Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 15:48:44 -0800, Serge Auckland wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:38:31 -0800, Serge Auckland wrote
(in article ):

"c. leeds" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such auditions are prone to
sighted bias effect.

It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because a dubious
result
is possible.

I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment.
It stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in
sound
quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the
nonsense promulgated by audiophile culture.

You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're
talking
about. It's certainly nonsensical to buy audio equipment without
listening. But, some people buy a new car without driving it first,
others
buy clothes without trying them on. There's simply no accounting for
preference, which is all that you are stating.

Why is it nonsensical to audio equipment without listening first? There's
only a point in listening to electromechanical transducers that "can"
sound
different, and then, in the case of loudspeakers, only in one's own
listening room. Electronics of modern competent design do not sound
different so why listen?


A point of view not supportable. I say that electronics of modern,
competent
design DO sound different. The only question is do those differences mean
anything to you, personally? If not, fine, but to many they mean a great
deal, your scoffing notwithstanding.


How can they?


Easy. I have three sets of amplifiers at my disposal: a pair of VTL tube
monoblocks, a pair of Denon transistor monoblocks made under license from
Nelson Pass using his "Stasis circuitry" and a pair (used to have 4) of
Rockford/Hafler TransNova 1500 power amps. The VTLs are 140 watts each, the
Denons 220, the Haflers 150 watts/channel. When I replace my "reference" VTLs
with the Denons (after using my trusty Hewlett-Packard 400D audio VTVM to
match output levels EXACTLY) I notice three things: The Denons have a much
more grainy sounding top end than the VTLs that's very noticeable on massed
strings. Live massed strings have this silken effortlessness to them that's
all but impossible to reproduce exactly. Any audiophile who attends live
symphonic concerts regularly, has surely noticed this sense of effortless
ease with a smooth resinous quality as a secondary sonic signature. My VTLs
approximate this sound much better than do the Denons or the Haflers. The
upper register of all instruments sounds smoother and more real. Whether the
VTLs accomplish this by being more accurate or by injecting some euphonious
colorations is not the point. The point is that they sound different. Also
with the Denons in the system, the sound stage collapses somewhat. The image
doesn't sound as wide or as deep as do the VTLs but the image specificity
doesn't seem to change appreciably. And finally, The Denons (and the Haflers)
have a bit more taut low bass than do my VTLs, but that's OK because in
actual listening (as opposed to auditioning amplifiers), I have a pair of
subwoofers with their own solid state amplifiers doing those honors.

What aspect of modern design allows for a sound quality
difference?


Surely you jest? The stiffness of the power supply, the quality of the
components, even the number of stages in the amp all have an effect on sound.
Don't believe me (of course you don't)? Try this play a CD player through
your regular preamp into your power amp and listen for a while. Now, remove
the preamp and run the CD player DIRECTLY into the power amp (after matching
levels, of course using instrumantation) without the preamp. If the removal
of the preamp doesn't sound IMMEDIATLY cleaner and better, then I suggest
that you can't hear.

Is the difference between distortion figures sufficient to cause
a sound quality difference?


Not that can be measured, no.

Is the difference in frequency response
sufficient to cause a sound quality difference?


Not in an of itself, no.

Is the difference in
residual noise sufficient to cause a sound quality difference?


No.

I suggest
not, as the differences in all these is well below the threshold of hearing
for modern well designed equipment. If it's not any of those, then what can
it be?


You tell me. I don't pretend to know. I'm just the messenger as it were.

If there's a difference, then it has to be quantifiable, otherwise
it's down to imagination.


I assume that if it's audible, it's quantifiable. But where we diverge is
that you think that everything quantifiable has been quantified. I'm not so
sure. The amps sound different. Load differences (both input and speakers)? I
dunno. But the effects aren't subtle.

  #82   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Randy Yates Randy Yates is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 839
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

Sonnova writes:
[...]
I also don't believe that double-blind or ABX testing is of much use in
comparing electronics.


I don't belive a stop watch is of much use in comparing sports cars.
--
% Randy Yates % "Watching all the days go by...
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % Who are you and who am I?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
  #83   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 15:48:44 -0800, Serge Auckland wrote
(in article ):


"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:38:31 -0800, Serge Auckland wrote
(in article ):

"c. leeds" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such auditions are prone to
sighted bias effect.

It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because a dubious
result
is possible.

I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment.
It stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in
sound
quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the
nonsense promulgated by audiophile culture.

You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're
talking
about. It's certainly nonsensical to buy audio equipment without
listening. But, some people buy a new car without driving it first,
others
buy clothes without trying them on. There's simply no accounting for
preference, which is all that you are stating.

Why is it nonsensical to audio equipment without listening first? There's
only a point in listening to electromechanical transducers that "can"
sound
different, and then, in the case of loudspeakers, only in one's own
listening room. Electronics of modern competent design do not sound
different so why listen?

A point of view not supportable. I say that electronics of modern,
competent
design DO sound different. The only question is do those differences mean
anything to you, personally? If not, fine, but to many they mean a great
deal, your scoffing notwithstanding.


How can they?


Easy. I have three sets of amplifiers at my disposal: a pair of VTL tube
monoblocks,


If you read my psots, you saw that I excepted tube amps. There;s a good
chance they will sound different from other
amps, since they often (not always) purposely introduce euphonic distortion.

Surely you jest? The stiffness of the power supply, the quality of the
components, even the number of stages in the amp all have an effect on sound.
Don't believe me (of course you don't)? Try this play a CD player through
your regular preamp into your power amp and listen for a while. Now, remove
the preamp and run the CD player DIRECTLY into the power amp (after matching
levels, of course using instrumantation) without the preamp. If the removal
of the preamp doesn't sound IMMEDIATLY cleaner and better, then I suggest
that you can't hear.


Try doing that in a *double blind*, all-channels-level-matched comparison, 16 trials or more,
THEN let us know the results. Thanks.
  #84   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 19:39:17 -0800, Randy Yates wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova writes:
[...]
I also don't believe that double-blind or ABX testing is of much use in
comparing electronics.


I don't belive a stop watch is of much use in comparing sports cars.


You are right. It isn't of much use in comparing sports cars. However, as one
of a number of tools used in the process (some of which, like seating
position, steering feedback, turn-in, understeer and oversteer, are either
totally or largely subjective), can tell you all you need to know about
various sports cars. But the stop watch by itself? Almost useless.
  #85   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Serge Auckland Serge Auckland is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 191
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 15:48:44 -0800, Serge Auckland wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:38:31 -0800, Serge Auckland wrote
(in article ):

"c. leeds" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such auditions are prone to
sighted bias effect.

It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because a dubious
result
is possible.

I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room
treatment.
It stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in
sound
quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the
nonsense promulgated by audiophile culture.

