[Sonnova]

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:34:53 -0700, c. leeds wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

There was not enough difference between the
sound of those two amps to justify a price difference of 4X, much less
80X
under the conditions that we were listening...

I answered:

Fair enough, that's your opinion. Other listeners may have a different
set of values and may disagree, of course.

Sonnova now says:

Disagree with what?

Your stated opinion.

SIX listeners - some with invested interests declared
that the difference between the amps listened to that day were so small as
to
be essentially insignificant.

So what? Another six listeners may have a different set of values and
may make a different conclusion. It's a matter of preference. Do you
understand that's a personal, subjective choice, and not an objective
conclusion subject to your pronouncement as some universal truth?

Actually it is an objective conclusion based on a well researched scientific
methodology. Many scientific principles are tested in this manner.

The point is that this test showed that under most listening
situations, the difference in sound quality between most modern, solid
state
power amps is insignificant....

Again, sez you. But if there was a detectable difference - and
apparently there was - the declaration of whether the difference is
"significant" is subjective.

When a consensus about there being any difference at all could not be reached
over a good percentage of "tries" I'd say that any differences heard were
insignificant EXCEPT in direct A/B comparison. 10 minutes after the test, the
panel couldn't even remember what the differences were or pick them out on
long term listening. That's the definition of insignificant. It is pretty
well agreed that the differences heard were caused by small anomalies in
frequency response and may be speaker load dependent. Again, not a
significant reason to choose one amp over the other.

I'm just saying that those types of differences wane after "the
new" wears off, and the amp just becomes part of what your system sound
like.

That's your experience, perhaps. It most surely is not mine. Yet you
seem convinced that your personal experiences are somehow universal.


Without direct comparison, you wouldn't notice that someone else's
amplifier(s) sound different from yours when you go over to their place and
listen to their system.

And you know this how?

It's very elementary. Someone else's system sound is mostly influenced by
speakers and room. There would be no way for you to tell WHAT effects you
were hearing. Speaker sound. Amplifier sound, room sound. How could you?

I say that the lion's share of money spent on speakers and room
treatments is a much better way to go than spending it on electronics. IOW,
a
$200 power amp connected to a $4000 pair of speakers makes more AUDIBLE
sense
than going the other way around.

You're changing the subject and just being silly. This is not an
"either-or" issue. Some audiophiles spend a lot on speakers (often,
much, much more than $4,000), and they also spend big bucks on electronics.

And that's fine. Amplifier sound is a tertiary effect at best. That's only
common sense.

The results said that almost anyone COULD replace their reference amp
with a cheap Behringer amp in their system, no matter how much that system
cost, and probably not notice much if any difference. That's not an
opinion,
it's THE logical conclusion of a carefully set-up and executed scientific
double blind ABX test.

Please don't cite "science" to support your claim of what is a valid
preference. Again, that's silly.

The fact is there really is no preference. Amplifier sound in modern
solid-state amplifiers is a tertiary effect. I have no problem with someone
wanting to believe that its a first-order effect and spending accordingly.
I'm just reporting that ABX tests say otherwise.

And you should know something about your scientific double blind ABX
test: it wasn't designed to establish preference, but to reveal
differences. Do you understand the distinction?

Of course I do. I even mentioned that in my original post.

But the point of the exercise is that there isn't much difference and in many
"tries" statistically, NO difference was detected. That says a lot.

[c. leeds]

Sonnova wrote:

There was not enough difference between the sound of those two amps to justify...

now he says:

When a consensus about there being any difference at all could not be reached
over a good percentage of "tries"

Given your inconsistent observations, there's no way to know anything
about this test without knowing how it was conducted and what the exact
results were. There was either a difference, or not. You've stated both
to suit your argument.

Note that there need not be consensus as to whether there was a
difference. Only one listener need reliably detect a difference to
establish a difference.

Also, you refer to a "consensus." But if the test subjects were allowed
to discuss the test as it was conducted, you've tainted your result.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:08:55 -0700, c. leeds wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

There was not enough difference between the sound of those two amps to
justify...

now he says:

When a consensus about there being any difference at all could not be
reached
over a good percentage of "tries"

Given your inconsistent observations,

The only thing inconsistent here is your selective out-of-context quoting.
There is nothing at all inconsistent about my observations. A real,
significant difference between the sound of any two amps under test would
manifest itself as a clear ability of all six listeners to note that at a
difference existed. The results of the tests would be definitive and
consistent from listener to listener and from source to source. Since only
some listeners could hear a difference some of the time and the only time
that everyone was able to hear a difference consistently, they were cuing off
of tape hiss and not music. I'd say that makes the observed differences
rather subtle and therefore, in the real world, insignificant. Many audio
experts and engineers maintain that all things being equal, any two modern
Solid State amps of similar power should sound the same and if any difference
are heard, they are likely the result in level differences and or frequency
response anomalies, the latter often the result of interaction between the
amp and the speaker load its driving.

there's no way to know anything
about this test without knowing how it was conducted and what the exact
results were. There was either a difference, or not. You've stated both
to suit your argument.

No I haven't. I have been scrupulously consistent. On some program material
differences were heard with a fairly high degree of probability, I.E, the
written results tallied with the master sheet made by the person doing the
switching more than 70% of the time. On other recordings, the results were a
low correlation, 55% or less. On these tries, it was apparent that a clear
correlation between the number of times that the amps were switched and the
ability of the listening panel to pick-up on the fact was essentially blind
chance. That obviously means that the changes, when detected were subtle
enough that one amp could be distinguished from the other only sometimes and
then only by some of the listeners which is exactly what I said above.

Note that there need not be consensus as to whether there was a
difference. Only one listener need reliably detect a difference to
establish a difference.

I agree. But that's the point, isn't it? If everyone detected a change in
amplifier every time the amps were switched (or not). Then there would be a
clear case for deducing that the amps under test were significantly different
from one another. Since the ability to detect a change in amplifiers was
difficult enough to have often wildly different results which sometimes
correlated as a consensus and sometimes as blind chance, shows that the
differences between amps were not that significant that everyone could notice
them all the time.

Also, you refer to a "consensus." But if the test subjects were allowed
to discuss the test as it was conducted, you've tainted your result.

The consensus was arrived at by comparing the tally sheets that each listener
filled out for each different CD played. The sheet consisted of a three
column table made in Word and marked at ten 30 second intervals. Next to each
time marker were two columns marked "change" and "no change". While listenig
to each program source for five minutes, the person (in another room) doing
the switching (by pressing a button)would mark each sheet as to whether she
hit the switch (change) or not (no change) which was her choice while the
listeners would mark the same kind of sheet with whether or not he detected a
change in amplifier at each 30 second interval. No discussion of the tests
was allowed DURING the testing.

I was strongly in the camp that all amps sounded very different before I was
party to this test. Now I'm more in the Julian Hirsch camp " Like all modern
amplifiers this amp contributes no sound of its own.." an stand that I
firmly believed was wrong in those days. Maybe in the 1960's and 1970's amps
did vary more than they do now, after all, there were more variables in
circuit design then there are now (for instance, output transformer design in
tube amps varried quite a bit, some early solid-state amps (like McIntosh)
used interstage transformers on their solid-state amps, often amps used
marginal transistors (to get the current necessary) and many amps were
unstable [Acoustech]). Today its looks like much design philosophy has
converged. I sure didn't expect the results we got. It was certainly an
epiphany of sorts. I was hoping to come back here with a result that upheld
my prejudice so that I could tell Arny Kruger and Steven Sullivan that they
are wrong. Well, they are right and I was wrong it looks like. Now I'm
thinking "How much other audiophile mythology is just as wrong?" Cables
differences have been shown to be imaginary, and now amplifier differences
have been reduced to tertiary effects. What next? Is SACD vs Red Book CD a
myth as well? Do all CD players sound the same regardless of price? I wonder,
now.

[c. leeds]

Sonnova wrote:

There was not enough difference between the sound of those two amps to
justify...

he also wrote:

When a consensus about there being any difference at all could not be
reached
over a good percentage of "tries"

when questioned about the contradictory remarks, he says:

The only thing inconsistent here is your selective out-of-context
quoting.
There is nothing at all inconsistent about my observations.

Sorry, there was either a difference, or there was not.

A real,
significant difference between the sound of any two amps under test
would
manifest itself as a clear ability of all six listeners to note that
at a
difference existed.

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. There is no need
for universal agreement among test subjects to establish a difference.

The results of the tests would be definitive and
consistent from listener to listener and from source to source.

No, this is not inherently true at all. You clearly do not understand
test methodology.

This is why I told him:
there's no way to know anything
about this test without knowing how it was conducted and what the exact
results were.

he now says:
I have been scrupulously consistent.

You really don't understand what you're doing, which is no great
offense. Your problem are your pronouncements of "fact" based on a
flawed methodology of a test you've shown you don't understand.

Performing a valid blind test - ABX or otherwise - is not as simple as
it may appear at first glance.

[Norman M. Schwartz]

From the tiny little (I think) I know, many of the critical components of an
amp have +/- tolerances. No two pieces are identical, additionally if and
when an amp has been repaired, two amps would never be the _same_, so if
they have tiny sound differences, reliably identified or not, so what?

