AVR What to buy, need help??? - Axiom Message Boards

I've done a LOT of reading here and elsewhere, and the only times I've seen such claims is when someone is attributing them to some unnamed other person.

If you actually know of someone making these claims, feel free to point me. I've never seen it. I've never seen ANYONE recommend a 3-watt amp and/or reciever. I've never seen ANYONE saying that "any" receiver is as good as the best receiver.

Such a hot topic of debate.

To the OP, you will find two distinct camps of people on this subject. On the one hand, those like JohnK who point only to the empirical evidence. Electrons are electrons, and provided that the physical abilities of the AVR are not exceeded (clipping, etc), then all receivers and pre-processors sound the same. It's simple science, and everything else is simply hubris of the human psyche.

On the other hand, you have all of the home theater industry and many folks that passionately believe that different products sound different, and that a $10,000 prepro/amp stack will sound better than a $99 HTIB receiver.

So who's right? Both. Neither.

Here's my opinion. You can print it out and hang it on the wall, or send it to the recycle bin, it matters not to me.

As a physical phenominon, sound is sound. It is measurable. Those measurements may support that the sound is the always the same. All sorts of instruments can be used to detect, test, and compare the physical properties of sound. Blind comparisons may show that there really aren't many (if any) differences. But music isn't measurable. Music is experienced differently by different people. It is absolutely subject to emotion, taste, and perception. Blind comparisons remove those factors from the equation, and it's no different than trying to do a wine tasting by removing the grapes.

I like jazz, you like classical. Norah Jones' voice moves me to tears, yet does nothing for you, etc. Sound quality is highly subjective, just as 'Art' is subjective. You can say that all Art is Art, but it effects different people differently, even though various hues or techniques may be identical.

So if I spend $10k on a prepro/amp stack because I believe that it sounds better, and it creates a more worthwhile and enjoyable musical experience than a $99 HTIB, then no one has any right to tell me that I'm wrong. The perception of sound quality is exactly that, a perception. Perception is not only influenced by the physical characteristics of the sound and one's hearing ability, but also the type of music, the happiness of the listener, events that are transpiring in our lives, and a myriad of other factors.

So do (some) more expensive receivers sound better than (some) cheaper ones? To me, yes, they do. Whether those improvements are real or imaginary, they are pleasing to me and make spending the extra money worthwile. This is, after all, a hobby and the point of it is to bring some joy and pleasure to your life.

Make no judgements based on internet chatter. Get out there and listen. Take advantage of money-back guarantees. The land of home theater isn't Orwellian, where you will only buy the Big Brother's Voice Mark I receiver and you will agree that it is the best sounding receiver in existence. Audition! Experience! Critique! Buy the one that meets your needs (features, connections, wattage), you can afford, and that makes you happy.

Quote:

So if I spend $10k on a prepro/amp stack because I believe that it sounds better, and it creates a more worthwhile and enjoyable musical experience than a $99 HTIB, then no one has any right to tell me that I'm wrong.

Well, in this case it seems likely there would be a real difference in many ways, but I simply don't agree with the idea that "if someone says they hear a difference, then you can't tell them they're wrong". While it's their right to spend the money how they like, I think it's borderline criminal to charge $10000 for the placebo effect.

ABE: I mean, people here have no trouble whatsoever saying that $1000/meter speaker cable is a waste of money with no performance advantages, and no arguments ensue. (Some places, arguments will ensue. I try to avoid those places).

Clearly, amps/receivers are more complicated stories - much more complicated.

But the answer as to whether sound quality varies is itself a VERY simple question. Blind testing. Either you can tell a difference or you can't. There may be some technical difficulties in getting matched dB levels, etc., but far tougher experiments are successfully run everyday.

The great thing about this is it doesn't rely on theories of sound perception, or even understanding much about the innards of the equipment itself. It's all about: what do people report hearing - which is what this is all about, right?

For things like power cables and speaker wires, the answer is clearcut and overwhelming: no differences within normal variation. Sure, if you use 120 gauge wire in 500 ft streches, you'll have problems, but by and large there's no detectable differences in $1/ft wire and $1000/ft wire.

I haven't really seen much in the way of amp/receiver testing of this sort. I'd love to. I said before I see no *necessary* reason there would be sound quality differences. I stand by that. I also see no *necessary* reason why there wouldn't.

