[Steven Sullivan]

Greg Wormald wrote:

Of course different amplifiers sound different. Since they are made
differently, with different components, and they measure differently,
how could it be otherwise? Whether the differences are significant is a
matter of personal decision. You make your decision and plonk down your
money.

THe logical fallacy here is that 'measuring different', or using
'different components' must lead to audible difference. It doesn't.

Some will argue that well-made amps that measure the same will sound the
same. This is necessarily true--it is a tautology--assuming that we
measure everything that can be heard.

Blind a-b testing is the gold standard of testing for difference. It
does however have to be done well and usually isn't. Some of the subtle
differences in music reproduction are very difficult to pick, and often
require extensive experience or training to distinguish. As well, some
differences show up after long trials (days, weeks, or months!) and
testing of this longitude are as rare as hen's teeth.

So, where are the careful blind test results done by 'amps sound
different' believers? WHo is doing the assuming here?

Let us take the case of John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile. By his own
account , his Damascene conversion to 'subjectivistm' came after he chose
the 'lesser' of two amps, after he failed to hear a difference between
them in a DBT. After a few weeks of living with it he was dissatisfied,
and upon swapping in the other amp, found it sounded much better. His
conclusion was the blind testing misled him, while living with the gear
-- a 'long trial -- revealed the truth. But he didn't bother to do what
wold be obvious to a scientist -- re-take the blind test *after* the
'acclimation period'. Surely the effect of long expsire doesn't 'go away'
under blind conditions, right?

Btw, Tom Noisaine has done 'long term' trials, and the results were
negative when levels were matched and amps were driven below their limits.

Our auditory memory is very short, and often very inaccurate, and that
is an argument NOT for short duration tests, but for using something
that is longer lasting and more reliable, namely the emotional response
to the music.

You have managed to actually reverse the implication of short aural
memory. It points to using short sound samples during a trial, to gain
best dscrimination of difference.

However, if acclimation is thought to be necessary for best
discrimination, I ask again -- where are the blind test results from
people who make such claims?

I know from my own experience swapping interconnect cables that while I
couldn't pick which cable was in my system at any one listening session,
over months I came to prefer one set--based on my desire to put on
another record and listen more, or turn the music off and do something
else. These preferences were a surprise to me and I performed enough
swaps to make certain.

And then you did a blind test, after you were sure you could hear the
diference...right?

THe fact is, your typical audiophile or high-end magainze reviewer is SURE
they hear a difference, often without any long-term trial. So, are they
folling themselves, or likely to be right?

If you can, audition each amplifier on your list for long enough to know
whether you enjoy the way it produces music. After all, you will be
using it to produce music, not listen to sound.

And again, it's as easy to 'fool' yourself -- perhpas easier, given
possible emotional investment -- after a long trial, as short one, *if*
the comparison is sighted.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason