| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Date: 9/21/2004 8:01 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let me know. I doubt he would do it." I wouldn't be so sure of that, if he isn't, there is another who has 10 thousand dollars motivation for the same goal for amps. I'm told many have tried and he still has it. I doubt very much that the bet is that straight forward. If some one wants to test my assertion that my Audio Research SP 10 and D-115 sound different than my old Yamaha reciever with Martin Logan CLs speakers and pay a million dollars or even ten thousand if I hear a difference under blind conditions I'll happily invite them over and find that old reciever. I find it rewarding to discover just what was probably involved when you did your amplifier comparisons. Now I realize why you think you can hear differences with amps. Prior to the above-noted comparison being done, it would be a good idea to bench check those Audio Research units to make sure that (because of their probably high output impedances) they are not delivering a non-flat signal to your speakers, or to any other speakers they might be called upon to power as well. Actually, with electrostatic systems, it is possible that both the Yamaha and Audio Research amps are not performing to audibly smooth perfection. The Yamaha might have problems with the reactive load and be distorting because of that, and the Audio Research jobs might have frequency-response irregularities that involve their output impedances in relation to the input impedance of the speakers. Few "objectivists" would say that all amps sound the same when driving oddball speaker loads, and few would say that amps with high output impedances were flat responding into any speaker load. However, they would say that into reasonably normal loads decently designed amps should sound the same up to clipping levels. Howard Ferstler |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 26 Sep 2004 14:52:56 GMT, (Lasse) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ... Since you quote me in that post, I should point out that I am a contributor to the $5,000 'cable challenge' pool which has indeed been extended to amplifiers (and has stood unchallenged for more than five years now), and I have a standing offer of £1,000 (I'm not as rich as Randi!) to anyone in the UK who can 'hear' cables or amplifiers under level-matched blind conditions. I hadn't heard of that extension of cable challenge, interesting. Maybe a short summary would be in order. Known audio challenges: $1.000.000 Shakti Stones, Tice Clock, etc. (James Randi) $10.000 Amplifiers (Richard Clark) $5.000 Cables and amplifiers (RAHE pool) ~$1,800 Cables (Stewart Pinkerton) Also, if Randi offers money for hearing the effect of Shakti Stones, then we can assume that other sceptic organisations might do the same: ~$57.000 Australian sceptics challenge for extraordinary powers ~$14.000 Australian sceptics spotter fee: You only have to _find_ a person who has extraordinary powers, ie. can hear Shakti Stones! ~$10.000 Finnish Skepsis challenge I might have missed other challenges but even these challenges could pay off ~$1.100.000 for that person who hears Shakti Stones, amps and cables. I must say that situation is now extremely interesting since Randi is involved with his million. OK, I'll bite. I hereby formally offer £10,000 to anyone who can differentiate two cables under the usual level-matched DBT conditions. Furthermore, I'll make it £100,000 as a bet. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering I'd make the conditions a little more specific. I've heard a demonstration at an AES Convention where it was demonstrated that one could "hear" 100-feet of 30 ga wire wrap wire. |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 9/26/2004 3:19 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/24/2004 12:03 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/23/2004 8:22 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Date: 9/21/2004 8:01 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let me know. I doubt he would do it." I wouldn't be so sure of that, if he isn't, there is another who has 10 thousand dollars motivation for the same goal for amps. I'm told many have tried and he still has it. I doubt very much that the bet is that straight forward. If some one wants to test my assertion that my Audio Research SP 10 and D-115 sound different than my old Yamaha reciever with Martin Logan CLs speakers and pay a million dollars or even ten thousand if I hear a difference under blind conditions I'll happily invite them over and find that old reciever. I'll happily pay you a hundred dollars to 'prove ' what you claim to hear. What proof do you want? All you have to do is show that you can hear those differences under blind conditions. I have already done that. You weren't satisfied. So, more specifically, what proof would you want? So you say. Others have claimed the same. Steve Zipser claimed he regularly aced blind listening tests regarding amplifiers but when asked to do so under verifiable conditions was unable to do so. Pardon me if I remain skeptical. Pardon me if I point that you didn't answer the question. Are you serious about your offer or are you just posturing? I cannot offer proof without knowing precisely what you want in the way of it. |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 9/26/2004 3:23 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Date: 9/21/2004 8:01 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let me know. I doubt he would do it." I wouldn't be so sure of that, if he isn't, there is another who has 10 thousand dollars motivation for the same goal for amps. I'm told many have tried and he still has it. I doubt very much that the bet is that straight forward. If some one wants to test my assertion that my Audio Research SP 10 and D-115 sound different than my old Yamaha reciever with Martin Logan CLs speakers and pay a million dollars or even ten thousand if I hear a difference under blind conditions I'll happily invite them over and find that old reciever. I find it rewarding to discover just what was probably involved when you did your amplifier comparisons. Now I realize why you think you can hear differences with amps. Prior to the above-noted comparison being done, it would be a good idea to bench check those Audio Research units to make sure that (because of their probably high output impedances) they are not delivering a non-flat signal to your speakers, or to any other speakers they might be called upon to power as well. Actually, with electrostatic systems, it is possible that both the Yamaha and Audio Research amps are not performing to audibly smooth perfection. The Yamaha might have problems with the reactive load and be distorting because of that, and the Audio Research jobs might have frequency-response irregularities that involve their output impedances in relation to the input impedance of the speakers. Few "objectivists" would say that all amps sound the same when driving oddball speaker loads, and few would say that amps with high output impedances were flat responding into any speaker load. However, they would say that into reasonably normal loads decently designed amps should sound the same up to clipping levels. My assertion was and is that I heard a difference. One that I found meaningful. I did not ascribe any explination for it just that I heard it. If Randi wants to pay me to a million dollars to prove it or if some one else wants to pay me 10,000 dollars to prove it I will happily repeat my comparisons. |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 27 Sep 2004 03:21:59 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: OK, I'll bite. I hereby formally offer £10,000 to anyone who can differentiate two cables under the usual level-matched DBT conditions. Furthermore, I'll make it £100,000 as a bet. I'd make the conditions a little more specific. I've heard a demonstration at an AES Convention where it was demonstrated that one could "hear" 100-feet of 30 ga wire wrap wire. Sure, but level matching at 100, 1,000 and 10,000 Hz to +/- 0.1dB (the standard pre-conditions) should remove the 'ringers' and leave only the numerology and unobtainium contenders. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
OK, I'll bite. I hereby formally offer £10,000 to anyone who can differentiate two cables under the usual level-matched DBT conditions. Furthermore, I'll make it £100,000 as a bet. You are probably posting this to the wrong NG. I think most people who believe in cable sound, CD players/amps sounding different, mains filters, digital stair steps, "which resolution/sampling frequency best approaches analogue", CD de-magnetizers, etc read Audio Asylum, AudioEnz and EchoLoft (to name some Web forums I know of) instead of UseNet. I assume "usual level-matched DBT conditions" include - testing the frequency response of the provided cables (fed via a signal generator and read on a CRO?) at selected frequencies - playback via the system of the challenger's choice - music selected by the challenger would the challenger have to provide 2 separate cables, or will there be a "reference" cable? (I know, I should search the UseNet archives but ...) |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Nousaine) wrote in message ...