If anyone can point me to real data, I'd be thrilled.

Well, I've found 1 actual report.

http://avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=607389

Not a wide ranging test, but a "null" finding.

Most references I've found are to non-internet sources, so are harder to track down.

Amp Comparison

It's an older article, but it still applies. There's a low priced receiver thrown in with higher end amps.
Show me any similar testing that contradicts this and I will listen. Double blind testing is the only way I know of to remove emotion / eyes from the equation.

If someone truly believes their $10,000 Krell amp sounds so much better than a $500 Denon, Yamaha,etc in terms of sound quality, then a double-blind test should end all discussion.

I just haven't EVER heard of that situation to date.

Thanks - looks like the best thing I've found yet; I look forward to reading it more carefully.

I remember reading this article years ago. Thanks so much for posting it.

I can tell you that the price difference between an ML 433 and an Emotiva MPS1 is not the result of a "better" ML design. The Emotiva uses more parts and similar toroids/caps/metalwork, etc. Perhaps Emotiva has an efficient supply chain and enjoys more material and labor productivity than ML and passes these savings on to its customers. And Emotiva's pricing model is "cost plus" whereas ML's is "market-based".

I had the chance a number of years ago to A/B my old $250 Yamaha stereo receiver with an $1800 NAD. Neither I nor my two buddies could hear a difference.

A good article Spoiler. I'm surprised JohnK had not posted the link more quickly. Though articles like this can be found around written by audio gurus (such as Masters, Loftt, Toole), i have yet to see a SINGLE similar article of a double blind test where someone could tell differences between quality made amps and brand name receivers (or similarly gauged boutiqe and 'common' gear).
I only ever read about the subjective rantings as to how those who want to see the science and numbers behind the conclusions have never:
A) heard a really good amp/cdp/{insert gear here}
B) must have poor hearing
C) are using a switcher that is corrupting the signal
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.............

Anyone who doesn't have their own A/B switcher before stating such subjective conclusions as fact are being hypocritical. They want 'naysayers' to supply truth and fact but the 'believers' never supply any of their own beyond "what they swear they heard".
Anyone who has ever wondered how the magic trick was done knows how easy it can be to HONESTLY fool the human senses. What i fail to understand is why the 'believer' camp finds it so hard to want to try an honest A/B blind test to find out for themselves what is the truth.
Anyone who has had the opportunity to do this type of switching while auditioning at our home has fast become a believer of a different theory.

If two quality amps sound different it is because they were designed with some sort of filter, are not functioning properly, or they have a pathetic power supply. If an amp measures a frequency response flat across the spectrum and its power supply is not taxed, then once again i ask, "explain to people the very reason for how it sounds different"
Still waiting for a non-magical explanation and i've been on these forums now for oh about 5 years...

Magic is real! I tripped over it when I was walking to work on a rainbow this morning.

Quote:

Magic is real! I tripped over it when I was walking to work on a rainbow this morning.

My daughter believes in the leprachaun from the Lucky Charms commercials, but in her defense, she is only 3.

Right, chess; I've linked the Stereo Review test results several times in the past and could have done it again here, but didn't think that much discussion on the point would come up yet again. The article is a classic that remains unchallenged, i.e. unchallenged by solid evidence, not simply by those who stubbornly refuse to face the facts.
There aren't any miracles in audio, and keeping one's mind open to objective evidence, but closed to BS sure does help a lot in grasping this.

Quote:

I've done a LOT of reading here and elsewhere, and the only times I've seen such claims is when someone is attributing them to some unnamed other person.

If you actually know of someone making these claims, feel free to point me. I've never seen it. I've never seen ANYONE recommend a 3-watt amp and/or reciever. I've never seen ANYONE saying that "any" receiver is as good as the best receiver.

Start the search with Johnk. You'll see the pattern unless you just want to argue with me over something as silly as this is. And use some common sense smarty-pants; I'm being sarcastic when I say one or three watts. But I am being serious when I say that John and others think any receiver you pull off a shelf in just about any Wal-Mart will play as loud as you could ever want.

So if we are all going to really argue over this, let’s not be generic. Cut this up into tangible pieces that can be disputed without all the other crap thrown in.

Are we going to argue sound quality in surround or stereo? Amps to amps or amps to receivers? Seperates to receivers? Using the processor’s DA’s or the players? How about Logic 7 verses Circle Surround? Dolby verses DTS?

