Review and Measurements of NAD T758 V3 AVR

[Krunok]

A better test would be the following. Let us say, a user preferred equipment A over equipment B after a long time of listening (say 2-4 weeks) under various conditions. To test the reliability of that preference, you give the person those two devices in random sequence for the same period and type of usage but sight unseen as to which brand is in use. Now, collect information, on whether they preferred or not each time. If the preferences were not statistically significantly skewed towards the one they selected earlier, then you can say the selection process was unreliable.

Testing performed on a single person is statistically insignificant and performing such test on a group of persons would be impractical.

 

[audimus]

This is exactly the reason why ASR is so picky with bad performing units. The limits of human hearing are very well known and if a unit has a SINAD of around 120 dB or more it is physically impossible for any human being to hear noise or distortion: such a unit is transparent. If a unit measures worse then all bets are off whether its limitations are audible or not, and discussions like this one rise their ugly head because one listener is happy with it but another not, and neither wants to see the situation through the others eyes.

That still has the false premise that the hearing response of individuals are same or flat.

Someone with over-sensitivity to frequencies over 14khz would likely be more happy with a system that rolled off at those frequencies than one that measured perfectly flat.

We have created this artificial construct of a perfect individual that represents all of us hearing and set up a criterion to meet that bar.

This is fine as an academic exercise and a way to set criterion for engineering.

But it is still going to leave a gap between what people hear/experience and the science of it which was my original point.

 

[Krunok]

Longer tests simply don't find very small differences.

Very true. IIRC it's the fast switching that actually reveals most of the differences, correct?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Very true. IIRC it's the fast switching that actually reveals most of the differences, correct?

Yes, because after maybe 20 seconds we no longer have the real perception in our memory. What we have is a compressed longer term memory which I think of being an MP3 of the real thing. So you can compare the actual perception or a less than complete copy of a perception. Obviously the former is better.

 

[audimus]

Testing performed on a single person is statistically insignificant and performing such test on a group of persons would be impractical.

I don’t disagree.

But impracticality simply means that we cannot conclude one way or the other regarding the relationship between science and hearing. Not that we must conclude one way as the only test for just being practical. That would not be science.

People built impractical 20km radius particle accelerators because it was necessary. Some parts of string theory is not just impractical but impossible to set up with current limitations.

 

[Blumlein 88]

That still has the false premise that the hearing response of individuals are same or flat.

Someone with over-sensitivity to frequencies over 14khz would likely be more happy with a system that rolled off at those frequencies than one that measured perfectly flat.

We have created this artificial construct of a perfect individual that represents all of us hearing and set up a criterion to meet that bar.

This is fine as an academic exercise and a way to set criterion for engineering.

But it is still going to leave a gap between what people hear/experience and the science of it which was my original point.

Your idea makes no sense at all. If a person has elevated 14 khz, they hear that as normal. If you do away with or diminish what they normally hear they aren't going to hear what is normal to them. It will sound altered.

As to what someone prefer's, all bets are off. People prefer many things for many reasons beyond fidelity. You cannot know that someone with elevated 14 khz response prefers it be rolled off. They might, they might not, but we can say what they hear won't be high fidelity.

 

[audimus]

Firstly yes there has been research into some aspects of this. The brain does adjust. It can't adjust for frequencies it cannot hear, but then whether we adjust for those wouldn't matter if we can't hear them.

Just think logically. The brain adjusting for something does not imply we all hear the same. Nor is it a simple binary of hearing or not hearing. If you can point to any actual studies that show people hear “similarly”, happy to take a look.

Actually probably not correct. If the artist pumped the bass up 6 db to make it bass heavy, it still sounds artificially pumped up to someone with lesser bass response in their hearing relative to the rest of the song. The fact it isn't heard as loud as another person doesn't mean the balance of a heavy low end is missed. That is because even with lesser bass response a person's brain knows how much bass vs everything else is normal.