Just out of interest what is the Finnish Skepsis Challenge? Why not the Sisu challenge :- It's roughly the same as the Randi challenge. 10.000 euros for anyone who can create a paranormal phenomenon in controlled conditions. Paranormal is defined as any phenomenon that contradicts prevailing scientific view. If Randi says that hearing Shakti Stones can be interpreted as paranormal, then other sceptic organisations might do the same. http://www.skepsis.fi/eng/ (Skepsis introduction in English) http://www.skepsis.fi/haaste/saannot.html (Rules of the challenge in Finnish) Lasse Ukkonen |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tat Chan wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: OK, I'll bite. I hereby formally offer ?10,000 to anyone who can differentiate two cables under the usual level-matched DBT conditions. Furthermore, I'll make it ?100,000 as a bet. You are probably posting this to the wrong NG. I think most people who believe in cable sound, CD players/amps sounding different, mains filters, digital stair steps, "which resolution/sampling frequency best approaches analogue", CD de-magnetizers, etc read Audio Asylum, AudioEnz and EchoLoft (to name some Web forums I know of) instead of UseNet. Not to mention Stereophile and The Absolute Sound. I wonder what would happen if the 'challenge' were to be offered in the letter columns of *those* august journals? -- -S Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere. |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 27 Sep 2004 13:58:52 GMT, Tat Chan
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: OK, I'll bite. I hereby formally offer £10,000 to anyone who can differentiate two cables under the usual level-matched DBT conditions. Furthermore, I'll make it £100,000 as a bet. You are probably posting this to the wrong NG. I think most people who believe in cable sound, CD players/amps sounding different, mains filters, digital stair steps, "which resolution/sampling frequency best approaches analogue", CD de-magnetizers, etc read Audio Asylum, AudioEnz and EchoLoft (to name some Web forums I know of) instead of UseNet. I assume "usual level-matched DBT conditions" include - testing the frequency response of the provided cables (fed via a signal generator and read on a CRO?) at selected frequencies Yes, although I use a Fluke multimeter rather than a 'scope, and usually feed from a test CD, although I do have a genny. - playback via the system of the challenger's choice Yes - music selected by the challenger Yes would the challenger have to provide 2 separate cables, or will there be a "reference" cable? Either or (I know, I should search the UseNet archives but ...) Yes, you should! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 9/27/04 9:55 AM, in article , "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: On 27 Sep 2004 03:21:59 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: OK, I'll bite. I hereby formally offer £10,000 to anyone who can differentiate two cables under the usual level-matched DBT conditions. Furthermore, I'll make it £100,000 as a bet. I'd make the conditions a little more specific. I've heard a demonstration at an AES Convention where it was demonstrated that one could "hear" 100-feet of 30 ga wire wrap wire. Sure, but level matching at 100, 1,000 and 10,000 Hz to +/- 0.1dB (the standard pre-conditions) should remove the 'ringers' and leave only the numerology and unobtainium contenders. Sure - and it would remove the source of the differences as well. If someone is trying to drive Martin Logan speakers that have a 1 Ohm impedance (mostly reactive) at 20kHz - and one amp can drive it, and another can't (either folds back, oscillates, rolls off the upper frequencies or whatever) - there will be a noticeable difference - and the "challenge" will be useless to someone in that situation that says that one amp is better than another - because it is! While I didn't have a problem exactly like it, I had a HT amp that wasn't capable of driving my speakers - and an amp with more power did the trick - and it sounds much better. I was able to "hear" the difference easily - but I think the amplifiers themselves probably didn't have an inherent "sound" though such a challenge that said that with no further education about matching amp drive to speakers and other nuances of good system construction is doing as big a disservice as the superstition surrounding these pieces of equipment!! |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
(S888Wheel) wrote:
From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/26/2004 3:19 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/24/2004 12:03 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/23/2004 8:22 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Date: 9/21/2004 8:01 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let me know. I doubt he would do it." I wouldn't be so sure of that, if he isn't, there is another who has 10 thousand dollars motivation for the same goal for amps. I'm told many have tried and he still has it. I doubt very much that the bet is that straight forward. If some one wants to test my assertion that my Audio Research SP 10 and D-115 sound different than my old Yamaha reciever with Martin Logan CLs speakers and pay a million dollars or even ten thousand if I hear a difference under blind conditions I'll happily invite them over and find that old reciever. I'll happily pay you a hundred dollars to 'prove ' what you claim to hear. What proof do you want? All you have to do is show that you can hear those differences under blind conditions. I have already done that. You weren't satisfied. So, more specifically, what proof would you want? So you say. Others have claimed the same. Steve Zipser claimed he regularly aced blind listening tests regarding amplifiers but when asked to do so under verifiable conditions was unable to do so. Pardon me if I remain skeptical. Pardon me if I point that you didn't answer the question. Are you serious about your offer or are you just posturing? I cannot offer proof without knowing precisely what you want in the way of it. OK the conditions a level matched at 100,1000 and 10,000 Hz. Blind comparisons either cable swaps or ABX switched. 10 or more trials (9 of 10, 12 of 16, 15 of 20 correct to show proof.) You pick the programs. No time limits. If you can identify the amplifiers under blind conditions I'll pay you $100. If you fail you re-imburse half my travel cost. Alternately you can forward your system to me. In that case If you can prove your case I'll pay for your travel and shipping plus the $100. |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Lasse) wrote:
(Nousaine) wrote in message ... Just out of interest what is the Finnish Skepsis Challenge? Why not the Sisu challenge :- It's roughly the same as the Randi challenge. 10.000 euros for anyone who can create a paranormal phenomenon in controlled conditions. Paranormal is defined as any phenomenon that contradicts prevailing scientific view. If Randi says that hearing Shakti Stones can be interpreted as paranormal, then other sceptic organisations might do the same. http://www.skepsis.fi/eng/ (Skepsis introduction in English) http://www.skepsis.fi/haaste/saannot.html (Rules of the challenge in Finnish) Lasse Ukkonen Interesting. Thanks. I find that I can perform lots of paranormal activity in my sauna. The original Finnish spelling of my last name is Nousiainen. |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Tat Chan wrote: I think most people who believe in cable sound, CD players/amps sounding different, mains filters, digital stair steps, "which resolution/sampling frequency best approaches analogue", CD de-magnetizers, etc read Audio Asylum, AudioEnz and EchoLoft (to name some Web forums I know of) instead of UseNet. Not to mention Stereophile and The Absolute Sound. I wonder what would happen if the 'challenge' were to be offered in the letter columns of *those* august journals? An instant A-B comparison will probably be dismissed ... expect the usual excuses like "one has to listen to (or live with) the equipment for an extended period of time to be able to make a better comparison. Various details that were masked before hand can only be unveiled after a period of time. Certain equipment will be less fatiguing to listen to for extended periods of time. By making the comparison blind you will be putting pressure on the listener". Something like that anyway. |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 28 Sep 2004 00:45:15 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 9/27/04 9:55 AM, in article , "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: On 27 Sep 2004 03:21:59 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: OK, I'll bite. I hereby formally offer £10,000 to anyone who can differentiate two cables under the usual level-matched DBT conditions. Furthermore, I'll make it £100,000 as a bet. I'd make the conditions a little more specific. I've heard a demonstration at an AES Convention where it was demonstrated that one could "hear" 100-feet of 30 ga wire wrap wire. Sure, but level matching at 100, 1,000 and 10,000 Hz to +/- 0.1dB (the standard pre-conditions) should remove the 'ringers' and leave only the numerology and unobtainium contenders. Sure - and it would remove the source of the differences as well. If someone is trying to drive Martin Logan speakers that have a 1 Ohm impedance (mostly reactive) at 20kHz - and one amp can drive it, and another can't (either folds back, oscillates, rolls off the upper frequencies or whatever) - there will be a noticeable difference - and the "challenge" will be useless to someone in that situation that says that one amp is better than another - because it is! While I didn't have a problem exactly like it, I had a HT amp that wasn't capable of driving my speakers - and an amp with more power did the trick - and it sounds much better. I was able to "hear" the difference easily - but I think the amplifiers themselves probably didn't have an inherent "sound" though such a challenge that said that with no further education about matching amp drive to speakers and other nuances of good system construction is doing as big a disservice as the superstition surrounding these pieces of equipment!! Please note that this is a *cable* challenge, although your pint is of course quite correct, hence the pre-qualifier that amps are not driven into clipping. That's one reason I hang onto my Krell - I *know* that it doesn't care if it's driving a rusty nail! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 28 Sep 2004 00:45:37 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 9/27/04 9:51 AM, in article , "S888Wheel" wrote: Few "objectivists" would say that all amps sound the same when driving oddball speaker loads, and few would say that amps with high output impedances were flat responding into any speaker load. However, they would say that into reasonably normal loads decently designed amps should sound the same up to clipping levels. My assertion was and is that I heard a difference. One that I found meaningful. I did not ascribe any explination for it just that I heard it. If Randi wants to pay me to a million dollars to prove it or if some one else wants to pay me 10,000 dollars to prove it I will happily repeat my comparisons. I think the point that is being missed is simple - by removing sources of differences (the appropriate amp to the appropriate speaker) the challenge is both 100% correct, and 100% unhelpful and possibly will lead people into incorrectly believing that any old amp is good for ANY speaker of any load. No one has ever suggested any such thing - and such basic load-driving incapacity is *never* the source of claims regarding amplifier sound. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tat Chan wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Tat Chan wrote: I think most people who believe in cable sound, CD players/amps sounding different, mains filters, digital stair steps, "which resolution/sampling frequency best approaches analogue", CD de-magnetizers, etc read Audio Asylum, AudioEnz and EchoLoft (to name some Web forums I know of) instead of UseNet. Not to mention Stereophile and The Absolute Sound. I wonder what would happen if the 'challenge' were to be offered in the letter columns of *those* august journals? An instant A-B comparison will probably be dismissed ... expect the usual excuses like "one has to listen to (or live with) the equipment for an extended period of time to be able to make a better comparison. Various details that were masked before hand can only be unveiled after a period of time. Certain equipment will be less fatiguing to listen to for extended periods of time. By making the comparison blind you will be putting pressure on the listener". Something like that anyway. Probably, but quick switching and short audition times are not requirements of bias-controlled comparisons...they're optimizations that are used to *improve* performance of A-B comparison. If 'audiophiles' want to forego them, they're free to. -- -S Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere. |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote in message ...
I think the point that is being missed is simple - by removing sources of differences (the appropriate amp to the appropriate speaker) the challenge is both 100% correct, and 100% unhelpful and possibly will lead people into incorrectly believing that any old amp is good for ANY speaker of any load. IOW, we shouldn't tell people the truth because they might misinterpret it. As for unhelpful, that assumes that all audiophiles are as smart as you. They aren't. The great unwashed who populate the Asylum and Audiogon and read TAS like it's the Kamasutra do not see this as a problem of finding an appropriate amp to drive a particular load. To them, the challenge is to find an amp with sonic attributes that complement the sonic attributes of their speakers, wall outlets, and everything in between. The challenge isn't aimed at engineers like you who know which properties of an amplifier are important in driving a particular load. It's aimed at the non-technical audiophiles who are sure that their years of experience as a "listener" allow them to hear subtleties in each component that engineers cannot measure and are too narrow-minded even to admit the existence of. For them, taking such a challenge would be most enlightening--which is why they'll never do it. bob |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 9/27/2004 9:00 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/26/2004 3:19 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/24/2004 12:03 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/23/2004 8:22 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Date: 9/21/2004 8:01 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let me know. I doubt he would do it." I wouldn't be so sure of that, if he isn't, there is another who has 10 thousand dollars motivation for the same goal for amps. I'm told many have tried and he still has it. I doubt very much that the bet is that straight forward. If some one wants to test my assertion that my Audio Research SP 10 and D-115 sound different than my old Yamaha reciever with Martin Logan CLs speakers and pay a million dollars or even ten thousand if I hear a difference under blind conditions I'll happily invite them over and find that old reciever. I'll happily pay you a hundred dollars to 'prove ' what you claim to hear. What proof do you want? All you have to do is show that you can hear those differences under blind conditions. I have already done that. You weren't satisfied. So, more specifically, what proof would you want? So you say. Others have claimed the same. Steve Zipser claimed he regularly aced blind listening tests regarding amplifiers but when asked to do so under verifiable conditions was unable to do so. Pardon me if I remain skeptical. Pardon me if I point that you didn't answer the question. Are you serious about your offer or are you just posturing? I cannot offer proof without knowing precisely what you want in the way of it. OK the conditions a level matched at 100,1000 and 10,000 Hz. Blind comparisons either cable swaps or ABX switched. 