Is there really a supreme being? I think he tripped me the other day, but maybe it was Darwin. I dunno for sure because I was reading an Excel spread sheet and graph telling me how my speakers sound and trying to get the F away from that damn monkey claiming to be my long lost brother who beamed down from his space ship last week.

I have a double dog dare your super duper blind 1080P verses 720P projector test to do.

There's a saying I like. "Don't prove me wrong to prove you right". I think it's fitting for this topic. The scientists are using data to prove that emotion and feeling does not exist and the believers are shaking their heads in sadness because the scientist will never "believe", so they will never “hear”.

Personally, I don't much care one way or the other and willing to pitch my tent in both camps as long as it isn't a dry camp and there's cute chics there.

mdrew, JohnK may have stated many times that most receivers / amps are only using about a single watt or less on average at comfortable listening levels, but he has always qualified that by explaining that since music is dynamic, it often requires short bursts of tens or even hundreds of watts depending on listening habits. This requirement makes using an underpowered amp a bad idea.

Now, so you feel comfortable in this camp, here's a gift.

It looks like a sweaty glass of motor oil.

Some may say that's exactly what it is.

I knew there was a reason I didn't like the stuff...

<runs away>

Well, if your intent was to confuse me, success!

When an audio discussion brings up Darwin, it's officially off-track.

And "scientists are using data to prove that emotion and feeling does not exist"? - Uh...OK...whatever...

At any rate, I'm utterly open-minded on this topic. Just show me the results of a blind test, and I'll consider 'em. Open minded = willing to consider the evidence.

Careful, you're crossing the line with that one.

.
.
.

Quote:

It looks like a sweaty glass of motor oil.

Some may say that's exactly what it is.

Quote:

Well, if your intent was to confuse me, success!

When an audio discussion brings up Darwin, it's officially off-track.

And "scientists are using data to prove that emotion and feeling does not exist"? - Uh...OK...whatever...

At any rate, I'm utterly open-minded on this topic. Just show me the results of a blind test, and I'll consider 'em. Open minded = willing to consider the evidence.

I'm afraid of commitment and I can prove it too. Just ask my girlfreind.

Thanks Peter!!

Very well said, Peter. Bravo!

Look, I don't "care" about this, either. I just want folks to be happy and satisfied in their hobbies. That being said, an absolute allegiance to science-as-God doesn't fit my world view, because it dismisses two important facts; First, it is impossible to measure how MY brain processes what MY ears collect. Second, MY perception is MY reality; it belongs to me, and again, you can't quantify it.

I'm prefectly willing to let folks derive joy from their purchases, without engaging in the tedious process of trying to prove that they can't hear a difference. I don't think you should have to PASS the double-blind test in order to be allowed to buy or enjoy an expensive amp.

I mean no disrespect to the scientists. Fundamentally, I'm pretty sure *I* can't hear a difference in my room with my ears, or at least one that I'm willing to pay for. But, you know, modern science is still pretty young relative to human existence, so I'm willing to accommodate the idea that God Loves Diversity and we don't know it all yet.

You guys haven't heard a crappy AVR trying to run a pair of M80's at full cry. "Ohhh, those two sound the same to me"...I don't get it.

I suppose now we are going to hear" they have to be of the same type/quality"...

Anyway, as long as you like what you hear thats all that matters ...and I really like it.

Quote:

But, you know, modern science is still pretty young relative to human existence

Actually there is a ton of 'ancient' science, since the dawn of language invention that is quite amazing and accurate even by today's standards.
The concept of audio is certainly not new, since the dawn of the animal ear.
I'm not sure why people think this concept of audio testing is considered 'modern' as in the past decade. Human behaviour testing has gone on for alot longer, i believe in the hundreds of years range if i recall my Psych 101 classes (medic8r any updates on that info?).
Modern science can very much analyse anything our ears can hear. If there were correlations between what the brain perceives from the ear as being different from what instruments measure, that in itself is a pattern which any human whose taken basic stats can analyse.

I guess we need a discussion on the definition of modern.
Tom, why don't you kick that off for us starting with an ode to beer

Quote:

You guys haven't heard a crappy AVR trying to run a pair of M80's at full cry. "Ohhh, those two sound the same to me"...I don't get it.

