AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

Billy Shears wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Billy Shears wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

I think this was the metho used by Bob carver in his Stereophile
challenge where he claimed he could make his amplifier sound just like
a much more expensie tube amp.

Which he did, judging by Stereophile's golden ears of the time,
IIRC.

Yes they did concede that. Unfortnately he could not maintain the same
levels of likeness in his production model based on the challenge. that
was not only the conclusion of the Stereophile review of that
production amp but a concession made by Bob Carver himself.

No, that's not right. Carver conceded Holt could tell the
difference (although IIRC Holt thought Carver's amp was the tubed
amp during the test), but Carver claimed that the original tube
amp had changed in the intervening time. Not an implausible
assertion given the nature of tubes. And I think the original
Carver-tweaked solid state amp - the one Holt and his
golden-eared pals couldn't distinguish from the tube amp - had
been lost or left behind or something ... bad science there.

No, that's not right. Carver conceded that the production version of
his amp did not perform the same null as the hand tweeked version. he
simply claimed it was close enough.

Bt in a
world where all amps sound the same what could any of this mean?

I don't think anyone has claimed all tube amps sound like all
solid state amps. Do you have a reference for such a claim?

Actually it has been often claimed that all "competent" amps sound the
same and some have claimed that the Conrad Johnson amps are quite
competent. no one i know of has claimed that their amps are
incompetently designed or built. So the logical conclusion should be
quite obvious.

yeah, the test was done blind. hmmmmmm.

Well I think both tests were blind, so what is your point?

That the claims of no competent amps having a sonic signature under
blind conditions run contrary to those blind tests.

Scott