10 or more trials (9 of 10, 12 of 16, 15 of 20 correct to show proof.) You pick the programs. No time limits. If you can identify the amplifiers under blind conditions I'll pay you $100. If you fail you re-imburse half my travel cost. Alternately you can forward your system to me. In that case If you can prove your case I'll pay for your travel and shipping plus the $100. I figured the offer was not straight up. It would cost at least 100 dollars to get another Yamaha reciever like the one I had. That doesn't include the time involved in tracking one down. I'll happily accept level matching at one frequency but if you need to use an equalizer to match at several frequencies you will no longer be testing my assertion that I heard a difference (no equalizers were used in my comparisons). Travel expenses? So a condition of this 100 dollar challenge is that you take a 500 dollar trip? C'mon. As for the number of correct scores needed for a positive, I think the standard 95% certainty should apply. Frankly I'd rather take the 10,000 dollar challenge or...if some one can coax Randi into extending the million dollar challenge... But let's face it, niether will challenge my assertion without fiddling with the sound of the reciever. So, if some one really doubts I heard a difference the challenge should simply be level matched (at one frequency) and double blind with scientific standards for a positive. OTOH if you are ever in town and have an old Yamaha reciever from their rack systems sold in the mid eighties drop me an Email. |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: No one has ever suggested any such thing - and such basic load-driving incapacity is *never* the source of claims regarding amplifier sound. Maybe, but it's sometimes (often?) the source of purchasing. I upgraded my amp from a (35wpc) NAD 314 to a (200-something wpc) Parasound HCA-1500 pretty much entirely because I wanted to make sure I got something that could drive whatever speakers I ended up buying. (Also because it looked nicer, but shh, aesthetics are a "WAF" consideration; people who are interested in music are obviously uninterested in all forms of beauty and elegance.) Talk about how all quality amps sound basically the same have the implication that this was a totally lame and stupid move, and there'd be no problem at all driving a pair of Martin Logan speakers off that NAD, never be able to tell a difference. (Note: This may actually be true, but am I going to take the chance of blowing a tweeter because I can't do amplifer power to decibel level conversions when taking into account speaker resistance and sensitivity levels? I am not.) I'm pretty sure you're talking to people who buy Krell or Linn or whatever the hell the big expensive amps are; but since you're often following on cable conversations, which explicitly state that anything more than Radio Shack 12 gauge is a waste of money, the effect of your anti-amp-difference talk is to make it sound like a $299 Sony receiver should be good enough for anyone. -- Mike Kozlowski http://www.klio.org/mlk/ |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 28 Sep 2004 00:45:15 GMT, B&D wrote: On 9/27/04 9:55 AM, in article , "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: On 27 Sep 2004 03:21:59 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote: =20 Stewart Pinkerton wrote: =20 OK, I'll bite. I hereby formally offer =A310,000 to anyone who can differentiate two cables under the usual level-matched DBT conditio= ns. Furthermore, I'll make it =A3100,000 as a bet. =20 I'd make the conditions a little more specific. I've heard a demonstration at an AES Convention where it was demonstrated that one could "hear" 100-feet of 30 ga wire wrap wire. =20 Sure, but level matching at 100, 1,000 and 10,000 Hz to +/- 0.1dB (th= e standard pre-conditions) should remove the 'ringers' and leave only the numerology and unobtainium contenders. Sure - and it would remove the source of the differences as well. If someone is trying to drive Martin Logan speakers that have a 1 Ohm impe= dance (mostly reactive) at 20kHz - and one amp can drive it, and another can'= t (either folds back, oscillates, rolls off the upper frequencies or what= ever) - there will be a noticeable difference - and the "challenge" will be useless to someone in that situation that says that one amp is better t= han another - because it is! While I didn't have a problem exactly like it, I had a HT amp that wasn= 't capable of driving my speakers - and an amp with more power did the tri= ck - and it sounds much better. I was able to "hear" the difference easily = - but I think the amplifiers themselves probably didn't have an inherent "sou= nd" though such a challenge that said that with no further education about matching amp drive to speakers and other nuances of good system constru= ction is doing as big a disservice as the superstition surrounding these piec= es of equipment!! Please note that this is a *cable* challenge, although your pint is of course quite correct, hence the pre-qualifier that amps are not driven into clipping. That's one reason I hang onto my Krell - I *know* that it doesn't care if it's driving a rusty nail! --=20 Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering No fair pirating my Rusty-Nail challenge. But quite frankly level matchin= g fully satisfies the 'clipping' issue in all but the most extreme case. In= the SMWTMS experiments experimenters had to compare a 10-watt tube amplifier = vs a 400-watt solid state to get a "positive sound difference result." Even in= that case the output impedance may have influenced the results disqualifying t= hem at 3-point level matching.=20 It's a good point but clipping is often over-stated as a condition, in my opinion.=20 |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
(S888Wheel) wrote:
From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/27/2004 9:00 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/26/2004 3:19 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/24/2004 12:03 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/23/2004 8:22 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Date: 9/21/2004 8:01 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let me know. I doubt he would do it." I wouldn't be so sure of that, if he isn't, there is another who has 10 thousand dollars motivation for the same goal for amps. I'm told many have tried and he still has it. I doubt very much that the bet is that straight forward. If some one wants to test my assertion that my Audio Research SP 10 and D-115 sound different than my old Yamaha reciever with Martin Logan CLs speakers and pay a million dollars or even ten thousand if I hear a difference under blind conditions I'll happily invite them over and find that old reciever. So your challenge is posited on someone else producing the "product" you don't own? I'll happily pay you a hundred dollars to 'prove ' what you claim to hear. What proof do you want? All you have to do is show that you can hear those differences under blind conditions. I have already done that. You weren't satisfied. So, more specifically, what proof would you want? So you say. Others have claimed the same. Steve Zipser claimed he regularly aced blind listening tests regarding amplifiers but when asked to do so under verifiable conditions was unable to do so. Pardon me if I remain skeptical. Pardon me if I point that you didn't answer the question. Are you serious about your offer or are you just posturing? I cannot offer proof without knowing precisely what you want in the way of it. OK the conditions a level matched at 100,1000 and 10,000 Hz. Blind comparisons either cable swaps or ABX switched. 10 or more trials (9 of 10, 12 of 16, 15 of 20 correct to show proof.) You pick the programs. No time limits. If you can identify the amplifiers under blind conditions I'll pay you $100. If you fail you re-imburse half my travel cost. Alternately you can forward your system to me. In that case If you can prove your case I'll pay for your travel and shipping plus the $100. I figured the offer was not straight up. It would cost at least 100 dollars to get another Yamaha reciever like the one I had. That doesn't include the time involved in tracking one down. Not straight-up? Nowhere in your original offer was it mentioned that you no longer have the product you said had a different sound. I'll happily accept level matching at one frequency but if you need to use an equalizer to match at several frequencies you will no longer be testing my assertion that I heard a difference (no equalizers were used in my comparisons). OK how about full band pink noise? But even so IF I could duplicate the "sound" of your device with a garden variety equalizer what does that say about your prefered amplifier? Travel expenses? So a condition of this 100 dollar challenge is that you take a 500 dollar trip? C'mon. Not a problem. All you have to do is prove your case and there is no cost to you. And you get your hundred bucks. As for the number of correct scores needed for a positive, I think the standard 95% certainty should apply. Those are the scores I posted. 95% which are 9 of 10; 12 of 16; 15 of 20. 