You are extrapolating to exaggerated scenarios without answering that paradoxical question. If my bass frequencies were deficient to 3db (which the artist didn’t know about) and the recording was eqed to 3db more as the artist wanted, would I be hearing what the artist intended in a flat system? Or, if my audio device was compensating with 3db more for a recording not so boosted by the artist, would I then be hearing what the artist intended?

With all due respect, I am going to stop responding in real time to posts. It is overwhelming and the quality of the discussion tends to go down in a chat. As someone has in his signature, best to curate to give some time to think for all of us before disagreeing. Applies to all of us.

 

[BDWoody]

Just think logically. The brain adjusting for something does not imply we all hear the same. Nor is it a simple binary of hearing or not hearing. If you can point to any actual studies that show people hear “similarly”, happy to take a look.


You are extrapolating to exaggerated scenarios without answering that paradoxical question. If my bass frequencies were deficient to 3db (which the artist didn’t know about) and the recording was eqed to 3db more as the artist wanted, would I be hearing what the artist intended in a flat system? Or, if my audio device was compensating with 3db more for a recording not so boosted by the artist, would I then be hearing what the artist intended?

With all due respect, I am going to stop responding in real time to posts. It is overwhelming and the quality of the discussion tends to go down in a chat. As someone has in his signature, best to curate to give some time to think for all of us before disagreeing. Applies to all of us.

Yeah...still not making any headway...

 

[Blumlein 88]

Just think logically. The brain adjusting for something does not imply we all hear the same. Nor is it a simple binary of hearing or not hearing. If you can point to any actual studies that show people hear “similarly”, happy to take a look.

I am not being binary, that is mostly you. As for people hearing similarly look to Fletcher Munson curves.

You are extrapolating to exaggerated scenarios without answering that paradoxical question. If my bass frequencies were deficient to 3db (which the artist didn’t know about) and the recording was eqed to 3db more as the artist wanted, would I be hearing what the artist intended in a flat system?

Yes, the artist was adding a slight increase in bass vs flat. Your hearing might be 3 db less than the artist, but unless you are deaf to those frequencies you'll also hear a slight increase verses what is normally flat to your normal perception. If you added an additional 3 db in the bass, instead of a slight increase you'd hear a much larger increase. It would not be the slight change in balance the artist intended. With a flat system you hear it correctly. This isn't a new idea you have, and you have it all wrong.

Or, if my audio device was compensating with 3db more for a recording not so boosted by the artist, would I then be hearing what the artist intended?

No, you'd not be hearing the artist's intentions if you add on more low end boost. Because the difference in balance vs your normal perception will be more than the artist was trying to produce.

With all due respect, I am going to stop responding in real time to posts. It is overwhelming and the quality of the discussion tends to go down in a chat. As someone has in his signature, best to curate to give some time to think for all of us before disagreeing. Applies to all of us.

You seem to be arguing that we are supposing everyone hears the same. When we aren't. As a counter point you are proposing adjusting for each individual's differences so they get the same exact levels sent to the brain. Beyond the practicality of that is the problem the brain takes and processes the signals it gets. It isn't that the brain flattens it out for everyone as it doesn't. But what it hears as normal is corrupted if you add on EQ for what is otherwise normal. You'll actually be moving in the wrong direction with that approach. You'll be creating additional differences where a flat system wouldn't do such a thing.

Your approach is like people who take headphones and EQ them so all tones sound the same level believing they have flattened the response. That actually moves you away from the proper response.

 

[peng]

This is why we are communicating past each other. You are not addressing the point I actually made. Let us agree to disagree on that.

What are the key points you and BDW are debating, or disagreeing, can you summarize it please, if you don't mind? I am curious, and interested, but got lost in the multiple posts with long paragraphs. Thank you regardless..

 

[peng]

Do you match levels in these tests? I know it is cliche, and should be. If you don't match levels that right there is the reason for your shocking sound differences.

If he did, then I have no idea how there could be "drastic audible differences", if "drastic means it is too obvious to even mention the word "blind". Or the duts are drastically different like one is the bottom of the line of a brand and the other is near top? I don't know, that's a tough one..