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:08:55 -0700, c. leeds wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

There was not enough difference between the sound of those two amps to
justify...

now he says:

When a consensus about there being any difference at all could not be
reached
over a good percentage of "tries"

Given your inconsistent observations,

The only thing inconsistent here is your selective out-of-context quoting.
There is nothing at all inconsistent about my observations. A real,
significant difference between the sound of any two amps under test would
manifest itself as a clear ability of all six listeners to note that at a
difference existed. The results of the tests would be definitive and
consistent from listener to listener and from source to source. Since only
some listeners could hear a difference some of the time and the only time
that everyone was able to hear a difference consistently, they were cuing
off
of tape hiss and not music. I'd say that makes the observed differences
rather subtle and therefore, in the real world, insignificant. Many audio
experts and engineers maintain that all things being equal, any two modern
Solid State amps of similar power should sound the same and if any
difference
are heard, they are likely the result in level differences and or
frequency
response anomalies, the latter often the result of interaction between the
amp and the speaker load its driving.

there's no way to know anything
about this test without knowing how it was conducted and what the exact
results were. There was either a difference, or not. You've stated both
to suit your argument.

No I haven't. I have been scrupulously consistent. On some program
material
differences were heard with a fairly high degree of probability, I.E, the
written results tallied with the master sheet made by the person doing the
switching more than 70% of the time. On other recordings, the results were
a
low correlation, 55% or less. On these tries, it was apparent that a clear
correlation between the number of times that the amps were switched and
the
ability of the listening panel to pick-up on the fact was essentially
blind
chance. That obviously means that the changes, when detected were subtle
enough that one amp could be distinguished from the other only sometimes
and
then only by some of the listeners which is exactly what I said above.

Note that there need not be consensus as to whether there was a
difference. Only one listener need reliably detect a difference to
establish a difference.

I agree. But that's the point, isn't it? If everyone detected a change in
amplifier every time the amps were switched (or not). Then there would be
a
clear case for deducing that the amps under test were significantly
different
from one another. Since the ability to detect a change in amplifiers was
difficult enough to have often wildly different results which sometimes
correlated as a consensus and sometimes as blind chance, shows that the
differences between amps were not that significant that everyone could
notice
them all the time.

Also, you refer to a "consensus." But if the test subjects were allowed
to discuss the test as it was conducted, you've tainted your result.

The consensus was arrived at by comparing the tally sheets that each
listener
filled out for each different CD played. The sheet consisted of a three
column table made in Word and marked at ten 30 second intervals. Next to
each
time marker were two columns marked "change" and "no change". While
listenig
to each program source for five minutes, the person (in another room)
doing
the switching (by pressing a button)would mark each sheet as to whether
she
hit the switch (change) or not (no change) which was her choice while the
listeners would mark the same kind of sheet with whether or not he
detected a
change in amplifier at each 30 second interval. No discussion of the tests
was allowed DURING the testing.

I was strongly in the camp that all amps sounded very different before I
was
party to this test. Now I'm more in the Julian Hirsch camp " Like all
modern
amplifiers this amp contributes no sound of its own.." an stand that I
firmly believed was wrong in those days. Maybe in the 1960's and 1970's
amps
did vary more than they do now, after all, there were more variables in
circuit design then there are now (for instance, output transformer design
in
tube amps varried quite a bit, some early solid-state amps (like McIntosh)
used interstage transformers on their solid-state amps, often amps used
marginal transistors (to get the current necessary) and many amps were
unstable [Acoustech]). Today its looks like much design philosophy has
converged. I sure didn't expect the results we got. It was certainly an
epiphany of sorts. I was hoping to come back here with a result that
upheld
my prejudice so that I could tell Arny Kruger and Steven Sullivan that
they
are wrong. Well, they are right and I was wrong it looks like. Now I'm
thinking "How much other audiophile mythology is just as wrong?" Cables
differences have been shown to be imaginary, and now amplifier differences
have been reduced to tertiary effects. What next? Is SACD vs Red Book CD a
myth as well? Do all CD players sound the same regardless of price? I
wonder,
now.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:43:05 -0700, c. leeds wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

There was not enough difference between the sound of those two amps to
justify...

he also wrote:

When a consensus about there being any difference at all could not be
reached
over a good percentage of "tries"

when questioned about the contradictory remarks, he says:

The only thing inconsistent here is your selective out-of-context
quoting.
There is nothing at all inconsistent about my observations.

Sorry, there was either a difference, or there was not.

A real,
significant difference between the sound of any two amps under test
would
manifest itself as a clear ability of all six listeners to note that
at a
difference existed.

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. There is no need
for universal agreement among test subjects to establish a difference.

The results of the tests would be definitive and
consistent from listener to listener and from source to source.

No, this is not inherently true at all. You clearly do not understand
test methodology.

This is why I told him:
there's no way to know anything
about this test without knowing how it was conducted and what the exact
results were.

he now says:
I have been scrupulously consistent.

You really don't understand what you're doing, which is no great
offense. Your problem are your pronouncements of "fact" based on a
flawed methodology of a test you've shown you don't understand.

Performing a valid blind test - ABX or otherwise - is not as simple as
it may appear at first glance.

Fine. I disagree. I think that a double-blind test that shows that
differences in amps are so small as to be not readily noted in an ABX
comparison means that the differences between these amps are MINISCULE.
Disagree if you like, but to me and the other 5 listeners involved, the
results were clear.