You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're
talking
about. It's certainly nonsensical to buy audio equipment without
listening. But, some people buy a new car without driving it first,
others
buy clothes without trying them on. There's simply no accounting for
preference, which is all that you are stating.

Why is it nonsensical to audio equipment without listening first?
There's
only a point in listening to electromechanical transducers that "can"
sound
different, and then, in the case of loudspeakers, only in one's own
listening room. Electronics of modern competent design do not sound
different so why listen?

A point of view not supportable. I say that electronics of modern,
competent
design DO sound different. The only question is do those differences
mean
anything to you, personally? If not, fine, but to many they mean a great
deal, your scoffing notwithstanding.


How can they?


Easy. I have three sets of amplifiers at my disposal: a pair of VTL tube
monoblocks, a pair of Denon transistor monoblocks made under license from
Nelson Pass using his "Stasis circuitry" and a pair (used to have 4) of
Rockford/Hafler TransNova 1500 power amps. The VTLs are 140 watts each,
the
Denons 220, the Haflers 150 watts/channel. When I replace my "reference"
VTLs
with the Denons (after using my trusty Hewlett-Packard 400D audio VTVM to
match output levels EXACTLY) I notice three things: The Denons have a much
more grainy sounding top end than the VTLs that's very noticeable on
massed
strings. Live massed strings have this silken effortlessness to them
that's
all but impossible to reproduce exactly. Any audiophile who attends live
symphonic concerts regularly, has surely noticed this sense of effortless
ease with a smooth resinous quality as a secondary sonic signature. My
VTLs
approximate this sound much better than do the Denons or the Haflers. The
upper register of all instruments sounds smoother and more real. Whether
the
VTLs accomplish this by being more accurate or by injecting some
euphonious
colorations is not the point. The point is that they sound different. Also
with the Denons in the system, the sound stage collapses somewhat. The
image
doesn't sound as wide or as deep as do the VTLs but the image specificity
doesn't seem to change appreciably. And finally, The Denons (and the
Haflers)
have a bit more taut low bass than do my VTLs, but that's OK because in
actual listening (as opposed to auditioning amplifiers), I have a pair of
subwoofers with their own solid state amplifiers doing those honors.

What aspect of modern design allows for a sound quality
difference?


Surely you jest? The stiffness of the power supply, the quality of the
components, even the number of stages in the amp all have an effect on
sound.
Don't believe me (of course you don't)? Try this play a CD player through
your regular preamp into your power amp and listen for a while. Now,
remove
the preamp and run the CD player DIRECTLY into the power amp (after
matching
levels, of course using instrumantation) without the preamp. If the
removal
of the preamp doesn't sound IMMEDIATLY cleaner and better, then I suggest
that you can't hear.


Then I'm obviously deaf. I have done this many times, and I can't hear the
presence or absence of the pre-amp once level matched. I have also built a
number of purely passive pre-amps and provided the cable lengths are kept
sensibly short, there's no difference in sound between that and any active
pre-amp I've ever auditioned.

As to power supply stiffness, quality of components, number of stages etc,
none have ever made a difference that I could hear provided that the
measurements were sufficiently good. In my early years designing Broadcast
equipment, I would always listen to the designs as well as measure them. If
I ever heard anything untowards, it *always* showed up in the measurements.

Is the difference between distortion figures sufficient to cause
a sound quality difference?


Not that can be measured, no.

Is the difference in frequency response
sufficient to cause a sound quality difference?


Not in an of itself, no.

Is the difference in
residual noise sufficient to cause a sound quality difference?


No.

I suggest
not, as the differences in all these is well below the threshold of
hearing
for modern well designed equipment. If it's not any of those, then what
can
it be?


You tell me. I don't pretend to know. I'm just the messenger as it were.

If there's a difference, then it has to be quantifiable, otherwise
it's down to imagination.


I assume that if it's audible, it's quantifiable. But where we diverge is
that you think that everything quantifiable has been quantified. I'm not
so
sure. The amps sound different. Load differences (both input and
speakers)? I
dunno. But the effects aren't subtle.


I'm glad you accept that if it's audible, it's quantifiable, as that's been
my experience. However, when it comes to audio, I can't think of anything
that isn't sufficiently well understood to have been fully characterised,
with the possible exception of data-reduced formats like MP3, AACplus etc
which are still evolving.

If you *are* genuinely hearing differences between your power amps, then
that's because there *is* a difference, measurable and quantifiable. In your
case, the VTL tube amps will have higher distortion and may well have a
sufficently higher output impedance that their frequency response into your
loudspeakers is noticeably affected when compared to the Solid State amps.
Depending on how loud you play, there could well be a difference in the
overload performance of the three amps, which will account for sonic
differences, which is why, when evaluating amplifiers, it is essential that
they be kept out of clipping, even for very brief instants. You don't say
what your loudspeakers are, as the impedance characteristic of the 'speakers
will have an effect on how the amplifiers are able to drive them.

In summary, it is my contention that all amplifiers *will* sound the same if
their measurements indicate a performance below the threshold of perception
for the common aspects of frequency response, noise and distortions, if they
are level matched, and if they are kept out of overload on your particular
'speakers. For example, if you are using Apogee Scintillas, there are only
a very few amplifiers which will drive the severe 1 or 2 ohms load
adequately, whilst if using 11 or 15 ohms LS3/5A, pretty much any amp will
drive these properly. I would therefore expect there to be no difference
between half-decent amps on LS3/5As, whilst large differences could be
audible on the Scintillas.

S



  #86   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
c. leeds c. leeds is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default audio culture nonsense?

Steven Sullivan wrote:

...'nonsense' would include neary every 'review' ever published
in the audio press, ...even soul-changing
differences between amplifiers and disc players.


I answered:

"Soul-changing" differences????? Examples, please!


Sullivan responds:

Would you prefer 'danceable' cables?


No. You mentioned "soul changing differences between amplifiers and disc
players " cited by the audio press, and I asked for an examples. Now,
you change the subject to cables. It is beginning to look like you are
simply making this up as you go along.

I also asked Sullivan:

- what is the
"interweb?"


he answers:

It's a joke.


Oh. I don't get it. Is this whole argument of your's a joke, too?

So, it's *your* ignorance of audiophile claims, not mine, that we're dealing with


Correct. You referenced fuzzy "audiophile claims" and I told you I don't
know what you're talking about. When questioned about alleged
"soul-changing differences between amplifiers and disc players," you
change the subject to cables. So I still don't know what you're talking
about.

He cites:
CABLE ELEVATORS PLUS (SET OF 8)
Keep all your audio cables off the floor with our best-selling, reviewer-recommended Cable Elevators. These really work
wonders and come with our 100% Money Back Guarantee... $159.99


And Sullivan says:
That's laughable NONSENSE, sir.


Perhaps. Surely, the claim is dubious, but I've never evaluated the
product. Have you? There's a money-back guarantee, so there's no risk on
your part.