2-tailed. Frankly I'd rather take the 10,000 dollar challenge or...if some one can coax Randi into extending the million dollar challenge... So get to it. You've already admitted that you no longer have access to the device you claimed sounded 'different.' "Frankly" I'd say you aren't interested in showing that you can 'hear' amplifiers. But let's face it, niether will challenge my assertion without fiddling with the sound of the reciever. So, if some one really doubts I heard a difference the challenge should simply be level matched (at one frequency) and double blind with scientific standards for a positive. OK; but how are you going to prove your claims with a device you no longer have? This is the nexus of the high-end argument; just come over here AND I'll show you that I can "hear" the differences between these 2 amplifiers. Then we find that you no longer have one of them. Then we are limited to level match frequencies. Then NO equalizers are allowed (even IF they are ONLY inserted in the comparative unit signal chain) and one is left to wonder why the elongation of the signal path with an equalizer wouldn't necessarily REDUCE the transparency of the original signal chain and be immediately recognizable by an experienced high-end listener. OTOH if you are ever in town and have an old Yamaha reciever from their rack systems sold in the mid eighties drop me an Email. So this is your response? So you can't prove your original case because you no longer have the device you were basing the challenge on? That I have to supply both the device and spend $300 on a plane ticket plus bringing all my own equipment; and then if you 'fail' I'm left with all the expense of the experiment. I've taken that challenge before. Do you wnat to know what happens? I've traveled to Maine at my own expense on a challenge from a wire company that if I 'came' to their facility they'd "show me" differences. When I got there (arrival announced weeks in advance) they refused to conduct the experiment claiming they never said they'd do so (even thought the challenge had been confirmed in letter-form.) On another occasion I paid my own expenses to proctor a blind experiment on power amplifiers between an audiophile and a store owner in Florida. The owner was unable to prove he was able to differentiate his $12k monoblocks from a used Yamaha integrated amplifier under different conditions (switched, cable swaps) using his personal reference systems in his reference room. So what next? This was your challenge. You've accused me of being disengenous my old Yamaha reciever with Martin Logan CLs speakers and pay a million dollars or even ten thousand if I hear a difference under blind conditions I'll happily invite them over and find that old reciever. so exactly what is genuine about your challenge? You now say that you don't even still have it. How can you make a challenge so transparent that it's remotely likely that you'll ever find a challenger? |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 29 Sep 2004 02:40:50 GMT, Mike Kozlowski wrote:
In article , Stewart Pinkerton wrote: No one has ever suggested any such thing - and such basic load-driving incapacity is *never* the source of claims regarding amplifier sound. Maybe, but it's sometimes (often?) the source of purchasing. As it should be. I upgraded my amp from a (35wpc) NAD 314 to a (200-something wpc) Parasound HCA-1500 pretty much entirely because I wanted to make sure I got something that could drive whatever speakers I ended up buying. (Also because it looked nicer, but shh, aesthetics are a "WAF" consideration; people who are interested in music are obviously uninterested in all forms of beauty and elegance.) Talk about how all quality amps sound basically the same Note that the qualifier 'below clipping' is invariably used when this statement is made. Hence, an appropriate power output for your requirements is a given. No one has ever suggested that an original 10-watt Linsley-Hood amp is ideal for driving ATC SCM 10s! have the implication that this was a totally lame and stupid move, and there'd be no problem at all driving a pair of Martin Logan speakers off that NAD, never be able to tell a difference. (Note: This may actually be true, but am I going to take the chance of blowing a tweeter because I can't do amplifer power to decibel level conversions when taking into account speaker resistance and sensitivity levels? I am not.) Lucky then that no one has ever suggested that this would be the case. I'm pretty sure you're talking to people who buy Krell or Linn or whatever the hell the big expensive amps are; but since you're often following on cable conversations, which explicitly state that anything more than Radio Shack 12 gauge is a waste of money, That certainly *is* correct for 99.999% of domestic audio systems. the effect of your anti-amp-difference talk is to make it sound like a $299 Sony receiver should be good enough for anyone. Not if you actually *read* what's written, it's not. Is a Krell FPB300 better sounding than a Yamaha P4500? Possibly, probably not, but either is capable of driving pretty much any speaker you're likely to own. Oh, and the Krell costs $9,000, the Yamaha $700......... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nousaine wrote:
(S888Wheel) wrote: I figured the offer was not straight up. It would cost at least 100 dollars to get another Yamaha reciever like the one I had. That doesn't include the time involved in tracking one down. Not straight-up? Nowhere in your original offer was it mentioned that you no longer have the product you said had a different sound. I have a Yamaha HTR-5540 -- a pretty bog-standard Yammie AVR from several years back -- that I don't use any more. I'll happily lend it out for the experiment. Heck, I'll pay for shipping it to and from the test site too. -- -S Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere. |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nousaine wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Please note that this is a *cable* challenge, although your point is of course quite correct, hence the pre-qualifier that amps are not driven into clipping. That's one reason I hang onto my Krell - I *know* that it doesn't care if it's driving a rusty nail! No fair pirating my Rusty-Nail challenge. But quite frankly level matching fully satisfies the 'clipping' issue in all but the most extreme case. In the SMWTMS experiments experimenters had to compare a 10-watt tube amplifier vs a 400-watt solid state to get a "positive sound difference result." Even in that case the output impedance may have influenced the results disqualifying them at 3-point level matching. It's a good point but clipping is often over-stated as a condition, in my opinion. I agree. I just did some comparing with two amps that were each only modestly powerful. I drove one to the point where its peak-level lights were just flickering. (The other, much lower-priced amp had no such indicators, but was rated at about the same power input to the speaker load.) Both amps still sounded the same, but this was at levels where the sound output was really uncomfortable - especially to one of my cats, who literally ran out of the room. At more modest levels, where I could listen to the music without feeling uncomfortable, the amps continued to sound the same. Howard Ferstler |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 9/29/2004 4:51 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/27/2004 9:00 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/26/2004 3:19 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/24/2004 12:03 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 9/23/2004 8:22 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Date: 9/21/2004 8:01 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let me know. I doubt he would do it." I wouldn't be so sure of that, if he isn't, there is another who has 10 thousand dollars motivation for the same goal for amps. I'm told many have tried and he still has it. I doubt very much that the bet is that straight forward. If some one wants to test my assertion that my Audio Research SP 10 and D-115 sound different than my old Yamaha reciever with Martin Logan CLs speakers and pay a million dollars or even ten thousand if I hear a difference under blind conditions I'll happily invite them over and find that old reciever. So your challenge is posited on someone else producing the "product" you don't own? What challenge? I offered a casual invitation should you be in town and have access to the "product" or one like it. I'll happily pay you a hundred dollars to 'prove ' what you claim to hear. What proof do you want? All you have to do is show that you can hear those differences under blind conditions. I have already done that. You weren't satisfied. So, more specifically, what proof would you want? So you say. Others have claimed the same. Steve Zipser claimed he regularly aced blind listening tests regarding amplifiers but when asked to do so under verifiable conditions was unable to do so. Pardon me if I remain skeptical. Pardon me if I point that you didn't answer the question. Are you serious about your offer or are you just posturing? I cannot offer proof without knowing precisely what you want in the way of it. OK the conditions a level matched at 100,1000 and 10,000 Hz. Blind comparisons either cable swaps or ABX switched. 