Were the speaker wires elevated off the floor by at least 2 inches? If not, then your signal was tainted with ground effect, which likely contributed a general muddy sound throughout the test making it more difficult to discern the differences between the amps.

I had both amps elevated about 2 feet above the speakers. The speaker wires thus ran "downhill" to the speakers ensuring that the electrons didn't run out of power by the time they reached the speaker terminals.

Were humans holding the amps up, though? Electrons really need that personal touch, or they don't try as hard.

2x6spds,

Quote:

---

Perhaps you weren't aware that you're posting on the Axiom loudspeaker forum, where our members know it all.

---

Now, THAT'S funny........(AND sardonic).

...and accurate!

Mojo,

In response to your request of the original links that were "broken," the links are below.

http://www.stereodaves.com/modifications.php

the review
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_2/hk-3480-receiver-daves-5-2007-part-1.html



In response to the gentleman who did the blind listening tests between speakers powered by a Sony Boombox and a Denon receiver, we have a few comments. Besides the already addressed comments on the speakers that were used, on the possible deficient speakers used in the "experiment;" we think that in a strange way your "experiment" only buttresses our point about stock units, particularly mid-fi mass market audio equipment. The Denon receiver should obviously be better than your Sony boombox, but even if your speakers aren't of the highest audiophile grade, you should be able to hear the difference. So factoring out the quality of your speakers, if there is no difference heard between the Sony boombox and your Denon receiver, to us, this only shows the lack of quality sound performance in the Denon stock receiver, which in our experience is often the case with unmodified stock units, particularly those of mid-fi mass market units, due to economic decisions made the in manufacturing of the components to keep the prices affordable. Our experience with more recent Denon stock components has been disappointing. To our ears, they sound thin and muddy. We have modified Denon's before and they do improve. We do prefer modifying Harman Kardon receivers because of the amount of improvement heard and the simplicity of the machine. More complex is not always better.

Rick and Sean

Why is it that true double-blind testing is not in your internet vocabulary? Your responses seem to ignore its existence and validity. If some tests were done and were in your favor, I'm sure we'd all be hearing about it.

It's interesting that the reviewer you linked to admitted not having an ummodded HK to compare to, yet gives the modded unit a glowing review!! Should we believe him 'just cuz'? Makes no sense to me, no matter how many reviews he's done or how 'well respected' he is.


I'm not sure what you were alluding to when you referred to "possible deficient speakers used", but I believe Mojo was using M80's. (Correct me Mojo if you did have an issue)

Link me to something, anything showing a double blind testing where results show that exotically priced amplifiers are sonically superior to moderately priced amps / receivers (at soft to moderate sound levels), and I'll seriously consider your point of view. All I've ever seen, read, and experienced has been the opposite.

Until that time, it's all "Cause I and some others say so"...or "I hear it, you may not."

I respect your right to believe what you choose to, but to me it's clear and makes sense... it's "wishful hearing" until I'm shown plainly otherwise.

Yes sir. It was I who did this "test" and I did indeed use my M80s which I love so much. They are definitely not deficient. Everyone please note that the Sony was operating well within its specified limits.

Mo, prayers and best wishes for your father.

Yes, what was asked was whether there were measurements which showed "differences" from the unmodified unit. The linked review totally fails to meet that requirement; as Joe(spoiler)points out, the reviewer checked only the modified unit, yet alleged that he was "amazed" at the results. He stated that he didn't have "the luxury" of testing the unmodified unit, but surely rather than being a "luxury" this would have to be considered a minimum requirement for a credible comparison.

It can also be noted that the reviewer stated that the mod showed an "improvement" over the "spec" of the unmodified unit on bandwidth(140KHz rather than 110KHz), but failed to note that the actual measurements of similar unmodified HK receivers likewise show bandwidth in the 150KHz area(certainly not of audible significance), compared to the 110KHz spec. His use of "improvement" is therefore somewhat misleading.