'Group' -- can *you* think of what claims I might be talking about when I refer to
'audiophile nonsense'?


You're making the assertions, Sullivan... and now asking the group for
evidence? I get it, this is all just silly jive on your part.
  #87   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
c. leeds c. leeds is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

I wrote:

In my opinion, it's silly to buy audio equipment without
auditioning it first.


Sullivan answers:

In my opinion, it's silly to act as if one's 'ears' are always right...
when one is rarely using just one's ears.


I simply stated a preference: I prefer to listen to audio equipment
before buying. That is different than acting "as if one's 'ears' are
always right." Do you see the difference?

First you mention *your* preference -- which is demonstrably error-prone,
based on the 'simple fact' you acknowledge to be true


I made no such acknowledgment. Listening to audio equipment before
purchase is not "error-prone." It is simply listening - there is no
right or wrong. It's a preference to listen before you buy. A preference
doesn't require substantiation - it's a preference.

But as I'e explained, -- and you've glossed over -- buying without
trying is NOT always reasonable.


But here's what you wrote:

So I keep up on gear
evolution, decide what features I want, then I choose gear that has them,
based on manufacturer's information, and reviews, and published bench
tests. Appearance and price can also be factors in my final choice.


So it appears that you won't try before buying even when it's an option.
In my view, that's silly. But you're entitled to your preference, just
as some people will buy a new car without driving it first, or buy
clothes without trying them on.
  #88   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
c. leeds c. leeds is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

Harry Lavo wrote (about Sullivan's preference to buy audio equipment
without listening to it first):

Except that Steven is very quick to accuse anybody who claims to hear what
they think is better sounding electronic gear of fooling themselves. It is
a very hypocritical position to take, it seems to me, for someone who
doesn't even bother to listen, yet claims to know that others can't hear
what he doesn't even bother to listen to or for.


Quite true, but here's what's sillier: that in a "high-end" newsgroup,
anyone would be criticized for simply preferring to listen to equipment
before purchase. Sullivan insists such listening is "error-prone."
  #89   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
c. leeds c. leeds is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

Arny Krueger wrote:

One important lesson of our early days with ABX (now 30 years ago) was that
when auditioning modern non-acoustical gear, as most audiophiles and
reviewers do, biased or random results are *certain*.


Congratulations, Arny. You've changed a discussion about a preference -
for listening to equipment before purchase - into an ABX discussion in
one simple, illogical step.

Both recordists and live sound professionals tend to use the word audiophile
as a perjorative. Synonym with clueless and opinionated.


Whatever.

Choosing gear that can
logically be expected to sound alike, based on a listening test is certainly
nonsensical.


But I never said that I did that. I simply said that I prefer to listen
before I buy. This act of listening sure troubles a few of you on this
group, but that's your problem. Some people buy a new car without
driving it first, others buy clothes without tying them on. That's their
preference.

There is no rational reason to prefer one audio component over another based
on sound quality when they cannot be distingushed based on sound quality.


That's the logical fallacy known as "begging the question."
  #90   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
---MIKE--- ---MIKE--- is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default audio culture nonsense?

The most outrageous catalog is the "Audio Advisor"

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')




  #91   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default audio culture nonsense?

c. leeds wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:


...'nonsense' would include neary every 'review' ever published
in the audio press, ...even soul-changing
differences between amplifiers and disc players.


I answered:

"Soul-changing" differences????? Examples, please!


Sullivan responds:


Would you prefer 'danceable' cables?


No. You mentioned "soul changing differences between amplifiers and disc
players " cited by the audio press, and I asked for an examples. Now,
you change the subject to cables. It is beginning to look like you are
simply making this up as you go along.


How do 'danceable' cables not qualify? IT's a rather famous recent
instance of audiophile overstatements and it's wholly of a piece with wild
claims about CD players and amps -- and it was challenged by James Randi
himself. Surely you hears about it? Look up 'Pear Anjou' and 'Randi' on
The Google.

I also asked Sullivan:


- what is the
"interweb?"


he answers:


It's a joke.


Oh. I don't get it.


No kidding.

Is this whole argument of your's a joke, too?


It appearsz to be becoming more and more about either your real ignorance
of audiophile 'culture' and claims, or about the sophistry you favor in
arguments.

So, it's *your* ignorance of audiophile claims, not mine, that we're dealing with


Correct. You referenced fuzzy "audiophile claims" and I told you I don't
know what you're talking about. When questioned about alleged
"soul-changing differences between amplifiers and disc players," you
change the subject to cables. So I still don't know what you're talking
about.


So, let's get this this straight , you're claiming that the audiophile
press *doesn't* ever make claims of large, obvious difference between
different amps, and different CD players?

wonders and come with our 100% Money Back Guarantee... $159.99


And Sullivan says:
That's laughable NONSENSE, sir.


Perhaps. Surely, the claim is dubious, but I've never evaluated the
product. Have you? There's a money-back guarantee, so there's no risk on
your part.


I haven't evaluated perpetual motion machines either.

'Group' -- can *you* think of what claims I might be talking about when I refer to
'audiophile nonsense'?


You're making the assertions, Sullivan... and now asking the group for
evidence? I get it, this is all just silly jive on your part.


No, Curtis, you're the one shucking and jiving and playing the innocent
pedant here, as anyone who has any acquaintance with either your tactics,
or with the audiophile press, knows.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
  #92   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default audio culture nonsense?

---MIKE--- wrote:
The most outrageous catalog is the "Audio Advisor"


Ah yes, how could I have neglected them -- the creme de la crazy, in a way.

And conveniently, they sometimes quote various audiophile reviews of their products.

Just for fun, let's pick an amp near the top of their price range -- price tends to
correlate with the purpleness of prose , in my experience pf audiophile reviews --and look at
the claims made for it, to see how close we get to a 'soul-changing experience'.

//

Parasound - JC-1 400-Watt Mono Amplifier - Each $3,499.95
....

Stereophile's Michael Fremer heaps on praise of his own. "Powerful, transparent, smooth,
organized, dynamic, transparent, and rhythmically supple, the JC1 offered a combination of
attributes that added up to many weeks of listening pleasure," he concludes in the February
2003 issue. "It was lightning-fast, delivering transients and sibilants with a speed and
clarity that were positively addictive."

....

The JC-1's true monoblock design, which dedicates a totally separate amplifier to each channel
of your A/V system, provides the absolute pinnacle of channel separation. The sound is so
clean, so well-defined, and so true, you will suddenly hear music you have never heard before
on even your most familiar CDs and DVD movie soundtracks.

....

"No matter what the dynamic demands were called for by the music, no subtleties were
sacrificed; the resulting performance was extended, smooth, and relaxed," reports Arnie
Goodman in Volume 11, Issue 2 of The Audiophile Voice. "The JC-1 always sounded completely in
control and provided luxuriant detail. Its ability to replicate every nuance of the musical
performance was a joy to hear."