I suppose now we are going to hear" they have to be of the same type/quality"...

That's another straw man argument. You're not going to hear that from us eeeevil science types. What you will hear is that, quite obviously, you need to use an amp that is capable of driving your intended speakers withotu distortion or clipping. That is common sense.

And that applies to all comparisons. Of course you'll hear a difference between a current-limited and/or clipping amp and one that can handle the current demand.

Now that I've digested 3 pages of this topic *urp*

, I have a question for us newbies. How, exactly, do you calculate how much power your AVR or amp needs in order to drive your speakers without clipping or distorting?

Start with your room size, continue on with your estimated decibel level. Then make a wild ass guess.

Jeez, I don't think I really should continue to participate, but since we're having such fun at the moment...

I think Beer predates Audiology by about 5,000 years. So, obviously Beer > Audio.

My experiences judging beer have demonstrated to me that different people have different perception threshholds for certain compounds. Likewise, some people prefer dominance of certain compounds.

I guess I'm just proposing that what some people hear - and how that makes them feel - won't necessarily be the same as what I perceive or how it makes me feel. And that it is difficult (or perhaps impossible) to absolutely measure such things.

I've trotted this out before, but I still think it's relevant whether we're talking about comparisons between cables or amps or whatever.

To me, there are at least three different questions that are often detrimentally rolled into one.

1. Can *I* perceive a difference?
2. If I can perceive a difference, do I have a preference?
3. If I have a preference, is the increased cost/trouble a good *value* to me?

Even in the context of the double-blind studies, I'm just not comfortable (nor do I find particular value in) asserting that another listener can't possibly tell a difference. I have enough trouble inside my own head; I certainly don't aspire to comprehend how somebody else's brain works.

At some level, we're probably at a Faith v. Reason dichotomy.

Quote:

You guys haven't heard a crappy AVR trying to run a pair of M80's at full cry.

That's because most are smart enough not to try.

Are you interested in knowing if the sound quality between a low end and high end receiver are the same?
or
Are you interested in knowing if the sound quality between a low end and high end receiver are the same when at their physical limitations?

These are two separate questions that cannot be simply answered by saying "You guys haven't heard a crappy AVR trying to run a pair of M80's at full cry."
This obvious statement only answers question #2, NOT question #1.

The cheap receiver does not have the physical capability to do the job in powering a 4 ohm speaker so obviously there would be a difference in sound reproduction. One has to at least to setup a listening session with a level playing field for a sound quality comparison. We want to test the sound quality of each receiver when running within its capabilities and NOT test its sound quality when at its physical limitations.

Now if you wanted to test both AVRs say the 3k Denon and a $200 JVC at their respective physical limits, then sure, crank both of them up to max volume and see how the M80s sound at that point. I think you will find that both receivers produce crappy sound under that scenario.

Quote:

So, obviously Beer > Audio.

Never an argument there.
In fact, i think beer may even > wine (only in time though).

Quote:

To me, there are at least three different questions that are often detrimentally rolled into one.

1. Can *I* perceive a difference?
2. If I can perceive a difference, do I have a preference?
3. If I have a preference, is the increased cost/trouble a good *value* to me?

Even in the context of the double-blind studies, I'm just not comfortable (nor do I find particular value in) asserting that another listener can't possibly tell a difference. I have enough trouble inside my own head; I certainly don't aspire to comprehend how somebody else's brain works.

That's the beauty of science Tom.
People like myself DO aspire to know if TomT can technically hear like/as good as/the same as Johnk or AlanL but NOT if those three have the same preferences in speaker sounds. This is a very distinguished difference.
People who hear technically the same (as we understand the human ear) means we can debunk myths like "golden eared audiophiles" or "two flat response amps sound different".

However, when it comes to preferences in sound type, we have a different twig on that same branch of science.
Companies like Axiom HAVE to study the concept of sound preferences to try and sell a product they feel is what people prefer in regards to sound reproduction whether they know it or not. They do this by using the knowledge from the first section to try and keep that analysis objective (HOW do people technically hear compared to each other? and if it is similar and measurable then let's start polling on things more subjective and look for patterns).
Scientists aspire to know if the general population tends towards a linear sounding speaker or not.
They want to know if people like a hump in bass at 120Hz or whether they really never notice it at all.
Ultimately asking these latter questions though ARE subjective and then, to each his own applies.