10 or more trials (9 of 10, 12 of 16, 15 of 20 correct to show proof.) You pick the programs. No time limits. If you can identify the amplifiers under blind conditions I'll pay you $100. If you fail you re-imburse half my travel cost. Alternately you can forward your system to me. In that case If you can prove your case I'll pay for your travel and shipping plus the $100. I figured the offer was not straight up. It would cost at least 100 dollars to get another Yamaha reciever like the one I had. That doesn't include the time involved in tracking one down. Not straight-up? Nowhere in your original offer was it mentioned that you no longer have the product you said had a different sound. For a million dollars or even ten thousand dollars I would happily track it down or find another one just like it. I'll happily accept level matching at one frequency but if you need to use an equalizer to match at several frequencies you will no longer be testing my assertion that I heard a difference (no equalizers were used in my comparisons). OK how about full band pink noise? But even so IF I could duplicate the "sound" of your device with a garden variety equalizer what does that say about your prefered amplifier? It would say that the only difference was frequency response. I don't *know* that that isn't the case. I never tried to get the reciever to sound like the Audio Research gear with an equalizer. But you expressed your skeptism about me hearing a difference without the use of EQ. Travel expenses? So a condition of this 100 dollar challenge is that you take a 500 dollar trip? C'mon. Not a problem. All you have to do is prove your case and there is no cost to you. And you get your hundred bucks. Still not worth the time and effort. Anyone want to run this one by Randi? As for the number of correct scores needed for a positive, I think the standard 95% certainty should apply. Those are the scores I posted. 95% which are 9 of 10; 12 of 16; 15 of 20. 2-tailed. Frankly I'd rather take the 10,000 dollar challenge or...if some one can coax Randi into extending the million dollar challenge... So get to it. You've already admitted that you no longer have access to the device you claimed sounded 'different.' So far the only one offering a challenge to me is you. I am far to busy a person to "get to it" for a hundred bucks. "Frankly" I'd say you aren't interested in showing that you can 'hear' amplifiers. Frankly you are right. I'm not interested in proving things like this to you. OTOH for 10K or better yet a million bucks my interest levels go way up. Frankly, I don't think those challenges will be offered to me. just yours. But let's face it, niether will challenge my assertion without fiddling with the sound of the reciever. So, if some one really doubts I heard a difference the challenge should simply be level matched (at one frequency) and double blind with scientific standards for a positive. OK; but how are you going to prove your claims with a device you no longer have? I would have to track it down or get another one. Not that big a deal but 100 bucks isn't going to cut it. This is the nexus of the high-end argument; just come over here AND I'll show you that I can "hear" the differences between these 2 amplifiers. Yeah whatever. Then we find that you no longer have one of them. I had no reason to keep it. Then we are limited to level match frequencies. Then NO equalizers are allowed (even IF they are ONLY inserted in the comparative unit signal chain) and one is left to wonder why the elongation of the signal path with an equalizer wouldn't necessarily REDUCE the transparency of the original signal chain and be immediately recognizable by an experienced high-end listener. Hey, you are the one who challenged *my* assertion. If you are having second thoughts fine but my assertion involved an EQ free comparison. If I imagined a difference then you wouldn't need any EQ to show that would you? OTOH if you are ever in town and have an old Yamaha reciever from their rack systems sold in the mid eighties drop me an Email. So this is your response? Yes. So you can't prove your original case because you no longer have the device you were basing the challenge on? I could. But not for a hundred bucks. It's not like it was a one of a kind unit. That I have to supply both the device and spend $300 on a plane ticket plus bringing all my own equipment; and then if you 'fail' I'm left with all the expense of the experiment. Noooooo. I said if you happen to be in town and happen to have this unit or something like it you are welcome to come on over. You don't *have* to do anything. I don't expect you to spend any money. I'm sorry you didn't see the difference between your challenge and my invitation. I've taken that challenge before. There was no challenge so it wouldn't be possible. Do you wnat to know what happens? I've traveled to Maine at my own expense on a challenge from a wire company that if I 'came' to their facility they'd "show me" differences. When I got there (arrival announced weeks in advance) they refused to conduct the experiment claiming they never said they'd do so (even thought the challenge had been confirmed in letter-form.) Either keep it casual. Like I tried to do with my invite or make the stakes worth my while. On another occasion I paid my own expenses to proctor a blind experiment on power amplifiers between an audiophile and a store owner in Florida. The owner was unable to prove he was able to differentiate his $12k monoblocks from a used Yamaha integrated amplifier under different conditions (switched, cable swaps) using his personal reference systems in his reference room. So what next? This was your challenge. There was no challenge. You've accused me of being disengenous No. I think your hundred dollar offer is genuine. I think your desire to use EQ would have made your challenge disengenuous since none was used originally, but you have waved that so I find your offer quite genuine, just not very interesting. my old Yamaha reciever with Martin Logan CLs speakers and pay a million dollars or even ten thousand if I hear a difference under blind conditions I'll happily invite them over and find that old reciever. so exactly what is genuine about your challenge? There is no challenge. OTOH if Randi or the other fellow who is offering 10K would like to extend their challenges to my specific assertion I will find that old reciever or one just like it and take them up. You now say that you don't even still have it. How can you make a challenge so transparent that it's remotely likely that you'll ever find a challenger? *I* haven't issued any challenges. You challenged my assertion that I heard a difference. How did that obligate me to keep that old reciever all those many years ago? I am not psychic. |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Howard Ferstler Date: 9/26/2004 3:23 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Date: 9/21/2004 8:01 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let me know. I doubt he would do it." I wouldn't be so sure of that, if he isn't, there is another who has 10 thousand dollars motivation for the same goal for amps. I'm told many have tried and he still has it. I doubt very much that the bet is that straight forward. If some one wants to test my assertion that my Audio Research SP 10 and D-115 sound different than my old Yamaha reciever with Martin Logan CLs speakers and pay a million dollars or even ten thousand if I hear a difference under blind conditions I'll happily invite them over and find that old reciever. I find it rewarding to discover just what was probably involved when you did your amplifier comparisons. Now I realize why you think you can hear differences with amps. Prior to the above-noted comparison being done, it would be a good idea to bench check those Audio Research units to make sure that (because of their probably high output impedances) they are not delivering a non-flat signal to your speakers, or to any other speakers they might be called upon to power as well. Actually, with electrostatic systems, it is possible that both the Yamaha and Audio Research amps are not performing to audibly smooth perfection. The Yamaha might have problems with the reactive load and be distorting because of that, and the Audio Research jobs might have frequency-response irregularities that involve their output impedances in relation to the input impedance of the speakers. Few "objectivists" would say that all amps sound the same when driving oddball speaker loads, and few would say that amps with high output impedances were flat responding into any speaker load. However, they would say that into reasonably normal loads decently designed amps should sound the same up to clipping levels. My assertion was and is that I heard a difference. One that I found meaningful. And