Because it dispels the many myths out there that revolve around the notion
that amplifiers have a "sonic signature". It points out that comments
attributing one type of sound to amplifiers made by one company, and
another type of sound to another company, have no basis in fact.

See here is where we differ. I believe that amplifiers do have a sonic
signature and it's not distortion that is present. I believe what I'm
hearing is not measurable with instruments.

But what is it? Do you not agree that if the waveform produced by
amplifier A perfectly matches the waveform produced by amplifier B, there
will be no difference in sound?

All the amps I've tested have a
flat response from 20 -20,000hz with in audible distortion at moderate
listening levels. This would support my assumption that there are factors
that can't be measured with instruments.

Or it would support my assertion that the differences are not due to the
amplifier, but rather due to some other aspect of the test.

The only reason we can't measure the fragrance and taste is because we
haven't worked out the details of the human olfactory system. Very little
is known about it, in fact - MUCH less than the other senses. We do,
however,
have a good idea about what aspects of sound humans can perceive
differences,
and we can easily translate these thresholds to electrical and
acoustical measurements.

There are parts of the brain and the universe that we will never understand
or explain. Just because you can see a waverform on a LCD screen doesn't
mean that there aren't nuances to that signal that you can't measure.

Yes, it DOES mean that there aren't nuances that you can't measure. The
resolution of modern day test equipment is extremely good. Certainly
better than the thresholds of human hearing. If the test equipment
doesn't reveal a difference, then a difference does not exist. There
aren't unknown parameters to measure. Speakers operate on voltage and
current, and nothing else.

We
don't even know if all average humans hear alike. The human brain is unique
to each person so wouldn't it make sense that not all humans can process
outside stimuli in the same way.

No one has ever exhibit superhuman abilities such that they can hear the
tiniest of differences, see with microscopic precision, or smell a cup of
coffee 5 miles away. While there is indeed a substantial amount of
variablity between people, there's probably much less than you realize and
certainly much less than what would be responsible for detecting the
differences in signal that we've measured between two amplifiers.

There are too many variable to make a
blanket statement that all amplifiers sound the same when they are not
clipping or producing distortion. It's like a microscope. If you look at a
cell at 10x you don't see much but if you magnify it to 500x you can see
more detail. Who's to say that you measurements are too crude to measure
all that is inherant in an audio signal?

Because the measurements are made with nanovolt and microsecond
resolutions. Humans can't detect differences that small.

I've heard of these tests, but any blind listening test would be flawed
because humans don't process the same information in the same way from
person to person. I have friends who are happy with a boombox and take them
to a high-end stereo store and they still don't get it. I've done my own
listening tests that were very accurate and my conclusions are much
different then yours. There are also millions of stereo enthusiasts that
would agree with me. Have you actually done your own testing.

Yes, I have actually done my own testing. Anyway, blind testing is
essential because it removes an extra stimulus from the equation - that
is, it doesn't allow prior knowledge to enter into the decision. It's
like taking the pepsi challenge. If you already have a preconceived
notion that you like Pepsi better than Coke, then you need to remove
knowledge of which can is Pepsi and which can is Coke in order to
accurately measure which one you like better. You don't agree with this?

This is all theory and while it sounds great how can you prove it and make
it a fact. The simple fact is that you can't.

No, it's not all theory. It's the result of years of carefully conducted
scientific observation.

We think this is true
but...........I'm sure there are scientists, in your field, that dispute
your above statement and have their own research to support their own
theories.

Quite frankly, there aren't. What I said was one of the central tenets of
neuroscience. I can't think of a single notable scientist that believes
otherwise. It's clear as day when you simply acknowledge the strategies
that even the sensory apparatus themselves are engaging in to transduce
the stimulus into a neural code.

So basically what your saying is that our need for survival has
also distorted the incoming stimuli. Wouldn't that mean that you
scientificvally measure this distortion caused by the human brain and this
is just one more variable that is under your radar?

I'm saying, by definition, your brain is transforming incoming information
to better suit its purposes. The human visual system, for example, is not
a spectrophotometer. It does not have a flat response across all
wavelengths (you've only got a few hundred nanometers of range to play
with). It does not have the ability to distinguish between two points of
light separated by a nanometer. It does not have the ability to
distinguish between two flashes a nanosecond apart. These are
nonlinearities of the visual system, hence, by definition, distortion.
Moreover, even at the level of the human retina, you're not seeing a
faithful reproduction of the stimulus being captured by the neural code.
Adaptation effects, center-surround effects, and the density of
photoreceptors being a function of eccentricity make sure of this. So an
accurate signal isn't even getting to your brain.

Surely, this shouldn't be surprising to you, right? After all, you can't
see ultraviolet light, can you? And you can't see the details of a
mountaintop from 10 miles away, right?



audio equipment that you're using, misconceptions between sound quality
and accuracy, sound quality and loudness, etc. all lead to the perception
that system A is superior to system B, even if no difference is actually
present. This is why it's vital to remove these variables from the
equation when you're performing the tests.

Agreed. I've sone all this in my tests. I have a preamp that can make two
amps output match. Did I have a sound meter no but from my tests I'm still
a believer.

You didn't double blind your tests. You didn't measure the output level
of the amps to test that they were truly level-matched. And you didn't
ensure that the amps were not clipping. Your tests don't hold up.




Well, I don't have the time or desire to do it, obviously. But there's a
fellow named Richard Clark who has offered a $10,000 amplifier challenge
who will be more than willing to let you give it a try. Why not? If you
genuinely believe that you can tell the difference and you can pick your
amplifier out from the Radio Shack amplifier, you'll end up $10k richer.

Clark's test is very controversial and not the end all in this debate. How
revealing was the speakers he was using?

His conditions stipulate that you can use any speakers you want.

How revealing and different were
the amps he was using?

His conditions stipulate that you can use any solid state amplifiers you
want, as long as they're not broken.

Who were the testers who took his challenge and why
should they be chosen for critical listening?

Whoever asks to try. You should give it a shot. At least contact him to
find out more information. It may be worth 10 grand for you.

You've made mention of this a few times, but never elaborated. What is it
that instruments can't measure that could be responsible? Of all the
questions I've asked you, this is the one I'd really like to hear an
answer for.

How do you measure love, or the felling of how a child makes you feel or
someone's faith. There are just some things in life we will not understand
or will not be measurable.

We can measure audible perception rather flawlessly. You're just ignorant
of the studies that do so, never having done them yourself or read any of
the original papers by the folks that do them. Nor have you built,
designed, bench-tested, or taken the time to learn in depth how amplifiers
(the topic of this discussion) work. That's ok. I probably wouldn't have any
idea about the intricacies of your profession either, even if it was my
hobby.