It sounds like you are suggesting that small signals greater than 18kHz or so do not in any way interact with or effect small signals that are more generally accepted to be in the audible range…
Odds are pretty good that the CD that was used in the above comparison was not MQA… That is why I had encouraged the use of a known hi res source that was not broken by MQA…
1 Like
I share the same thought as Rockhound, the Krell amp seems rather slim in relation to the 801D4s.
The single biggest sonic difference I ever observed was adding a pre & main amp combo really on par with the max output specifications of my speakers which are rated 680 W but only 86 db of sensitivity.
2 Likes
The Krell amp used is 190w at 8ohm. See Krell K-300i integrated amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com
The speaker is 90dB and a friendly load. Unless the test was made at ear bleeding SPL, it’s totally adequate.
Still, more power is generally better, but to discriminate these two sources in an A/B test, headroom is not critical.
Krell states 150wpc into 8 ohm. I maintain that is nowhere near enough power to drive those speakers to their very best, and therefore to a point where meaningful comparisons of (relatively) mediocre sources can be made.
1 Like
Agree that a 150 w amp is a bit low for a 90 dB full range speaker with low distortion, but for this test it’s not a bottleneck, unless they exceed some 105 dB at LP, which would be too high to properly asses the sources. Louder will not make you hear differences better, on the contrary.
(Stereophile measures 190, but never mind, it’s a 1 dB difference in SPL)
I had a (subjective) different experience, adding potent amplification to be on par with the speaker specifications opened up especially mids and highs plus more nuancing also at low and normal volumes.
Re the test - also subjective - but for me it‘s not apples to apples, the two devices were not using the same interconnect plus the D2 was altered / modified and is not in its original state.
Especially between XLR and RCA I have observed accustic differences in the past depending on either device or amp integration.
How would they? A physicist among us could give an answer.
Intermodulation distorsion can produce audible components at lower frequencies.
1 Like
One cannot evaluate a system without sitting in the “sweet spot” and there is only ever one sweet spot. So, how did your 5 participants rotate in / out of that spot to do the evaluation?
In all my time with evaluating gear, cables, etc… I’ve never not heard a difference. Enough of a difference to accurately pick one box or cable over another? With enough time I’d like to say yes but honestly the results would probably align not much better than a guess. Worth the difference long term? Probably, no. That’s because a lot of these differences are so subtle I could take or leave them. But the subtleness is very often something hard to describe… like instrument placement, decay, soundstage depth and height. All of these things are directly influenced by high frequencies (edit: and amplitude, which because of how directional these frequencies are, amplitude can change considerably side to side when moving away from one tweeter and closer to the other) which have a wavelength of less than an inch (14kHz is just less than an inch). This means, even moving an inch side to side of center, can cause these frequencies to hit the listener out of phase destroying any sense of imaging.
I only bring this up because a lot of the comments I’m reading through are more a testament to the fact the system and listener were not set-up to hear a difference more so than the fact there isn’t a difference. If you and the set-up allow for these two things to sound the same then excellent, you just saved a boatload of money. However, I don’t consider that evidence there is no difference.
Do appreciate the testing and reporting though. Nice work. Nicely done.
2 Likes
Or you could just do some research… Google is your frenemy… There's life above 20 kilohertz! A survey of musical instrument spectra to 102.4 kHz
or listen to Rupert Neve discussing life above 20kHz… And you always wondered why his consoles sounded so good… Lecture at CRAS 2001… Rupert Neve Lecture at CRAS 2001 - YouTube
I roughly understand the concept. Here is an IMD measurement of one of my amps (double mono Hypex 250 MP). Do you suggest that IMD created by the high frequency 18.5 khz signal are audible at -115 dB?
Great video about cost vs quality
1 Like
Thanks for the link. The points raised seem quite reasonable and valid to me.
Good to see summed up how a final price is determined. Quality sound is just one of the criteria. This is why the two machines, in price so far apart from each other, can sound equal. One brand wants to become rich by reducing costs, the other by adding margins.
Of coarse that is not always true, sometimes a hand made machine is better, and sometimes the mass market product is just as good.
This thread has wildly interested me. I’ve been pushing myself to let go of ancient ideas around wires sounding different, and approach my latest system with “as long as the measurements are ok” method.
in that Ive bought speaker cable and interconnects that meet the length vs gauge requirements for my situation. I remain happy that cables, as long as they measure ok, all sound the same.
I’ve also long believed that by and large, most DAC’s sound the same.
I’ve compared a little TEAC UD-H01 (from maybe 15 years ago) to an eastern electrics minimax DAC some 4x the cost of the TEAC unit and could hear no difference through a highly resolving system, far in excess of even the test system here.
Also last year when i was demoing DAC’s i struggled to hear a change between an auralic aries mini, and the auralic vega. In this case some 8x the cost of the cheaper option. Some part of my brain convinced me that the Vega sounded smoother and cleaner, but really… who knows?
I was considering trying the D2 in my new system, and still might, but I was also considering the Cambridge CXN V2. If your tests are anything to go by, and my past experience also, then it’s very likely that they could end up sounding the same under blind conditions.
I’d need some significant evidence that a D2 would massively outperform the CXN for it to stay on the shelf!
I have a blue sound node 2i and a lumin U1 mini (with chord qutest DAC).
Might be the DACs in the Lumins but I didn’t like the T2.
U1 mini is defo better sounding than Node 2i, by quite a bit and I tend to take a fair while to hear some differences.
Edit:
I dragged out the Node2i from the headphone set up to compare. Lumin is better (although it does have the chord DAC and an ether regen attached).
I was surprised how good the Node 2i sounded. Lumin was more immersive and clear. I tested the volume and adjusted. 6x the cost though with those components and not close to twice as good.
1 Like
I have the T2, upgraded from a D2 with Sbooster. I also have a Bluesound that is used for the in wall system. I did a quick compare with both the D2 when I had it, and later the T2.
D2 was better, T2 was splendid and bested both. I’m not keen on the Bluesound - it’s just ok and a fine entry level unit but rather flat.
4 Likes
Its great that you took the time to do this but what is the point if the actual music sources are different. How can you use a Tidal MQA and a CD to make an educated conclusion about the SQ of the different components.
“I don’t think tidal is the culprit but I could be wrong.”
Yes you could be 
The irony of going through all this blind testing rigamarole and then to use 2 such disparate music sources is actually quite surprising. And as yet no reply to the oft asked question of why you used no ripped files?
I dont think this is a valid test in any way.
1 Like
Tidal will make your DACs sound bad, I personally cannot stand Tidal with Roon.
Try again with Qobuz or your local rips.
4 Likes