[Norman M. Schwartz]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:43:05 -0700, c. leeds wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

There was not enough difference between the sound of those two amps
to
justify...

he also wrote:

When a consensus about there being any difference at all could not
be
reached
over a good percentage of "tries"

when questioned about the contradictory remarks, he says:

The only thing inconsistent here is your selective out-of-context
quoting.
There is nothing at all inconsistent about my observations.

Sorry, there was either a difference, or there was not.

A real,
significant difference between the sound of any two amps under test
would
manifest itself as a clear ability of all six listeners to note that
at a
difference existed.

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. There is no need
for universal agreement among test subjects to establish a difference.

The results of the tests would be definitive and
consistent from listener to listener and from source to source.

No, this is not inherently true at all. You clearly do not understand
test methodology.

This is why I told him:
there's no way to know anything
about this test without knowing how it was conducted and what the
exact
results were.

he now says:
I have been scrupulously consistent.

You really don't understand what you're doing, which is no great
offense. Your problem are your pronouncements of "fact" based on a
flawed methodology of a test you've shown you don't understand.

Performing a valid blind test - ABX or otherwise - is not as simple as
it may appear at first glance.

Fine. I disagree. I think that a double-blind test that shows that
differences in amps are so small as to be not readily noted in an ABX
comparison means that the differences between these amps are MINISCULE.
Disagree if you like, but to me and the other 5 listeners involved, the
results were clear.

I'm the original owner of a vintage amp (used in a secondary system) which I
sent for repair to a gentleman who specializes in this area. He called in
the actual designer of the component, and they labored together in an effort
to get both of its 2 channels to sound the same. I took several months and
they claimed they did the best that they could.

Before any wild speculation is made about the sound characteristics of two
different amplifiers, I'd very much like to see the results of a study
comparing the sound of the two channels of just ONE single stereo amplifier.
In any bet my money is on the result showing that they do NOT sound the
same, (and that this entire endeavor represents foolishness).

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:43:05 -0700, c. leeds wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

There was not enough difference between the sound
of those two amps to justify...

he also wrote:

When a consensus about there being any difference
at all could not be reached
over a good percentage of "tries"

when questioned about the contradictory remarks, he says:

The only thing inconsistent here is your selective
out-of-context quoting.
There is nothing at all inconsistent about my
observations.

Sorry, there was either a difference, or there was not.

A real,
significant difference between the sound of any two
amps under test would
manifest itself as a clear ability of all six
listeners to note that
at a
difference existed.

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.
There is no need
for universal agreement among test subjects to establish
a difference.

The results of the tests would be definitive and
consistent from listener to listener and from source
to source.

No, this is not inherently true at all. You clearly do
not understand
test methodology.

This is why I told him:
there's no way to know anything
about this test without knowing how it was conducted
and what the exact results were.

he now says:
I have been scrupulously consistent.

You really don't understand what you're doing, which is
no great
offense. Your problem are your pronouncements of "fact"
based on a
flawed methodology of a test you've shown you don't
understand.

Performing a valid blind test - ABX or otherwise - is
not as simple as
it may appear at first glance.

Fine. I disagree. I think that a double-blind test that
shows that differences in amps are so small as to be not
readily noted in an ABX comparison means that the
differences between these amps are MINISCULE. Disagree if
you like, but to me and the other 5 listeners involved,
the results were clear.

This agress with the responses of the listeners that helped me develop the
PCABX amplifier tests. In the end we were able to hear some differences, but
they were so small that they were no more signficant than say the
differences due to moving one's head an inch or two.

I know from field tests that there are differences in response of several dB
in the sensitive middle frequency range between nearby locations in a
theatre, symphony hall, or other performance space. If you include
locations on the stage, there may be differences of 10 dB or more. This
means that there is not just one absolute sound, even when electronics are
excluded from live performances.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 10:42:09 -0700, Norman M. Schwartz wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:43:05 -0700, c. leeds wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

There was not enough difference between the sound of those two amps
to
justify...

he also wrote:

When a consensus about there being any difference at all could not
be
reached
over a good percentage of "tries"

when questioned about the contradictory remarks, he says:

The only thing inconsistent here is your selective out-of-context
quoting.
There is nothing at all inconsistent about my observations.

Sorry, there was either a difference, or there was not.

A real,
significant difference between the sound of any two amps under test
would
manifest itself as a clear ability of all six listeners to note that
at a
difference existed.

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. There is no need
for universal agreement among test subjects to establish a difference.

The results of the tests would be definitive and
consistent from listener to listener and from source to source.

No, this is not inherently true at all. You clearly do not understand
test methodology.

This is why I told him:
there's no way to know anything
about this test without knowing how it was conducted and what the
exact
results were.

he now says:
I have been scrupulously consistent.

You really don't understand what you're doing, which is no great
offense. Your problem are your pronouncements of "fact" based on a
flawed methodology of a test you've shown you don't understand.