.....

"If you are a quester on the path toward the finest sound you can personally own, then you
must consider owning John Curl's latest JC-1 amplifier," urges Max Dudious in Positive
Feedback Online. "It has those 'magic' qualities that differentiate the best of breed from the
also-rans."

"It took but a few seconds for me to absolutely fall in love with the Halo JC1," confesses
Stereophile's Michael Fremer, who concludes: "A bargain, and highly recommended."

.....

//

So,let's recap: upon auditioning this amplifier,

Michael Fremer got addicted and fell in love.
Max Dudious believed in magic.
Arnie Goodman became joyful.

and Audio Adviser promises us we'll hear music we never heard before, even from our
most beloved CDs.

Clearly this amp stands out from other amps in terms of sound...right?

Except, no actual evidence was provided for actual sonic difference from another amp.

Imagine if I took the time to read the copy for all of them.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
  #93   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default audio culture nonsense?

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 08:02:35 -0800, c. leeds wrote
(in article ):

Steven Sullivan wrote:

...'nonsense' would include neary every 'review' ever published
in the audio press, ...even soul-changing
differences between amplifiers and disc players.


I answered:

"Soul-changing" differences????? Examples, please!


Sullivan responds:

Would you prefer 'danceable' cables?


No. You mentioned "soul changing differences between amplifiers and disc
players " cited by the audio press, and I asked for an examples. Now,
you change the subject to cables. It is beginning to look like you are
simply making this up as you go along.

I also asked Sullivan:

- what is the
"interweb?"


he answers:

It's a joke.


Oh. I don't get it. Is this whole argument of your's a joke, too?

So, it's *your* ignorance of audiophile claims, not mine, that we're
dealing with


Correct. You referenced fuzzy "audiophile claims" and I told you I don't
know what you're talking about. When questioned about alleged
"soul-changing differences between amplifiers and disc players," you
change the subject to cables. So I still don't know what you're talking
about.

He cites:
CABLE ELEVATORS PLUS (SET OF 8)
Keep all your audio cables off the floor with our best-selling,
reviewer-recommended Cable Elevators. These really work
wonders and come with our 100% Money Back Guarantee... $159.99


And Sullivan says:
That's laughable NONSENSE, sir.


Perhaps. Surely, the claim is dubious, but I've never evaluated the
product. Have you? There's a money-back guarantee, so there's no risk on
your part.


Actually, this one is EASY to check - without making any purchase. Raid the
kitchen for eight regular ceramic coffee cups. Invert them and place them
under your speaker cable to get the cable up off the floor. Now, listen. Do
you hear any difference? Of course not, how could there be?


'Group' -- can *you* think of what claims I might be talking about when I
refer to
'audiophile nonsense'?


You're making the assertions, Sullivan... and now asking the group for
evidence? I get it, this is all just silly jive on your part.


  #94   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default audio culture nonsense?

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:49:24 -0800, MIKE--- wrote
(in article ):

The most outrageous catalog is the "Audio Advisor"

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')



They are all happy to sell you mousemilk if you are in the market for
mousemilk.

  #95   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 07:40:44 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 15:48:44 -0800, Serge Auckland wrote
(in article ):


"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:38:31 -0800, Serge Auckland wrote
(in article ):

"c. leeds" wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In fact I rarely audition gear;... any such auditions are prone to
sighted bias effect.

It's a pity to forsake listening entirely simply because a dubious
result
is possible.

I put as much or more effort into speaker placement and room treatment.
It stands to both reason and practice that choice of loudspeaker, and
attention to room conditions, makes *BY FAR* the most difference in
sound
quality. It really is just that simple, once you jettison all the
nonsense promulgated by audiophile culture.

You don't cite an example, so I don't know what "nonsense" you're
talking
about. It's certainly nonsensical to buy audio equipment without
listening. But, some people buy a new car without driving it first,
others
buy clothes without trying them on. There's simply no accounting for
preference, which is all that you are stating.

Why is it nonsensical to audio equipment without listening first? There's
only a point in listening to electromechanical transducers that "can"
sound
different, and then, in the case of loudspeakers, only in one's own
listening room. Electronics of modern competent design do not sound
different so why listen?

A point of view not supportable. I say that electronics of modern,
competent
design DO sound different. The only question is do those differences mean
anything to you, personally? If not, fine, but to many they mean a great
deal, your scoffing notwithstanding.

How can they?


Easy. I have three sets of amplifiers at my disposal: a pair of VTL tube
monoblocks,


If you read my psots, you saw that I excepted tube amps. There;s a good
chance they will sound different from other
amps, since they often (not always) purposely introduce euphonic distortion.


Sorry, I either missed that or didn't realize it was you. As for the euphonic
distortion, I agree that this is probably what's going on. I doubt, however,
if enough is known by any modern designer to purposely make an amp sound that
much more like music than the competition. Since they are selling to the
audiophile market, if how to do that reliably were well understood, everyone
would do it because it makes their products sound "better". OTOH, my VTL's
circuits are so simple that I really don't see how any calculated, built-in
coloration could possibly be applied. I think its just a characteristic of
tube circuitry. Whatever the reason, I find that the tube amps give me
immensely more pleasure than do either of my SS amps (which also sound
different from one another to my ears).

Surely you jest? The stiffness of the power supply, the quality of the
components, even the number of stages in the amp all have an effect on
sound.
Don't believe me (of course you don't)? Try this play a CD player through
your regular preamp into your power amp and listen for a while. Now, remove
the preamp and run the CD player DIRECTLY into the power amp (after
matching
levels, of course using instrumantation) without the preamp. If the removal
of the preamp doesn't sound IMMEDIATLY cleaner and better, then I suggest
that you can't hear.


Try doing that in a *double blind*, all-channels-level-matched comparison, 16


trials or more,
THEN let us know the results. Thanks.


I have. The differences are less easy to discern in such a test, but are
there nonetheless. And what's wrong with just doing a single swap-out of the
preamp for a pair of cables? The result is immediate and not at all subtle.


  #96   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
c. leeds c. leeds is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default audio culture nonsense?

Steven Sullivan wrote:

It appearsz to be becoming more and more about either your real

ignorance
of audiophile 'culture' and claims, or about the sophistry you favor in
arguments... you're the one shucking and jiving and playing the innocent
pedant here, as anyone who has any acquaintance with either your

tactics,
or with the audiophile press, knows.


Let's review the facts, shall we?

Here exactly what Sullivan wrote:

...'nonsense' would include neary every 'review' ever published
in the audio press, ...even soul-changing
differences between amplifiers and disc players.



when asked:
"Soul-changing" differences????? Examples, please!


he responds:

Would you prefer 'danceable' cables?... How do 'danceable' cables not qualify? IT's a rather famous recent

instance of audiophile overstatements....


You specifically mentioned "soul-changing differences" between
amplifiers. When questioned for proof of your claim, you:

1.) change the subject to cables.