 

[RichB]

If he did, then I have no idea how there could be "drastic audible differences", if "drastic means it is too obvious to even mention the word "blind". Or the duts are drastically different like one is the bottom of the line of a brand and the other is near top? I don't know, that's a tough one..

Drastic means you'd have to blind not to hear it. I'm so confused

- Rich

 

[Blumlein 88]

If he did, then I have no idea how there could be "drastic audible differences", if "drastic means it is too obvious to even mention the word "blind". Or the duts are drastically different like one is the bottom of the line of a brand and the other is near top? I don't know, that's a tough one..

I don't know either, and without being there or learning more details have no way of knowing.

 

[peng]

In other news, Anthem MRX520 is here and is being subjected to torture as I type this.

I bet it will yield similar scores to that Yamaha streamer thing, WXA something you recently measured? That is, it will do better than the NAD, but not similar Yamaha, D&M's. Just my educated guess. If I am proven wrong in a significant way, I would consider the MRX when I am ready to switch gear.

 

[peng]

Drastic means you'd have to blind not to hear it. I'm so confused

- Rich

I hear you, but how come I can hear the minute difference between a bad DAC and a good one (bad/good based on specs on paper only) and I can easily hear the difference between my LS50, R900 and my DIY BMR, level match or not?? Yet I could hear such claimed drastic difference between any of my amps and AVRs, and how come the Umik-1 mic cannot pick up such differences, yet it is being relied upon to level match?

 

[digicidal]

I just hope that whenever it all gets worked out - we get to work immediately on changing all musical instruments to fit whatever it is. I seems to me they've been carelessly producing the exact same sound for every person, device, animal, and possibly wayward ghost that happened nearby. All of that poorly crafted sound being dumped into the air without concern for which ears were listening to them... it's just reckless IMO.

 

[peng]

Would you mind telling what Marantz responded?

I would have to dig out that email, but basically what Amir said in his post#407. I did post their response here iirc and on Audioholics.com as well, I think..

 

[audiophool]

Pushing manufacturers to make better products is great. But seems like folks here care more about measurements than sound quality for their own purchase decisions. Almost like it is an idealogical choice. I see similar obsession with directivity graphs.

The measurements aren't pretty, but I don't see any comparable products on the market with Dirac Live, 7.1.4 processing, and $1000 street price. I briefly plugged the pre outs to the analog input of my miniDSP SHD and could not identify differences in sound quality.

But it was significant improvement in DSP usability and tunability over my previous Denon X3400H. The preset switching is actually faster than SHD. I can easily blind ABX different DSP settings and identify what my preference is.

If these measurements bother you and you want sophisticated DSP, then you'll need to look at products costing at least twice as much (assuming they measure well). But I doubt I would be able to confidently hear a difference. For a home theater receiver, I'm not going to worry too much about the last 10% of sound quality.

 

[Thomas Savage]

I suppose he thought his opinion or ideas were twice as important as everyone else's.

I do have a question. When you know of multiple accounts do you ban both?

There's quite a few iv noticed , generally I assume it must be two individuals in the same house but when it's obviously not that.., well that's just a bit pathetic. Iv banned some if it's done in bad faith.

This example is just , embarrassing.

 

[RichB]

I hear you, but how come I can hear the minute difference between a bad DAC and a good one (bad/good based on specs on paper only) and I can easily hear the difference between my LS50, R900 and my DIY BMR, level match or not?? Yet I could hear such claimed drastic difference between any of my amps and AVRs, and how come the Umik-1 mic cannot pick up such differences, yet it is being relied upon to level match?

I have the UMIK-1 measurements vary wildly in the 9 Dirac positions and when moved even an inch.
These devices are sensitive in ways that our ears/brain are not.

These efforts led to the conclusion that REQ/PEQ is best left to the below 150Hz in my room.

The dips at 800Hz and 1.5kHz were not confirmed using the OminMic2. Since the Salon2s are reasonably flat, this is due to reflections and as Dr. Floyd Toole has pointed out. Attempted correction is not recommended for a well designed speaker.
I'll try Dirac and PEQ again when I get my next processor.

- Rich