Performing a valid blind test - ABX or otherwise - is not as simple as
it may appear at first glance.

Fine. I disagree. I think that a double-blind test that shows that
differences in amps are so small as to be not readily noted in an ABX
comparison means that the differences between these amps are MINISCULE.
Disagree if you like, but to me and the other 5 listeners involved, the
results were clear.

I'm the original owner of a vintage amp (used in a secondary system) which I
sent for repair to a gentleman who specializes in this area. He called in
the actual designer of the component, and they labored together in an effort
to get both of its 2 channels to sound the same. I took several months and
they claimed they did the best that they could.

Before any wild speculation is made about the sound characteristics of two
different amplifiers, I'd very much like to see the results of a study
comparing the sound of the two channels of just ONE single stereo amplifier.
In any bet my money is on the result showing that they do NOT sound the
same, (and that this entire endeavor represents foolishness).


That's not the point. We found the amplifiers to sound different, but not
significantly so. IOW, we didn't find any of the amps ABX'ed that day to
sound different enough that any of us could decide which we would like to
take home with us based on the sound. I could put on my engineering hat and
say that I prefer the Mark Levinson amps because they had a huge power
supplies, were monoblocks, and would likely recover from large transients and
be better at low bass. Or I could put on my greedy hat and say that I would
love to have the Mark Levinsons because they cost $24000, or I could put on
my Interior decorator hat and say that I prefer the Audio Research amp
because it matches my Audio Research preamp. But none of those reasons had
anything whatsoever to do with the sound either of these amplifier (or the
$200 Behringer) made through those Magneplanar speakers, that Sunday. Based
on the listening tests, all the amps sounded much more alike than different
and usually it was only certain very subtle cues that told any of us that the
amps had switched.

Sure, it's possible for two amps or even two channels of the same amp to have
sonic differences, but do these differences make any real difference in the
listening? I'd say, based upon that Sunday's listening, that the answer is
no.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 10:43:17 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:43:05 -0700, c. leeds wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

There was not enough difference between the sound
of those two amps to justify...

he also wrote:

When a consensus about there being any difference
at all could not be reached
over a good percentage of "tries"

when questioned about the contradictory remarks, he says:

The only thing inconsistent here is your selective
out-of-context quoting.
There is nothing at all inconsistent about my
observations.

Sorry, there was either a difference, or there was not.

A real,
significant difference between the sound of any two
amps under test would
manifest itself as a clear ability of all six
listeners to note that
at a
difference existed.

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about.
There is no need
for universal agreement among test subjects to establish
a difference.

The results of the tests would be definitive and
consistent from listener to listener and from source
to source.

No, this is not inherently true at all. You clearly do
not understand
test methodology.

This is why I told him:
there's no way to know anything
about this test without knowing how it was conducted
and what the exact results were.

he now says:
I have been scrupulously consistent.

You really don't understand what you're doing, which is
no great
offense. Your problem are your pronouncements of "fact"
based on a
flawed methodology of a test you've shown you don't
understand.

Performing a valid blind test - ABX or otherwise - is
not as simple as
it may appear at first glance.

Fine. I disagree. I think that a double-blind test that
shows that differences in amps are so small as to be not
readily noted in an ABX comparison means that the
differences between these amps are MINISCULE. Disagree if
you like, but to me and the other 5 listeners involved,
the results were clear.

This agress with the responses of the listeners that helped me develop the
PCABX amplifier tests. In the end we were able to hear some differences, but
they were so small that they were no more signficant than say the
differences due to moving one's head an inch or two.

Those are essentially my findings as well. There are differences but they are
so small as to be insignificant.

I know from field tests that there are differences in response of several dB
in the sensitive middle frequency range between nearby locations in a
theatre, symphony hall, or other performance space. If you include
locations on the stage, there may be differences of 10 dB or more. This
means that there is not just one absolute sound, even when electronics are
excluded from live performances.

I'll buy that, 100%.

[Guido Neitzer]

c. leeds wrote:

So what? Another six listeners may have a different set of values and
may make a different conclusion. It's a matter of preference. Do you
understand that's a personal, subjective choice, and not an objective
conclusion subject to your pronouncement as some universal truth?

Exactly that is not the case. It is often found (in excessive
experiments) that nearly nobody is able to distinguish one amp from
another as soon as the test is done in a double blind testing. And as
soon as the amps are equaled in frequency response and volume nobody was
ever able to win the "Richard Clark amplifier challenge" [1].

And you should know something about your scientific double blind ABX
test: it wasn't designed to establish preference, but to reveal
differences. Do you understand the distinction?

If there is no difference, there can't be a preference. You understand
the problem at all?

cug

[1] http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm

--
http://www.event-s.net

[Dave]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
Now I'm
thinking "How much other audiophile mythology is just as wrong?" Cables
differences have been shown to be imaginary, and now amplifier differences
have been reduced to tertiary effects. What next? Is SACD vs Red Book CD a
myth as well? Do all CD players sound the same regardless of price? I
wonder,
now.