2. engage in personal attack against my "tactics" and make a vague
attack against the audiophile press.

So, now we know that some of the "audio culture nonsense" that you
reference are really "claims" you've fabricated. That closes this case
of "The World of Audio According To Sullivan But Falsely Attributed To
Others."
  #97   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,243
Default audio culture nonsense?

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
---MIKE--- wrote:


snip


So,let's recap: upon auditioning this amplifier,

Michael Fremer got addicted and fell in love.
Max Dudious believed in magic.
Arnie Goodman became joyful.

and Audio Adviser promises us we'll hear music we never heard before, even
from our
most beloved CDs.

Clearly this amp stands out from other amps in terms of sound...right?

Except, no actual evidence was provided for actual sonic difference from
another amp.

Imagine if I took the time to read the copy for all of them.


Have you ever owned high-powered monoblocks?

Have you ever even heard a high-end system with them in a favorable
environment, using other equipment you respect?

Well, I own a five channel system using high-power monoblocks, and I could
describe the changes I heard versus my other sterep SS amps and VTL amps
very much the same way....I would probably describe the changes as being a
bit more subtle...but many revieweres nowadays do. And I might not
attribute them totally to this equipment, but to the equipment as a
representative and high-quality example of the breed (one of my favorite
gripes against reviews these days is that folks are given equipment to
review without the requisite previous experience to separate out the unit
under test from the generic category).

May I suggest that once again you are taking a stand simply assuming you
know the truth. When you have no first-hand basis for doing so.

  #98   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Randy Yates Randy Yates is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 839
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

Sonnova writes:

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 19:39:17 -0800, Randy Yates wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova writes:
[...]
I also don't believe that double-blind or ABX testing is of much use in
comparing electronics.


I don't belive a stop watch is of much use in comparing sports cars.


You are right. It isn't of much use in comparing sports cars. However, as one
of a number of tools used in the process (some of which, like seating
position, steering feedback, turn-in, understeer and oversteer, are either
totally or largely subjective), can tell you all you need to know about
various sports cars. But the stop watch by itself? Almost useless.


You missed my point.

Stating (or at least implying) that ABX listening tests are not of much
use in comparing the sound of equipment is like stating that a stop
watch is not of much use in comparing the 0-60 MPH ET of sports cars. In
both cases, the tests give objective measurements instead of relaying on
subjective judgements.
--
% Randy Yates % "And all that I can do
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % is say I'm sorry,
%%% 919-577-9882 % that's the way it goes..."
%%%% % Getting To The Point', *Balance of Power*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
  #99   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default audio culture nonsense?

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
---MIKE--- wrote:


snip


So,let's recap: upon auditioning this amplifier,

Michael Fremer got addicted and fell in love.
Max Dudious believed in magic.
Arnie Goodman became joyful.

and Audio Adviser promises us we'll hear music we never heard before, even
from our
most beloved CDs.

Clearly this amp stands out from other amps in terms of sound...right?

Except, no actual evidence was provided for actual sonic difference from
another amp.

Imagine if I took the time to read the copy for all of them.


Have you ever owned high-powered monoblocks?


Certainly not.

Have you ever even heard a high-end system with them in a favorable
environment, using other equipment you respect?


Yes.

Are Fremer et al indulging in hyperbole? Quite possibly.
Is this common in audiophile reviews? Quite so. Thus my sarcastic
reference to 'soul changing' experiences with amps. But the
rhetoric nevertheless implies *unsubtle* audible difference ...
which usually* hasn't been established as real in the first place. Meanwhile,
we have the 'simple fact' of human error always operating
in the background.

So, the question remains, is there good reason to believe such claims
of difference AREN'T nonsense? Where's the data?

(* sometimes we'll be shown bench test data that indicates, indeed,
that the amp might well sound different ...because the measurements
are so poor compared to other amps, including mass-market ones)

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
  #100   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Randy Yates Randy Yates is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 839
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

Randy Yates writes:
[...]
Stating (or at least implying) that ABX listening tests are not of much
use in comparing the sound of equipment is like stating that a stop
watch is not of much use in comparing the 0-60 MPH ET of sports cars. In
both cases, the tests give objective measurements instead of relaying on
subjective judgements.


I should add that the above is true even though there may be other
considerations in selecting electronics, such as aesthetics, cost,
function, etc., just as there are other considerations in selecting
sports cars, such as aesthetics, cost, function, etc.

Take a look at the subject. The question is one of sound, not
aesthetics, cost, function, etc.
--
% Randy Yates % "Maybe one day I'll feel her cold embrace,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and kiss her interface,
%%% 919-577-9882 % til then, I'll leave her alone."
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com


  #101   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

"c. leeds" wrote in message


Harry Lavo wrote (about Sullivan's preference to buy
audio equipment without listening to it first):


Except that Steven is very quick to accuse anybody who
claims to hear what they think is better sounding
electronic gear of fooling themselves.


There's no self-contradiction in what Steven is saying. Since almost all
reasonable electronic equipment sounds the same, peope are fooling
themselves if the do some kind of hokey amateur listening test and hear
differences that aren't inherent in the equipment.

It is a very
hypocritical position to take, it seems to me, for
someone who doesn't even bother to listen, yet claims to
know that others can't hear what he doesn't even bother
to listen to or for.


There is a problem here - because Steven is not avoiding the bogus listening
test because he's lazy, he's avoiding it to avoid misleading himself.

Quite true, but here's what's sillier: that in a
"high-end" newsgroup, anyone would be criticized for
simply preferring to listen to equipment before purchase.


It's not silly to advise people to avoid loading themselves up with false
evidence.

Sullivan insists such listening is "error-prone."


IME, he's right.

  #102   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

"Sonnova" wrote in message


The exceptions?
Tubes vs transistors. I think tube amps sound more like
live music than solid-state. Digital vs Analog. We've
been through this before. The best recorded sound I've
ever heard comes from vinyl, not CD. No sense to rehash
the argument here.


Then why are you bringing that argument up, if not to rehash it?

Nothing will be served by it.


Apparently, it is somehow important to recite the same-old, same-old and try
to cut discussion off right after repeating it.

I also don't believe that double-blind or ABX testing is of much
use in comparing electronics.


I can see why. ABX tests usually provide evidence that disagrees with your
preferences.

For example, ABX tests show that if a SS amp sounds different than a tubed
amp, its because the tubed amp is audibly inaccurate. There's no logical way
that inaccurate reproduction of recorded sound gives a more lifelike
rendition of the origional sound than accurate reproduction would.

Similarly, ABX tests show that the vinyl format can be counted on to distort
the recorded sound, while good digital equipment doesn't.

Its easy to see why someone would dislike a testing methodology that goes
counter to their tightly-held beliefs.

Certainly not in the way its usually done.


