well, how did the heat, moisture, dust and fat effect them?

I was testing a modular version with a mylar dustcover on each side and they did their job though some dust did get through. The heat had nearly destroyed the glue though as when the ovens are opened a rush of 250?C air rushes out and upwards. They worked which goes to show just how strong this stuff is but the mylar had gained some weight so the sound was different, more bass heavy.

My employees wandered what the hell the were so I just told them they were bug zappers which they really are... kinda

[spritzer]

it happens in any hobby that involves passionate people, i think.

Add to that marketing departments that have sold people the compromised sound over the last 20 years as an "upgrade"...

[Dusty Chalk]

Lets just settle this and call me a "Stereo weirdo".

You don't get to dictate what I call you, dude. You have a problem with being called an audiophile, due to connotation, not denotation (on top of which, your connotations don't match mine nor the rest of the world's); I'm not letting you make it my problem.

Audiophile! Audiophile! Audiophile! Ha-ha!

No, seriously, I picture audiophiles as

. Someone with silver everywhere, SET's, and huge line sources would fit right in to my (and most peoples') definition(s).

[spritzer]

well, i would disagree that sound has been "compromised," in general, over the last 20 years, though i'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. my system is composed completely of recent components, and i would certainly not categorize it as "compromised."

What I mean it the move away from the musical and involving sound to sterile and clean. This is mostly due to the technology and not a calculated move as transformers and carbon resistors were abandoned in favor of IC's and metal films. PIO caps have all but disappeared in favor of the plastic kind and everything is PCB based instead of P-P.

Your CDP is French so no wonder it doesn't conform with the "norm". It is a very warm player so it should mate well with a SS amp. It's all about the balance and that has been lost on so many.

You don't get to dictate what I call you, dude. You have a problem with being called an audiophile, due to connotation, not denotation (on top of which, your connotations don't match mine nor the rest of the world's); I'm not letting you make it my problem.

Audiophile! Audiophile! Audiophile! Ha-ha!

No, seriously, I picture audiophiles as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs1aUws0Lrs. Someone with silver everywhere, SET's, and huge line sources would fit right in to my (and most peoples') definition(s).

I feel so violated...

[spritzer]

I have an Italian amp, the original Audio Analogue Puccini, and it sounds way out of time, warm and pleasant. It's a shame it can't drive electrostatics but it sounds great on the Stax headphones. It's all about the right combination.

[Dusty Chalk]

What I mean it the move away from the musical and involving sound to sterile and clean.

What? Where do you get this? I don't hear this at all, from my admitted limited experience in hi-fi shops. (And if I don't hear this listening to only a dozen or so amps, I have to wonder how much more I'd disagree with you if I actually heard a statistically valid large sample of amps.)

[hirsch]

What i meant was that the DBT causes false positives and I know it was meant to do so because the control group is large enough to make up for them.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of DBT. If anything, a DBT is a conservative test that is far likelier to produce a false negative than a false positive. The large control group is done to insure that it is a sufficiently representative sample of the population of interest that correct inferences can be drawn. Large control groups do reduce variability and make it likelier that a real effect will be seen. Small groups have sufficient variability to mask real effects within normal between-subject variance.

[hirsch]

Yes generics can and are made after a patent runs out and it is a very good thing. But it's not the same as copying and selling the same drug, which is very popular in third world countries.

Yes, generics are actually copying and selling someone else's work legally, and it's not a very good thing. Although the active compound can be copied, the inactive carriers are often proprietary. The current guideline from FDA is that a generic must be within 20% less to 25% more bioavailable than the original drug (this variance is entirely due to the carriers). That's also a hefty amount of variance. If you switch between high and low bioavailability generics, you can have a hefty change in the dose you are getting, although in theory the amount of active ingredient is the same. Not good. IMO generics are one of the bigger hoaxes pulled on the public.

[deepak]

Yes, generics are actually copying and selling someone else's work legally, and it's not a very good thing. Although the active compound can be copied, the inactive carriers are often proprietary. The current guideline from FDA is that a generic must be within 20% less to 25% more bioavailable than the original drug (this variance is entirely due to the carriers). That's also a hefty amount of variance. If you switch between high and low bioavailability generics, you can have a hefty change in the dose you are getting, although in theory the amount of active ingredient is the same. Not good. IMO generics are one of the bigger hoaxes pulled on the public.

Yet everyone I know will still prescribe generics over their name brand counter-part?

This is the first time I'm hearing of the bioavailabily variances. Are there some good trials comparing generics vs name brand? (uptodate turns up nothing)

[spritzer]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of DBT. If anything, a DBT is a conservative test that is far likelier to produce a false negative than a false positive. The large control group is done to insure that it is a sufficiently representative sample of the population of interest that correct inferences can be drawn. Large control groups do reduce variability and make it likelier that a real effect will be seen. Small groups have sufficient variability to mask real effects within normal between-subject variance.

False results would have been a better way for me to put it. In a perfect DBT when all listeners would have no glue to what they were listening too, would have plenty of time with a large collection of source material and each piece was set up so it would perform to its best ability then we would get a meaningful result. The problem is that the listeners often know what they are listening to as they own the gear, nobody has the time for a lengthy session and there is little chance to set the gear up right i.e. impedance matching and see what kind of cables, filters, supports etc. are needed. This is why people walk away from tests like this with the wrong idea about a component and it is even easy to "doctor" the results if somebody wanted to. Take a CDP with a linear PSU and hook it up to one of those filter thingies and you have severely compromised the performance but the listeners would be none the wiser. He who would control the test wouldn't even have to do it on purpose.

The major x-factor in all of this is the experience of the listeners as we all know that most of this "golden eared" stuff comes from experience and how you can "read" what you are hearing. The ability to hear the difference in cables etc. doesn't come from the fact we can hear better but rather that we know what to look for.