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. 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. This is the only way to explain how
one amp can sound different then another. I don't buy that what I'm hearing
is distortion.


This is exactly true, within limits. While it's true that oftentimes
spending more on an amplifier will get you better reliability, better
support, and usually more power, sometimes the "get what you pay for"
doctrine doesn't hold true. For example, there's absolutely no reason to
spend $10k on an amp. But some people do it - at least in home audio.

Yes.. We agree here. At some price point you're paying for the name,
esoteric goodies, and lots of overkill. These are the same people who
probably buy Hummers to drive to the deli.


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. 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. 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?


Furthermore, we can in fact isolate the
amplifier as the lone variable and perform basic tests challenging
observers to tell the difference between two amplifiers. The key here is
isolation of variables - making sure that the only difference is the
amplifier. This requires careful level matching, assurances that both
amplifiers are not clipping, and that the experiment is being performed
double blind. You haven't done this, so quite frankly, this renders your
own personal observations useless.

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.


I work in sensory neuroscience. I get a paycheck to investigate how
people's
senses work, and the underlying theme throughout all of what we know
about human sensation is that the brain is NOT interested in accurate
reproduction of our surroundings. It's interested in only those
components that are important for survival, and in order to promote this
goal, it's devised ways to actually distort incoming information to better
suit the needs of the animal. The bottom line: you cannot always trust
your senses - not only do they have the tendency to deceive you; they're
actually DESIGNED to deceive you.

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. 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. 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?

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.



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? How revealing and different were
the amps he was using? Who were the testers who took his challenge and why
should they be chosen for critical listening? Too many variable to make
this test reliable. I go by what my ears tell me not what some guy says who
wants to be controversial and make a name for themselves.


Even at low listening levels. Cheap amps don't
have the same revealing amplification as a well made amp. And it's not
distortion that is the deciding factor. There are many other factors
that
your instruments can't measure.

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.