How would you know how ABX testing is usually done? Do you think that every
ABX test is like the few that have been described in a few old magazine
articles?

One of my projects this year is to
build myself an ABX switching box and try to correlate
the results of long-term listening tests (like I do now)


Long term listening ABX tests have been done on and off for the past 30
years.

with ABX testing where I have no pressures or boundaries
inflicted upon me by outside sources such as time
constraints, peer pressure, unfamiliar ancillary
equipment (like speakers) and sources, etc. I really
want to know.


ABX tests have generally been done exactly like that.

  #103   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:22:58 -0800, Randy Yates wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova writes:

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 19:39:17 -0800, Randy Yates wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova writes:
[...]
I also don't believe that double-blind or ABX testing is of much use in
comparing electronics.

I don't belive a stop watch is of much use in comparing sports cars.


You are right. It isn't of much use in comparing sports cars. However, as
one
of a number of tools used in the process (some of which, like seating
position, steering feedback, turn-in, understeer and oversteer, are either
totally or largely subjective), can tell you all you need to know about
various sports cars. But the stop watch by itself? Almost useless.


You missed my point.


You didn't state it very well.

Stating (or at least implying) that ABX listening tests are not of much
use in comparing the sound of equipment is like stating that a stop
watch is not of much use in comparing the 0-60 MPH ET of sports cars. In
both cases, the tests give objective measurements instead of relaying on
subjective judgements.


The number of turns a wheel makes in a mile at a given speed is an objective
measurement, yet it really tells one nothing qualitative about the car. I've
never seen an ABX or a double-blind listening test that I thought was set up
in any way to find anything other than that the results are ambiguous.
  #104   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default audio culture nonsense?

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Actually, this one is EASY to check - without making any
purchase. Raid the kitchen for eight regular ceramic
coffee cups. Invert them and place them under your
speaker cable to get the cable up off the floor. Now,
listen. Do you hear any difference? Of course not, how
could there be?


Sighted bias.

I've definately seen audiophile systems with the cables carefully raised off
of the floor. One system used old telephone pole insulators.

  #105   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default audio culture nonsense?

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Have you ever owned high-powered monoblocks?


Interesting how a discussion of sound quality gets morphed into a discussion
of property rights.

Have you ever even heard a high-end system with them in a
favorable environment, using other equipment you respect?


Interesting how the discussion of property rights morphs into a discussion
of admission to a demonstration.

For the record, Steven and I walked around HE2005 together for a while, and
if that wouldn't be an opportunity to hear high end systems in favorable
environments, what would be? (For the record - the quality of the demo
rooms as acoustic venues varied, but some were quite good).

Well, I own a five channel system using high-power
monoblocks, and I could describe the changes I heard
versus my other sterep SS amps and VTL amps very much the
same way...


I have no problems with pride of ownership, as long as I don't have to
suspend too much disbelief while reading exhibitions of it.

I would probably describe the changes as
being a bit more subtle...but many revieweres nowadays
do.


With reviewers writing about "dancable cables" why would they be cited as a
source of reliable information?

And I might not attribute them totally to this
equipment, but to the equipment as a representative and
high-quality example of the breed (one of my favorite
gripes against reviews these days is that folks are given
equipment to review without the requisite previous
experience to separate out the unit under test from the
generic category).


Harry, what technical advantage might monoblocks have that cannot ever or
has not ever be duplicated with multichannel amplifiers?

May I suggest that once again you are taking a stand
simply assuming you know the truth.


Steven has more chops as an audiophile than that.

When you have no first-hand basis for doing so.


Come on Harry, I saw you at HE2005. You mean you never passed Steven in the
hallways there?



  #106   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

"Sonnova" wrote in message


A point of view not supportable. I say that electronics
of modern, competent
design DO sound different. The only question is do
those differences mean anything to you, personally? If
not, fine, but to many they mean a great deal, your
scoffing notwithstanding.


How can they?


Easy. I have three sets of amplifiers at my disposal: a
pair of VTL tube monoblocks,


Violates the requirement that the design be modern and competent.

a pair of Denon transistor
monoblocks made under license from Nelson Pass using his
"Stasis circuitry" and a pair (used to have 4) of


Arguably modern, but with all the hype and purported magic...

Rockford/Hafler TransNova 1500 power amps.


Too bad about Rockford's demise.

The VTLs are
140 watts each, the Denons 220, the Haflers 150
watts/channel.


The VTLs are not slam-dunk qualified on the source impedance/frequency
response front.

When I replace my "reference" VTLs with
the Denons (after using my trusty Hewlett-Packard 400D
audio VTVM to match output levels EXACTLY) I notice three
things:


First and foremost, we must not ignore the presence of copious sighted cues.

The Denons have a much more grainy sounding top
end than the VTLs that's very noticeable on massed
strings. Live massed strings have this silken
effortlessness to them that's all but impossible to
reproduce exactly. Any audiophile who attends live
symphonic concerts regularly, has surely noticed this
sense of effortless ease with a smooth resinous quality
as a secondary sonic signature. My VTLs approximate this
sound much better than do the Denons or the Haflers. The
upper register of all instruments sounds smoother and
more real. Whether the VTLs accomplish this by being more
accurate or by injecting some euphonious colorations is
not the point. The point is that they sound different.
Also with the Denons in the system, the sound stage
collapses somewhat. The image doesn't sound as wide or as
deep as do the VTLs but the image specificity doesn't
seem to change appreciably. And finally, The Denons (and
the Haflers) have a bit more taut low bass than do my
VTLs, but that's OK because in actual listening (as
opposed to auditioning amplifiers), I have a pair of
subwoofers with their own solid state amplifiers doing
those honors.


It's stuff like this that drove us to develop bias-controlled listening
tests more than 30 years ago.

  #107   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

"Randy Yates" wrote in message


Stating (or at least implying) that ABX listening tests
are not of much use in comparing the sound of equipment
is like stating that a stop watch is not of much use in
comparing the 0-60 MPH ET of sports cars. In both cases,
the tests give objective measurements instead of relaying
on subjective judgements.


I find it curious that while automotive performance still clearly has a
strong subjective component, objective tests of cars are considered to be
highly significant. The curiosity part is how this sort of
subjective/objective balance did not become more prevelent in audio.

  #108   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

"willbill" wrote in message


anyway my view is it's down to 3 choices for my next
improvement: 1) tube amps for the front 3 speakers,
2) room sound treatment, or 3) better front L/R speakers


Unless your room is atypically wonderful, the obvious choice is (2)

  #109   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default audio culture nonsense?

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:46:59 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
---MIKE--- wrote:


snip


So,let's recap: upon auditioning this amplifier,

Michael Fremer got addicted and fell in love.
Max Dudious believed in magic.
Arnie Goodman became joyful.

and Audio Adviser promises us we'll hear music we never heard before, even
from our
most beloved CDs.

Clearly this amp stands out from other amps in terms of sound...right?