that is all well and good. The problem is that if you knew which amp was playing at any given time (I came into this discussion too late to know if the comparison was both blind and properly level matched), your ability to objectively decide on sound quality was compromised. I see that Nousaine has offered you a challenge about comparing amps, DBT style and carefully level matched with each channel. I think you might benefit greatly if you took him up on it. If you do, he will use a DBT device that will make it impossible for you to pre-assign a winning score to either amp. I see that a bet was involved, but I think the challenge would best be done without a bet, and should simply involved a desire to see what you can or cannot hear. I did not ascribe any explination for it just that I heard it. I just did a series of non-blind (but still carefully level matched) comparisons between a good AV receiver's stereo amp section and a $3000+ amp I am reviewing for a magazine report. As best I can tell, they sounded identical with musical source material. Needless to say, I intend to do some additional comparing before doing a completed review report. Interestingly, depending on when I was switching there were times when one unit seemed to sound better than the other. The musical segment and when I switched was the determining factor in each case, however, since I could make whatever amp I wanted to sound best sound that way by switching at just the right time during the musical presentation. (Some hi-fi salesmen have this trick down pat.) I also used pink noise to level match each of the four channels (two with each amp) and when I got through each sounded absolutely identical. This certainly shows that whatever differences there might have been with music, their audible frequency responses were the same. If Randi wants to pay me to a million dollars to prove it or if some one else wants to pay me 10,000 dollars to prove it I will happily repeat my comparisons. There is always a chance that a person would guess correctly. This makes super-duper money bets a chancy thing, unless a large number of trials were done. Also, the amps (both of them) would have to be bench checked prior to the comparison, just to make sure that both were working properly. Heck, it might just be that the more upscale amp had problems related to frequency response or even had been designed to sound a bit different from neutral. I think that Randi's world view does not involve proving that decent amps are or are not identical sounding. What he is interested in are situations where individuals non-critically mystify real-world phenomenon and assign a cause that involves some kind of underlying noumena that cannot be measured or quantified. Kant did this with God (and spent a lot of time writing about it), and many audio buffs try to do the same thing with subjective impressions of audio-system behavior. Howard Ferstler |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
... The fact is that some amplifiers go into clipping in the course of their day-to-day operation. It's not desireable, & it's (probably) not intentional on the part of the designers...but to disqualify an amp from the Positive Sound Difference Challenge because it went into clipping is just a self-serving way of keeping your $10,000. Amps clip. Some more than others. Proclaiming that any amp that clips during its quote-unquote normal operation isn't a Competant amp is also self-serving. Surely you don't believe that clipping is part of normal day-to-day operation of a high-end system. You don't, do you? Norm Strong |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 9/29/2004 8:34 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Howard Ferstler Date: 9/26/2004 3:23 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Date: 9/21/2004 8:01 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "If you can talk Randi into expanding the challenge to amplification let me know. I doubt he would do it." I wouldn't be so sure of that, if he isn't, there is another who has 10 thousand dollars motivation for the same goal for amps. I'm told many have tried and he still has it. I doubt very much that the bet is that straight forward. If some one wants to test my assertion that my Audio Research SP 10 and D-115 sound different than my old Yamaha reciever with Martin Logan CLs speakers and pay a million dollars or even ten thousand if I hear a difference under blind conditions I'll happily invite them over and find that old reciever. I find it rewarding to discover just what was probably involved when you did your amplifier comparisons. Now I realize why you think you can hear differences with amps. Prior to the above-noted comparison being done, it would be a good idea to bench check those Audio Research units to make sure that (because of their probably high output impedances) they are not delivering a non-flat signal to your speakers, or to any other speakers they might be called upon to power as well. Actually, with electrostatic systems, it is possible that both the Yamaha and Audio Research amps are not performing to audibly smooth perfection. The Yamaha might have problems with the reactive load and be distorting because of that, and the Audio Research jobs might have frequency-response irregularities that involve their output impedances in relation to the input impedance of the speakers. Few "objectivists" would say that all amps sound the same when driving oddball speaker loads, and few would say that amps with high output impedances were flat responding into any speaker load. However, they would say that into reasonably normal loads decently designed amps should sound the same up to clipping levels. My assertion was and is that I heard a difference. One that I found meaningful. And that is all well and good. Not everyone agrees. Tom seems to think I did not hear a real difference. Some people think that if I prove I heard a real difference I might collect 10,000 dollars or better yet amillion dollars. I have not heard from the parties that are offering 10K or a million so far. I do have a 100 dollar offer from Tom though. The problem is that if you knew which amp was playing at any given time (I came into this discussion too late to know if the comparison was both blind and properly level matched), your ability to objectively decide on sound quality was compromised. The comparisons were all blind. I see that Nousaine has offered you a challenge about comparing amps, DBT style and carefully level matched with each channel. I think you might benefit greatly if you took him up on it. If you do, he will use a DBT device that will make it impossible for you to pre-assign a winning score to either amp. I see that a bet was involved, but I think the challenge would best be done without a bet, and should simply involved a desire to see what you can or cannot hear. If I had ther old reciever I would happily take him up on his offer. As it stands, it isn't worth 100 dollars to track it down or get another one like it. My *invitation* to Tom, should he ever happen to be in town stands. I did not ascribe any explination for it just that I heard it. I just did a series of non-blind (but still carefully level matched) comparisons between a good AV receiver's stereo amp section and a $3000+ amp I am reviewing for a magazine report. As best I can tell, they sounded identical with musical source material. Needless to say, I intend to do some additional comparing before doing a completed review report. Interestingly, depending on when I was switching there were times when one unit seemed to sound better than the other. The musical segment and when I switched was the determining factor in each case, however, since I could make whatever amp I wanted to sound best sound that way by switching at just the right time during the musical presentation. (Some hi-fi salesmen have this trick down pat.) I also used pink noise to level match each of the four channels (two with each amp) and when I got through each sounded absolutely identical. This certainly shows that whatever differences there might have been with music, their audible frequency responses were the same. If Randi wants to pay me to a million dollars to prove it or if some one else wants to pay me 10,000 dollars to prove it I will happily repeat my comparisons. There is always a chance that a person would guess correctly. This makes super-duper money bets a chancy thing, This is a chance Randi faces with his challenge regarless of that which is being challenged. My skepticism about Randi extending his challenge to amplification is based on my belief that he doesn't see my claim or similar claims as so outrageous. unless a large number of trials were done. Also, the amps (both of them) would have to be bench checked prior to the comparison, just to make sure that both were working properly. Heck, it might just be that the more upscale amp had problems related to frequency response or even had been designed to sound a bit different from neutral. My amp has been "bench tested" it is working quite well now and was working quite well when I originally did those comparisons. I think that Randi's world view does not involve proving that decent amps are or are not identical sounding. I agree that Randi is not likely interested in amp sound or the contraversy around it. He seems to have carefully picked fringe tweaks as his target. That is fine with me. Heck, I had some one come over years ago with a bunch of Peter Belt tweaks. I tried them in sighted tests and couldn't hear a difference. It does not surprise me that Randi would challenge Belt tweaks at all. I think the million dollars is quite safe. What he is interested in are situations where individuals non-critically mystify real-world phenomenon and assign a cause that involves some kind of underlying noumena that cannot be measured or quantified. Kant did this with God (and spent a lot of time writing about it), and many audio buffs try to do the same thing with subjective impressions of audio-system behavior. Howard Ferstler |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
Buster Mudd wrote:
(Nousaine) wrote in message ... In the SMWTMS experiments experimenters had to compare a 10-watt tube amplifier vs a 400-watt solid state to get a "positive sound difference result." Even in that case the output impedance may have influenced the results disqualifying t hem at 3-point level matching. It's a good point but clipping is often over-stated as a condition, in my opinion. The fact is that some amplifiers go into clipping in the course of their day-to-day operation. It's not desireable, & it's (probably) not intentional on the part of the designers...but to disqualify an amp from the Positive Sound Difference Challenge because it went into clipping is just a self-serving way of keeping your $10,000. Amps clip. Some more than others. I have checked out some amps that clipped at maybe 100 wpc, and let me tell you that with most speakers that was really quite loud, and certainly louder than what I hear at live performances. Any amp with that kind of capability with a normal pair of speakers located in a normal-sized room will probably never clip unless the operator is showing off. I would say that typical maps do not clip to an audible degree when playing normal program sources at normal levels, even fairly loud normal levels. For that matter, the 3-point level matching caveat strikes me as a self-serving criteria for these challenges as well. I've elaborated in previous posts; suffice to say a more equitible way to level match cables, interconnects, or amps in these Can You Really Hear It? challenges would be either A) at a single frequency (nominally 1kHz) or B) as the summed level over the full audio bandwidth. The best way to level match components by ear is to use pink noise, and do each channel individually. (Global level matching with both channels playing will not guarantee the elimination of soundstaging differences if the two amps are not absolutely equal in output with each channel.) I have done this with amps to the extent that when the switchover was done no audible differences could be heard. This tells me that the amps were (1) more than decently well level matched for future musical comparing, and also told me that (2) their frequency responses were probably very close, at least over the frequencies I can hear. Howard Ferstler |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nousaine wrote:
(Buster Mudd) wrote: (Nousaine) wrote in message ... In the SMWTMS experiments experimenters had to compare a 10-watt tube amplifier vs a 400-watt solid state to get a "positive sound difference result." Even in that case the output impedance may have influenced the results disqualifying t hem at 3-point level matching. It's a good point but clipping is often over-stated as a condition, in my opinion. The fact is that some amplifiers go into clipping in the course of their day-to-day operation. It's not desireable, & it's (probably) not intentional on the part of the designers...but to disqualify an amp from the Positive Sound Difference Challenge because it went into clipping is just a self-serving way of keeping your $10,000. Amps clip. Some more than others. Proclaiming that any amp that clips during its quote-unquote normal operation isn't a Competant amp is also self-serving. For that matter, the 3-point level matching caveat strikes me as a self-serving criteria for these challenges as well. I've elaborated in previous posts; suffice to say a more equitible way to level match cables, interconnects, or amps in these Can You Really Hear It? challenges would be either A) at a single frequency (nominally 1kHz) or B) as the summed level over the full audio bandwidth. Anything else is just acknowledging that there may actually be frequency response aberrations that may actually be audible. Well IF there are frequency response variations that exceed the threshold of audibility they will be completely apparent from a wideband frequency response measurement. But the level-match challenge is just a simply way to sort out the obviously incompetent beforehand without having to fully test the device. Besides what's self-serving about finding out if a given amplifier or cable is incapable of delivering the same signal to a loudspeaker terminals that was introduced at the input (other than gain?) And let's keep in mind: behind nearly every amplifier or cable review in TAS or other high end journal (not to mention many non-high-end jnournals) is the assumption that darn near every amp sounds different if you have the right ears and equipment and source material to reveal it. So, either a *great* many amps have audible frequency response variations from each other during normal use... or a great many amp reviews are founded on dubious premises. -- -S Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere. |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Nousaine) wrote in message ...
(Buster Mudd) wrote: (Nousaine) wrote in message ... In the SMWTMS experiments experimenters had to compare a 10-watt tube amplifier vs a 400-watt solid state to get a "positive sound difference result." Even in that case the output impedance may have influenced the results disqualifying t hem at 3-point level matching. It's a good point but clipping is often over-stated as a condition, in my opinion. The fact is that some amplifiers go into clipping in the course of their day-to-day operation. It's not desireable, & it's (probably) not intentional on the part of the designers...but to disqualify an amp from the Positive Sound Difference Challenge because it went into clipping is just a self-serving way of keeping your $10,000. Amps clip. Some more than others. Proclaiming that any amp that clips during its quote-unquote normal operation isn't a Competant amp is also self-serving. For that matter, the 3-point level matching caveat strikes me as a self-serving criteria for these challenges as well. I've elaborated in previous posts; suffice to say a more equitible way to level match cables, interconnects, or amps in these Can You Really Hear It? challenges would be either A) at a single frequency (nominally 1kHz) or B) as the summed level over the full audio bandwidth. Anything else is just acknowledging that there may actually be frequency response aberrations that may actually be audible. Well IF there are frequency response variations that exceed the threshold of audibility they will be completely apparent from a wideband frequency response measurement. But the level-match challenge is just a simply way to sort out the obviously incompetent beforehand without having to fully test the device. Besides what's self-serving about finding out if a given amplifier or cable is incapable of delivering the same signal to a loudspeaker terminals that was introduced at the input (other than gain?) Because it shows that the folks making & funding these Challenges aren't really interested in challenging whether or not someone can hear the difference between two different power amps, or two different sets of cables. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Steely Dan The Absolute Sound | High End Audio | |||
| In search of the perfect Home Audio Appliance (or something like it) | Tech | |||
| Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio | |||
| AC Power Conditioner (Cont.) | High End Audio | |||
| System balance for LP? | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