I can tell the difference between my tube amps and solid state ones. And
the old JVC
85WPC-with-the-5-band-graphic-equalizer-and-built-in-tuner-with-50-yes-50-presets
my wife owned when we met, I could pick that old piece of crap out of a
crowd. But... I'll wager if I overhauled it, replaced the old
electrolytics, coupling caps, out-of-spec resistors it'd probably sound okay
with the right pair of loudspeakers.

From what I've read, CD vs. SACD double-blind trials have been done, the
results posted in this very forum under the heading "the emporer's new
sample rate". Guess what? 44KHz 16-bit sounds exactly like 192KHz 24-bit
in double-blind ABX tests. I will say on a personal level that all CD
players definitely do not sound the same but I'd qualify that the same way
you did amplifiers. YES, there are some bottom of the barrel cheap-ass junk
CD players which suffer from poor parts quality, poor design and layout, and
shoddy construction. But I doubt you'd be surprised if you found that no CD
player costing more than $150 could be repeatedly identified in a
double-blind test. Maybe even $100.

"c. leeds" wrote in message
...

Again, that's your opinion. Personally, I prefer electronics of better
build quality than Behringer. Much, much better.

Again culled from the annals of RAHE, another post entitled "the power of
expectation" has a link to an article about a scientific study about
expectation. In the study a group of test subjects were served the same
wine. Some were told that it was expensive, some were told that it was
cheap. The ones drinking the "expensive" wine actually had a measurable
amount of increased activity in the portion of the brain associated with
pleasure vs. the ones drinking the "cheap" wine. The conclusion?
Expectation of value or pleasure is (can be) a self-fulfilling prophesy if
you will. So, listening to a $24,000 pair of ML amps CAN, in its' own right
with no regard to sound quality, be pleasurable to the select few who can
afford them simply BECAUSE they cost so much. Maybe that's what gives rise
to ol'
Mr. C. Leeds preference. Or, maybe he enjoys protracted
sessions of listening to tape hiss. Hmmmm.... maybe it's NOT all about
sound...

I must say I feel smug whenever I someone that's dropped a few hundred bucks
on cables; glad that my few hundred went for some expensive wine instead ;-)

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:30:08 -0700, Dave wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
Now I'm
thinking "How much other audiophile mythology is just as wrong?" Cables
differences have been shown to be imaginary, and now amplifier differences
have been reduced to tertiary effects. What next? Is SACD vs Red Book CD a
myth as well? Do all CD players sound the same regardless of price? I
wonder,
now.

I can tell the difference between my tube amps and solid state ones.

I don't doubt that. But the differences between similarly powered SS amps are
damn difficult to detect with any certainty. Most tube amps do sound
different from similar powered SS amps because tubes impart a euphonic
"warmness" to the sound that SS amps do not. Some people (actually, a lot of
people if one goes by the number of brands of tube amps and preamps being
sold today) really like that warmness and it's easy to hear.

And
the old JVC

85WPC-with-the-5-band-graphic-equalizer-and-built-in-tuner-with-50-yes-50-
pres
ets
my wife owned when we met, I could pick that old piece of crap out of a
crowd. But... I'll wager if I overhauled it, replaced the old
electrolytics, coupling caps, out-of-spec resistors it'd probably sound okay
with the right pair of loudspeakers.

Maybe. Maybe not. Early transistor gear was not designed all that well,
because the differences between solid-state and tube circuit designs
necessary for good performance were not well understood. So, it's not just a
question of power supply and stage coupling components, its the transistors
used and how the amps' output stages were biased. A case in point would be
the Dynaco Stereo 120. Early versions used marginal transistors that Dyna had
to hand select, such as the 40233, 2N3053, and 2N3055 all of which were
replaced after about 1969 with more modern, and robust types and the amp's
bias was increased to run the amp more into class AB rather than the class B
that the earlier amps had to run because of the marginal transistors. Early
Stereo 120's had a nasty crossover notch where the two halves of the
push-pull output crossed zero volts. It made the early ones sound awful.
Macintosh actually used inter-stage transformers to couple audio from stage
of their early solid-state amplifiers to another, with predictably poor
results.

[c. leeds]

I wrote:

Personally, I prefer electronics of better
build quality than Behringer. Much, much better.

Dave says:

...a scientific study about
expectation. In the study a group of test subjects were served the same
wine. Some were told that it was expensive, some were told that it was
cheap. The ones drinking the "expensive" wine actually had a measurable
amount of increased activity in the portion of the brain associated with
pleasure vs. the ones drinking the "cheap" wine. The conclusion?
Expectation of value or pleasure is (can be) a self-fulfilling prophesy if
you will.

This isn't a valid analogy. It's trivially easy to distinguish the build
quality betwen Behringer products and, by way of example, Audio
Research. I much prefer the quality of ARC products.