Except, no actual evidence was provided for actual sonic difference from
another amp.

Imagine if I took the time to read the copy for all of them.


Have you ever owned high-powered monoblocks?


Certainly not.

Have you ever even heard a high-end system with them in a favorable
environment, using other equipment you respect?


Yes.

Are Fremer et al indulging in hyperbole? Quite possibly.
Is this common in audiophile reviews?


I don't know if I'd call it hyperbole but some of these "differences" between
components are quite subtle. Many are so tiny that it takes someone who has
trained themselves to listen for them to hear them, and even more so, it
takes a type of personality who CARES about those tiny differences. An
analogy is oenology. :-

Go to a formal wine tasting. Listen as the oenologist at the front of the
room tells you about the vanilla, coffee, chocolate and raspberry overtones
of the vintage you are tasting. Huh? All I taste is wine. It's either a good
wine or a mediocre wine. It's too young and astringent or its older and more
mellow. It has a good nose, a nice balance of acid and sweet or its bitter
and almost devoid of aroma. That's it. Now is the oenologist pulling our leg
or is he indulging in a little hyperbole? No. He can really detect these
things and has developed (along with other wine scholars and connoisseurs) a
mutual vocabulary to describe what he's tasting. He can taste it and I cannot
because he's trained his palate to notice these things. I cannot because I
don't know what to taste FOR, but equally important, I don't care. I like a
nice wine, its just not my life. If the wine is pleasant, I'll enjoy it. I
might also mention that in a double-blind wine tasting, I can't tell one
cabernet from another.

Quite so. Thus my sarcastic
reference to 'soul changing' experiences with amps. But the
rhetoric nevertheless implies *unsubtle* audible difference ...


Many of these differences are subtle. Some are not and some are program
dependent. I'm not going to make any soundstage determinations listening to
rock-n-roll and three-channel mono jazz recordings.

which usually* hasn't been established as real in the first place. Meanwhile,
we have the 'simple fact' of human error always operating
in the background.


Human error is always possible. But what do you say when a magazine passes a
single unit around to several reviewers, all of which live in different parts
of the country and who do not necessarily know each other and who do not
communicate, but when the evaluations are in, they all have almost the same
things to say about the piece?


So, the question remains, is there good reason to believe such claims
of difference AREN'T nonsense? Where's the data?


What data? Conventional measurement doesn't reveal anything about these
differences and do nothing to tell anyone what the system is going to sound
like. THD doesn't seem to mean anything because its been found that the human
ear is largely insensitive to anything but rather large amounts of it in
amplifying devices. Sine-wave intermodulation distortion is also undetectable
by ear except in large amounts (much higher than any competently designed
amplifier would ever have). So what does that leave us? SID? DAD? Some people
discount those as being bogus. So, what is left? Frequency response? With
modern amps having DC to daylight frequency response graphs that look like
they were drawn with a straight-edge, I don't see that being anything. So
what measurement do matter? You will say that this is proof that there is no
audible difference between amps, I say that we aren't measuring the right
things. Impasse.

(* sometimes we'll be shown bench test data that indicates, indeed,
that the amp might well sound different ...because the measurements
are so poor compared to other amps, including mass-market ones)


What measurements? I remember once that there was a French tube amp (this was
probably 15-20 years ago and I do not remember the brand) that measured
terribly (over 2.5% THD!) yet was one of the musical-sounding amps that I had
ever heard. I was reluctant to send it back. and would have bought it were it
not for the fact that it cost an arm and a leg.
  #110   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:50:24 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


The exceptions?
Tubes vs transistors. I think tube amps sound more like
live music than solid-state. Digital vs Analog. We've
been through this before. The best recorded sound I've
ever heard comes from vinyl, not CD. No sense to rehash
the argument here.


Then why are you bringing that argument up, if not to rehash it?

Nothing will be served by it.


Apparently, it is somehow important to recite the same-old, same-old and try
to cut discussion off right after repeating it.

I also don't believe that double-blind or ABX testing is of much
use in comparing electronics.


I can see why. ABX tests usually provide evidence that disagrees with your
preferences.

For example, ABX tests show that if a SS amp sounds different than a tubed
amp, its because the tubed amp is audibly inaccurate.


Thanks for finally admitting that differences DO exist. And who cares if the
tube amp is "audibly inaccurate". If it sounds more musical the SS amp, then
so be it. An amplifier is a means to an end. The end is listening to music,
and hopefully of recreating that musical event, as much as is possible, in
the home. If an "inaccurate" amp gives the listener a better glimpse of the
muse, then what's wrong with that?

There's no logical way
that inaccurate reproduction of recorded sound gives a more lifelike
rendition of the origional sound than accurate reproduction would.


Unsupported and unsupportable comment. Saying it doesn't make it so.

Similarly, ABX tests show that the vinyl format can be counted on to distort
the recorded sound, while good digital equipment doesn't.


By way of example, a friend of mine who lives in another state from me called
me on Saturday to tell me that after almost 20 years of listening to CD
exclusively, he recently pulled out his old record deck and hooked it up. His
very words we "It was a revelation! I haven't been this "pulled-in" to
recorded music in so long, I'd forgotten that this was what brought me to
audio in the first place." I'd say he finds records a more satisfying way of
listening to music, wouldn't you?

Its easy to see why someone would dislike a testing methodology that goes
counter to their tightly-held beliefs.


Dislike is not the proper word. The proper word is that they're "irrelevant"
possibly because the testing establishment is measuring the wrong things

Certainly not in the way its usually done.


How would you know how ABX testing is usually done? Do you think that every
ABX test is like the few that have been described in a few old magazine
articles?

One of my projects this year is to
build myself an ABX switching box and try to correlate
the results of long-term listening tests (like I do now)


Long term listening ABX tests have been done on and off for the past 30
years.


And that's relevant to my above statement how?

with ABX testing where I have no pressures or boundaries
inflicted upon me by outside sources such as time
constraints, peer pressure, unfamiliar ancillary
equipment (like speakers) and sources, etc. I really
want to know.


ABX tests have generally been done exactly like that.


Gee, another non-sequitur.



  #111   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default audio culture nonsense?

c. leeds wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:


It appearsz to be becoming more and more about either your real

ignorance
of audiophile 'culture' and claims, or about the sophistry you favor in
arguments... you're the one shucking and jiving and playing the innocent
pedant here, as anyone who has any acquaintance with either your

tactics,
or with the audiophile press, knows.


Let's review the facts, shall we?


Here exactly what Sullivan wrote:


...'nonsense' would include neary every 'review' ever published
in the audio press, ...even soul-changing
differences between amplifiers and disc players.



when asked:
"Soul-changing" differences????? Examples, please!


he responds:


Would you prefer 'danceable' cables?... How do 'danceable' cables not qualify? IT's a rather famous recent

instance of audiophile overstatements....