Certainly one can say scientists define generalizations and from as large a population sampling as possible, with inevitable outliers, but often outliers are not reproducable and typically occur because of chance.
It is the pattern in the long term study by which science derives fact and theory from hypotheses.

I never doubt people completely believe what they hear is what they heard. It is just often that they don't like to be told what they heard may not be what they believe.
An open minded person would logically want to study both sides of that potential situation and ask why and how. A closed minded person reacts with the "don't call me a liar, i know what i heard" reflex.
There is no reason to be offended, but humans will be humans. We all react that way now and again. Some of us just don't do it when judging audio or at least strive to keep the 'sound testing' as neutral as possible to avoid the myths of audio.
Research begets reality didn't you know.

Quote:

At some level, we're probably at a Faith v. Reason dichotomy.

That depends on whether you're reasonably faithful or faithfully reasonable.

Quote:

You guys haven't heard a crappy AVR trying to run a pair of M80's at full cry. "Ohhh, those two sound the same to me"...I don't get it.

I suppose now we are going to hear" they have to be of the same type/quality"...

We're talking here about sound quality of amplifiers at reasonable levels, not how loud a cheap AVR can drive a difficult load before it clips compared to a 'boutique' amp. Not the point.

You buy a more powerful amp if you want to drive inefficient speakers to louder levels cleanly. That makes sense to me. To say that one could tell the difference between two very different amps at lower levels with average efficiency 8-ohm speakers, well sorry, but that does not.

If you can blind test similar speakers and pick out the one you prefer, which I sure most would agree is easily and often done, why is it that (in my experience) there is no documentation that shows the same for amps?

Anyway... all I know is I love the sound of my system as is, and that hopefully I haven't upset anyone with my opinion. Don't get me wrong...I love the idea of 2 beautiful Macintosh monos sitting in my living room, but I know in the end the only 'real' difference would be 2 gorgeous brand name boxes, the perceived 'prestige' in being able to say you own them, and a (much) lighter wallet.
Just my opinion!

Quote:

That depends on whether you're reasonably faithful or faithfully reasonable.

I call neither!

Quote:

That being said, an absolute allegiance to science-as-God doesn't fit my world view, because it dismisses two important facts; First, it is impossible to measure how MY brain processes what MY ears collect. Second, MY perception is MY reality; it belongs to me, and again, you can't quantify it.

The double-blind listening tests don't attempt to measure brain processes, nor do they try to take away your perception.

It is the entire point of these tests to listen to people's reports and perceptions. It is all about what people report hearing.

The double blind part just ensures the person's perceptions are not swayed by information that isn't being carried by the sound waves.

Tom, I loved your post quoted below, and agree, wholeheartedly, with it.

However, to those of us who are on, or lean toward, the "science" side of the discussion, the only quantitative proof available supports that side of the discussion.

The problem with "science" is that today's scientific truth, all too often, becomes tomorrow's myth. Science is constantly proving itself wrong (thankfully). But, as inexact (imperfect?) as science can be, I would rather trust current scientific evidence than trust anecdotal evidence based on human senses. Talk about inexact and imperfect. Human senses are just too easily fooled to be relied upon as proof.

While I don't understand those who choose to implicitly trust their senses, I have absolutely no problem with anyone doing so, and making purchases based on that trust. My difficulty is with believers telling those who are new to this hobby, and don't yet understand the dynamics of the disagreement, that they should make purchases based on someone else's anecdotal evidence. If their side of the discussion were presented by saying that all the scientific evidence supports the argument that most receivers/amps sound they same, but that they believe there is a difference, I would have no difficulty at all.

Quote:

Very well said, Peter. Bravo!

Look, I don't "care" about this, either. I just want folks to be happy and satisfied in their hobbies. That being said, an absolute allegiance to science-as-God doesn't fit my world view, because it dismisses two important facts; First, it is impossible to measure how MY brain processes what MY ears collect. Second, MY perception is MY reality; it belongs to me, and again, you can't quantify it.

I'm perfectly willing to let folks derive joy from their purchases, without engaging in the tedious process of trying to prove that they can't hear a difference. I don't think you should have to PASS the double-blind test in order to be allowed to buy or enjoy an expensive amp.