So, listening to a $24,000 pair of ML amps CAN, in its' own right
with no regard to sound quality, be pleasurable to the select few who can
afford them simply BECAUSE they cost so much. Maybe that's what gives rise
to ol'
Mr. C. Leeds preference.

No, I simply prefer better build quality.

Or, maybe he enjoys protracted
sessions of listening to tape hiss.

What does this have to do with build quality?

[Peter Elem]

Some manufactorers admit that they Color or "voice" their amplifiers.
Audio Research does and of course there are the Carver solid state amps
that were supposedly voiced like tube amplifiers.

Another thing. I cannot usually tell the difference between two good
amps in an AB test.....But on first listening to an acceptional amp my
subconscious tells me it's good after the first few seconds. Maybe
that's what a "golden ear" is about.......

RobertLang wrote:
Can a manufacturer “color” the sound of their amps purposefully so that
they *do* sound differently from other amps? If you read the product
information you almost get the impression that’s what some may do? Also, is
there any reasons why an Class D amp might sound differently from a A/B or
why those two classes may sound differently than a Class A?

Let me make it clear that over the years I have been unable to discern
through subjective listening that audible differences exist among
amplifiers as long the amplifiers are operating within their design limits.
To best insure that the amplifiers I use do not exceed their limits I tend
to use large “beefy” amps with considerably more power than I would
probably ever us.

I do have criteria, however, when purchasing an amplifier as subjective
and perhaps shallow as they may be. Among the criteria are looks (although
my amps are now hidden from view), size, rated continuous power of 300
watts + into 8 ohms with low rated distortion across the a wide frequency
response and power bandwidth, a doubling of power or near doubling into 4
ohms, substantial increase of rated power into 2 ohms, input sensitivity of
1.5 V or less (for full output) because I employ a passive line stage, and
an input impedance friendly for passives. Usually they tend to be of mono
design (although that is not a criterion) even if contained in a single
chassis.

I have found that if an amp meets those criteria in my system I really
can’t tell the difference whether it is in bass response, high frequency
response, depth, width, height of sound stage, etc.

Robert C. Lang

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 8 May 2008 17:06:48 -0700, Peter Elem wrote
(in article ):

Some manufactorers admit that they Color or "voice" their amplifiers.
Audio Research does and of course there are the Carver solid state amps
that were supposedly voiced like tube amplifiers.

Actually Bob Carver's claim was that he could "null" one of his amps to sound
like any amplifier he chose. I was party to a demonstration where he made one
of his Carver amps sound like a conrad johnson tube amp. Whether or not he
actually did this in production, I don't know. But the question that I have
is why? Unless each amp was nulled on a bespoke basis, what good is that
ability? I would think that such an ability would be best served in making
his amps as neutral as possible.

Another thing. I cannot usually tell the difference between two good
amps in an AB test.....But on first listening to an acceptional amp my
subconscious tells me it's good after the first few seconds. Maybe
that's what a "golden ear" is about.......

That echoes my experience as well.

RobertLang wrote:
Can a manufacturer “color” the sound of their amps purposefully so that
they *do* sound differently from other amps? If you read the product
information you almost get the impression that’s what some may do? Also, is
there any reasons why an Class D amp might sound differently from a A/B or
why those two classes may sound differently than a Class A?

Let me make it clear that over the years I have been unable to discern
through subjective listening that audible differences exist among
amplifiers as long the amplifiers are operating within their design limits.
To best insure that the amplifiers I use do not exceed their limits I tend
to use large “beefy” amps with considerably more power than I would
probably ever us.

I do have criteria, however, when purchasing an amplifier as subjective
and perhaps shallow as they may be. Among the criteria are looks (although
my amps are now hidden from view), size, rated continuous power of 300
watts + into 8 ohms with low rated distortion across the a wide frequency
response and power bandwidth, a doubling of power or near doubling into 4
ohms, substantial increase of rated power into 2 ohms, input sensitivity of
1.5 V or less (for full output) because I employ a passive line stage, and
an input impedance friendly for passives. Usually they tend to be of mono
design (although that is not a criterion) even if contained in a single
chassis.

I have found that if an amp meets those criteria in my system I really
can’t tell the difference whether it is in bass response, high frequency
response, depth, width, height of sound stage, etc.

Robert C. Lang

[msexcel2003.com]

Sonnova wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 17:06:48 -0700, Peter Elem wrote
(in article ):
Another thing. I cannot usually tell the difference between two good
amps in an AB test.....But on first listening to an exceptional amp my
subconscious tells me it's good after the first few seconds. Maybe
that's what a "golden ear" is about.......
Sometimes you don't need much of a golden ear. I went to a high end
store and did some A/B comparisons of some mid-range A/V receivers
(Yamaha, Dennon, Pioneer all priced around the $3,000 mark). I could
easily tell the Pioneer out from the other amps as it was quite scratchy.

