myhrrhleine said:
Well I haven't read much about this, but if it's true that's great. I was commenting, perhaps not clearly, on what the particular reviewer was saying about the particular amp and the particular speaker - I am simply skeptical that the difference was, and could be, as significant as he describes. And - this was one person - results must be repeatable and verifiable.
Re: Re: How to Conduct A Scientific Test
Do you mean with regards to comparing audio components? If such tests have been performed and they proved inconclusive that in itself is a significant finding - no difference between two components could be verified. And if the "effects of the changes" are very subtle, then the skepticism regarding the claims about this particular amplifier is supported.
P.S. - I don't think double-blind tests are simple - the concept is simple but designing them and carrying them out properly is anything but.
myhrrhleine said:
Do you mean with regards to comparing audio components? If such tests have been performed and they proved inconclusive that in itself is a significant finding - no difference between two components could be verified. And if the "effects of the changes" are very subtle, then the skepticism regarding the claims about this particular amplifier is supported.
P.S. - I don't think double-blind tests are simple - the concept is simple but designing them and carrying them out properly is anything but.
Well there is no question that the Lavardin amp is a legendary piece of gear and I have a lot of respect for the designer.
However you should take this article for what it is : a review published in an audio review magazine, which is about the worst you could find regarding "journalism" standards. The most probable hypothesis is that the buffoon who wrote that crap doesn't know what he's talking about.
However you should take this article for what it is : a review published in an audio review magazine, which is about the worst you could find regarding "journalism" standards. The most probable hypothesis is that the buffoon who wrote that crap doesn't know what he's talking about.
Re: Re: How to Conduct A Scientific Test
Umm, are you being sarcastic? If no, then my reply is this: if the changes are that subtle, then, they are not important enough to be significant. Changes to other components in the system, such as: different speakers ARE un-subtle enough to notice, double blind or not.
I'm non-violent, but that makes me want to slap somebody, not sure who, but somebody. That's just about like: banning discussions about the Earth being round, not flat... Except, there aren't any companies that sell "Earth Edge Detectors, help you avoid going over the edge into the void" who, would have an interest in people not learning that the Earth is, indeed, round.
Heh, Deaf and Dumb, but not blind...
myhrrhleine said:
Umm, are you being sarcastic? If no, then my reply is this: if the changes are that subtle, then, they are not important enough to be significant. Changes to other components in the system, such as: different speakers ARE un-subtle enough to notice, double blind or not.
ionomolo said:
I'm non-violent, but that makes me want to slap somebody, not sure who, but somebody. That's just about like: banning discussions about the Earth being round, not flat... Except, there aren't any companies that sell "Earth Edge Detectors, help you avoid going over the edge into the void" who, would have an interest in people not learning that the Earth is, indeed, round.
peufeu said:
Heh, Deaf and Dumb, but not blind...
I have heard better amplifiers make a difference to speakers, but never heard of one removing an "upper midrange/lower treble" peak. Mostly, in the case of SS it's generally less muddy bass due to the extra control over the bass driver(s) around the impedence peaks/dips. In the case of TV it's mostly a 'more engaging' midrange (take that as you will).
Sounds more like it has a deficiency in the upper midrange/lower treble area...
Sounds more like it has a deficiency in the upper midrange/lower treble area...
Yes, you got it !
For the rest, the skeptic and ultra rationalist crowd posting here. Distortion and volume sounds the same to the human ear. I mean, something that the reiewer had previously identifieg as a a peaky treable, well could be just distortion and dramaticaly decrease thanks to this amplifier.
I've listened several times the Lavardin IT, never lived with it though, and I don't know if we could get on well in the long run. But I can assure one thing with no risk, the first 30 seconds I listened it for the very first time I knew that that amp was... inofensive, in the sense of incapable of doing something nasty or incorrect.
Cheers.
To some extend you both are right, and I could agree. But take into account that time (and distance) is the most relative thing on this world. It's only that we take time (and life) as somthing that happens to us in a lineal way. All I can say is that meditation and introspection help to break that ilusion.
Anyway, the engineers of Lavardin also woke up of their coma some months ago, and decided to get into the XXI century and to put a nice remote control to their amplifiers. Hence my renewed interest. Then I found this thread and read some comments and my impulsiveness did the rest. Sorry.
Cheers.
Anyway, the engineers of Lavardin also woke up of their coma some months ago, and decided to get into the XXI century and to put a nice remote control to their amplifiers. Hence my renewed interest. Then I found this thread and read some comments and my impulsiveness did the rest. Sorry.
Cheers.
I listened to a Q Acoustics Concept 500 demonstrated by their local dealer in Sofia, Bulgaria (absolutely horrific approach and handling of our inquiry, we were ready to leave in the first 5 min). The speaker was nice, very beautiful finish and very well executed (the base is not my style, reminds me of those cheap bling bling speakers sold for 40$ but thats a taste which is subjective). It was a MTM with what looked as custom drivers (the tweeters looked susceptible close to the Seas T27TFFC) and rear facing port.
The speakers were lively and did have a good resolution with the exception of the lower mid. The bass lost control somewhere below 70Hz but it may also be a room node as the room was really poor. Overall they sounded impressive on the first listen. But it was clear the tweeter was raised 1-1.5db to give it that liveliness and extra detail but I am not convinced if I will listen to it for 15 min and still want to. There was also a very noticable resonance - one in the upper bass which could be heard on vocals and another higher in the treble. So, they were good but had issues here and there.
When I got home I was curious to see what reviews would say - guess It was a cult speaker in its price range with poetic stories about adventures and finesse, and how it shakes down speakers costing much more...Thats why I rarely read reviews although some medias tend to do them a bit more sterile and better in my opinion.
The speakers were lively and did have a good resolution with the exception of the lower mid. The bass lost control somewhere below 70Hz but it may also be a room node as the room was really poor. Overall they sounded impressive on the first listen. But it was clear the tweeter was raised 1-1.5db to give it that liveliness and extra detail but I am not convinced if I will listen to it for 15 min and still want to. There was also a very noticable resonance - one in the upper bass which could be heard on vocals and another higher in the treble. So, they were good but had issues here and there.
When I got home I was curious to see what reviews would say - guess
It was a cult speaker in its price range with poetic stories about adventures and finesse, and how it shakes down speakers costing much more...Thats why I rarely read reviews although some medias tend to do them a bit more sterile and better in my opinion.
Last edited:
Because that is the reviewer perception, we can't know what really happened without measures before and after. Perhaps the amp made appear the bass and midbass that the previous amp couldn't, and that's all. Who knows?, and most important, why not?
When I put a rug in my listening space, suddenly bass became tightter and better defined. The rug is thik and made of lambswool, but obviously is incapable of doing anything to the bass. What it shure changed were first reflections of much higher frequencies, but my perception was a better focussed bass. Everything affects everything in audio, it's f... crazy and (to me, at least) bloody difficult.
Cheers.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.