I mean no disrespect to the scientists. Fundamentally, I'm pretty sure *I* can't hear a difference in my room with my ears, or at least one that I'm willing to pay for. But, you know, modern science is still pretty young relative to human existence, so I'm willing to accommodate the idea that God Loves Diversity and we don't know it all yet.

Hi jb,

I sit in a 4,000 cubic foot, live room about 8 feet away from my M80s & centre and 12 feet away from my surrounds. I use less than a watt/channel for listening to music and about 4W/channel for movies.

That doesn't mean that I am happy with an amplifier that can source a few watts. Music peaks can demand as much as 8 to 24 times the "average" amount. I therefore need an amplifier that can source somewhere between 8W to 32W continuously and 24W to 96W transiently. So my 90W/channel amp serves me just fine with headroom to spare as it can easily hit over 100W transiently. With my old Bose 601s, I really needed a 400W/channel amp because they were about 1/4 as efficient as the Axioms.

Now what I need and what I want are two different things. What I really want is an A1400-8 for each channel so that I can impress my friends

. Unfortunately that would also mean I need a new electrical service and I'd have to gut my basement all over again.

My POS Yamaha is hooked up and blasting away now. It doesn't sound half bad and I got it stop shutting down at 90 db's by changign the mains from large to small. This little sucker just might stay on my EQ rack. I think it would go well with one of them fancy new Axiom amps.

Some of you will like me for this and others will hate me but in the interest of advancing knowledge on this subject I have decided to post this.

I decided to blind test my wife's plastic, dinky Sony boombox with my Denon. Here are the specs:

Sony CFD-Z130: 2.3W + 2.3W into 3.2 Ohms at 10% harmonic distortion.

Denon AVR-2105: 90W + 90W into 8 Ohms at 0.08% THD from 20 Hz to 20 Khz; 125W + 125W into 4 Ohms at 0.7% THD at 1 KHz; dynamic power of 170W/channel into 4 Ohms.

For the Denon, I used my Sony with optical out as the CD source. The boombox has its own CD player.

I put on some Poncho Sanchez and adjusted the gains for 75 dB SPL. By the way, 75 dB in my room requires less than a watt per side. After I had everything adjusted I called in my wife, son and daughter and let them listen to the Denon for 2 minutes and the Sony for two minutes. Then I sent them back out and covered everything up. To make a long story short, we tested 12 times for a minute each time and I had them write down their answers each time. The test was painful as I had to keep changing the leads. Here is the raw data. The first field indicates the amp under test and the last three fields the selections they made:

1. S, D, D, S
2. S, S, D, S
3. S, D, S, S
4. D, D, D, S
5. D, D, S, D
6. D, D, D, S
7. D, S, S, S
8. S, S, S, D
9. S, S, S, S
10. S, D, S, S
11. D, S, D, D
12. D, S, S, D

Out of 36 possible trials, 21 turned up the correct response. That's not much different than guessing heads or tails.

I haven't revealed the results to my wife because if I do, she won't authorize an A1400-8

.

Let the beefs and bouquets begin. BTW, for those in Canada, enjoy your long week-end and make sure you try out my BBQ marinade recipe that I posted.

You got the Yamaha to shut down at 90 dB? I'm quite surprised. How far away from the mains was your meter and how big is the room? Were all other channels on or just the fronts? Is it well ventilated? I've ran my Denon full out for an hour at 110 dB without shut down. You're right. It is a POS

Quote:

You got the Yamaha to shut down at 90 dB? I'm quite surprised. How far away from the mains was your meter and how big is the room? Were all other channels on or just the fronts? Is it well ventilated? I've ran my Denon full out for an hour at 110 dB without shut down. You're right. It is a POS . [/quote

Your Denon hardly compares to a low end Yammy, this is my whole point..its just apples to oranges.

JohnK needs to be more accurate when he subsribes that all avr's are as good as another...stateing that within power demands is misleading as most newbies have no clue what that means...also he and others should qualify such statements as it may or may not work with your speakers..i.e.,,ohms etc

Chris

Secondly,I am not surprised that the Yammy shutdown! You guys do not realise how much oompph it takes to power the M80's up to full potential, these are full blown hardcore audiophile speaks in lambs clothing, if you haven't had the pleasure of hearing these speakers at full song on a big amp....just dream baby..its bliss.

chris