You can definitely tell the difference between two amps of different
class (price, build quality, etc). Not so much for the sound (warmth,
voice tonality, etc) but for the reproduction ability. A strong amp can
give more defined bass, high frequencies are crystal clear, etc. My A/B
2-channel (stereo) example is going from a Yamaha AV2090 (rated ~120W/ch
RMS) to a Krell KSA-200S (rated 200W RMS in Class-A). (I don't have the
distortion figures with me.) The difference was noticeable to me.

That echoes my experience as well.
RobertLang wrote:
I do have criteria, however, when purchasing an amplifier as subjective
and perhaps shallow as they may be. Among the criteria are looks (although
my amps are now hidden from view), size, rated continuous power of 300
watts + into 8 ohms with low rated distortion across the a wide frequency
response and power bandwidth, a doubling of power or near doubling into 4
ohms, substantial increase of rated power into 2 ohms, input sensitivity of
1.5 V or less (for full output) because I employ a passive line stage, and
an input impedance friendly for passives. Usually they tend to be of mono
design (although that is not a criterion) even if contained in a single
chassis.
Yeah, I admit that I have my own personal preference for amps as well.
In my rough but not perfect order of preference...
(1) Power/Distortion figures (as a guide)
(2) Physical presence (it should look intimidating)
(3) Physical weight (a cheeky one... useful for Class A amps,
totally useless when looking at a Class D amp)
(4) Practicality (can I get the cables connected, XLR connectors, etc)

I wouldn't mind hearing other peoples way of choosing an amp.

On a side note, I would love to hear a nice horn speaker setup on a tube
amp. I imagine it would be an experience worth finding out.

Phil

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Elem" wrote in message

Some manufactorers admit that they Color or "voice" their
amplifiers. Audio Research does and of course there are
the Carver solid state amps that were supposedly voiced
like tube amplifiers.

The fallacy here is the idea that there is some combination of audio
colorations that are characteristic of tubed (or SS) power amplifiers.

There are some very high quality tubed amplifiers that are sonically
transparent - they will pass an audio signal into a loudspeaker load without
any audible changes.

Most tubed audio equipment will fail straight-wire bypass tests,
particularly with tough loudspeaker loads. The root cause is their typically
high output impedance, especially at low frequencies.

Some tubed amplifiers have design features that seem to be designed to
product an amplifier that is not sonically transparent, such as single-end
output stages and absence of or severe reduction of inverse feedback.

The bottom line is that many of the audible alterations caused by tubed
amplifiers have varied and complex sources, and may be strongly dependent on
the particular speaker being driven.

While duplicating the sound of a certain tubed amplifier may be possible, it
would only be a certain tubed amplifier that would be duplicated, and not
all or even most tubed amplfiiers that would be duplicated.

In the professional audio world there are devices that have user-selectable
features that are designed to duplicate the sonic properties of certain
amplifier/loudspeaker combinations that are sold as a single unit. This is
at least a credible claim, as compared to the claim that a certain SS amp is
voiced to sound like tubed amplifiers.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:04:49 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Peter Elem" wrote in message

Some manufactorers admit that they Color or "voice" their
amplifiers. Audio Research does and of course there are
the Carver solid state amps that were supposedly voiced
like tube amplifiers.

The fallacy here is the idea that there is some combination of audio
colorations that are characteristic of tubed (or SS) power amplifiers.

There are some very high quality tubed amplifiers that are sonically
transparent - they will pass an audio signal into a loudspeaker load without
any audible changes.

Most tubed audio equipment will fail straight-wire bypass tests,
particularly with tough loudspeaker loads. The root cause is their typically
high output impedance, especially at low frequencies.

Some tubed amplifiers have design features that seem to be designed to
product an amplifier that is not sonically transparent, such as single-end
output stages and absence of or severe reduction of inverse feedback.

The bottom line is that many of the audible alterations caused by tubed
amplifiers have varied and complex sources, and may be strongly dependent on
the particular speaker being driven.

While duplicating the sound of a certain tubed amplifier may be possible, it
would only be a certain tubed amplifier that would be duplicated, and not
all or even most tubed amplfiiers that would be duplicated.

In the professional audio world there are devices that have user-selectable
features that are designed to duplicate the sonic properties of certain
amplifier/loudspeaker combinations that are sold as a single unit. This is
at least a credible claim, as compared to the claim that a certain SS amp is
voiced to sound like tubed amplifiers.


Carver used test equipment in his demonstrations to make his amp sound like a
specific tube amp, not tube amps in general. In the demo I was party to, he
made his amp sound like a big conrad johnson amp (I don't remember the model
number). He said that he could do that for any amp, but I only know about the
one I heard. I think John Atkinson was at a similar Carver demonstration,
maybe he can shed some light upon what Carver actually adjusted, and how is
"nulling" procedure worked. I don't really remember the details (we're
talking 20 years ago, here).