You specifically mentioned "soul-changing differences" between
amplifiers. When questioned for proof of your claim, you:


1.) change the subject to cables.


The *subject* is audiophile culture nonsense.

2. engage in personal attack against my "tactics" and make a vague
attack against the audiophile press.


So, now we know that some of the "audio culture nonsense" that you
reference are really "claims" you've fabricated. That closes this case
of "The World of Audio According To Sullivan But Falsely Attributed To
Others."


LOL. You're late to the game again, sir. Your accusations are
ludicrous.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
  #112   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 17:07:36 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"willbill" wrote in message


anyway my view is it's down to 3 choices for my next
improvement: 1) tube amps for the front 3 speakers,
2) room sound treatment, or 3) better front L/R speakers


Unless your room is atypically wonderful, the obvious choice is (2)


I agree. The problem is that without test equipment it's hard to know exactly
where the best place is to deploy such treatment. Are you familiar with the
live-end-dead-end method of room treatment? Do you agree with it? IIRC, Bert
Whyte was a big enthusiast about this methodology.
  #113   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default audio culture nonsense?

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:58:24 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Actually, this one is EASY to check - without making any
purchase. Raid the kitchen for eight regular ceramic
coffee cups. Invert them and place them under your
speaker cable to get the cable up off the floor. Now,
listen. Do you hear any difference? Of course not, how
could there be?


Sighted bias.


In favor of raising the cables or against it? You are being somewhat more
obtuse today than usual.

I've definately seen audiophile systems with the cables carefully raised off
of the floor. One system used old telephone pole insulators.


Yes, yes, most of us have, But did it make any difference, that's the
question? Enid Lumley thinks so. I don't see how.
  #114   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,243
Default audio culture nonsense?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Have you ever owned high-powered monoblocks?


Interesting how a discussion of sound quality gets morphed into a
discussion
of property rights.

Have you ever even heard a high-end system with them in a
favorable environment, using other equipment you respect?


Interesting how the discussion of property rights morphs into a discussion
of admission to a demonstration.

For the record, Steven and I walked around HE2005 together for a while,
and
if that wouldn't be an opportunity to hear high end systems in favorable
environments, what would be? (For the record - the quality of the demo
rooms as acoustic venues varied, but some were quite good).

Well, I own a five channel system using high-power
monoblocks, and I could describe the changes I heard
versus my other sterep SS amps and VTL amps very much the
same way...


I have no problems with pride of ownership, as long as I don't have to
suspend too much disbelief while reading exhibitions of it.

I would probably describe the changes as
being a bit more subtle...but many revieweres nowadays
do.


With reviewers writing about "dancable cables" why would they be cited as
a
source of reliable information?

And I might not attribute them totally to this
equipment, but to the equipment as a representative and
high-quality example of the breed (one of my favorite
gripes against reviews these days is that folks are given
equipment to review without the requisite previous
experience to separate out the unit under test from the
generic category).


Harry, what technical advantage might monoblocks have that cannot ever or
has not ever be duplicated with multichannel amplifiers?

May I suggest that once again you are taking a stand
simply assuming you know the truth.


Steven has more chops as an audiophile than that.

When you have no first-hand basis for doing so.


Come on Harry, I saw you at HE2005. You mean you never passed Steven in
the
hallways there?


Might I suggest Arny that there is a big difference in making a change in a
system you are totally grounded in, and noting the differnce, than floating
down a show venue hallway. For what it is worth, I have never, ever found a
listening experience in a show environment that I would trust. Before I
ever acted after receiving a show impression I would do much more listening
in a much more controlled environment.

When I asked if Steven had even heard a system, I stressed "using other
equipment you respect" because that is the bare minimum required. I wasn't
thinking of shows or audio dealers....I was thinking of perhaps a friend or
fellow audiophile who shared Steven's biases towards equipment, but used
high-powered monoblocks. And best of all, with which Steven might have
experienced "before" and "after" auditions.

Essentially, Steven and you have simply confirmed that your don't even
understand the context for making the evaluataion, much less spouting off
against it.

  #115   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Serge Auckland Serge Auckland is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 191
Default audio culture nonsense?

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:46:59 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
---MIKE--- wrote:


snip


So,let's recap: upon auditioning this amplifier,

Michael Fremer got addicted and fell in love.
Max Dudious believed in magic.
Arnie Goodman became joyful.

and Audio Adviser promises us we'll hear music we never heard before,
even
from our
most beloved CDs.

Clearly this amp stands out from other amps in terms of sound...right?

Except, no actual evidence was provided for actual sonic difference
from
another amp.

Imagine if I took the time to read the copy for all of them.


Have you ever owned high-powered monoblocks?


Certainly not.

Have you ever even heard a high-end system with them in a favorable
environment, using other equipment you respect?


Yes.

Are Fremer et al indulging in hyperbole? Quite possibly.
Is this common in audiophile reviews?


I don't know if I'd call it hyperbole but some of these "differences"
between
components are quite subtle. Many are so tiny that it takes someone who
has
trained themselves to listen for them to hear them, and even more so, it
takes a type of personality who CARES about those tiny differences. An
analogy is oenology. :-

Go to a formal wine tasting. Listen as the oenologist at the front of the
room tells you about the vanilla, coffee, chocolate and raspberry
overtones
of the vintage you are tasting. Huh? All I taste is wine. It's either a
good
wine or a mediocre wine. It's too young and astringent or its older and
more
mellow. It has a good nose, a nice balance of acid and sweet or its bitter
and almost devoid of aroma. That's it. Now is the oenologist pulling our
leg
or is he indulging in a little hyperbole? No. He can really detect these
things and has developed (along with other wine scholars and connoisseurs)
a
mutual vocabulary to describe what he's tasting. He can taste it and I
cannot
because he's trained his palate to notice these things. I cannot because I
don't know what to taste FOR, but equally important, I don't care. I like
a
nice wine, its just not my life. If the wine is pleasant, I'll enjoy it.
I
might also mention that in a double-blind wine tasting, I can't tell one
cabernet from another.


The analogy with wine tasting has a major flaw, in that, as far as I'm
aware, there is no objective measure of wine quality. Of course one can
analyse the wine chemically, but that doesn't tell you how it will taste,
and every wine tastes different. Also, wine tasting is entirely subjective,
there's no way of telling if your "chocolate overtones" are the same as
mine. Amplifiers *can* be tested objectively, and the measurements are very
well understood. Blind testing has shown that there is no audible difference
between amplifiers if the measurements don't show up differences. These
tests were done many years ago, and, as far as I'm aware, have never been
proved wrong.


Quite so. Thus my sarcastic
reference to 'soul changing' experiences with amps. But the
rhetoric nevertheless implies *unsubtle* audible difference ...


Many of these differences are subtle. Some are not and some are program
dependent. I'm not going to make any soundstage determinations listening
to
rock-n-roll and three-channel mono jazz recordings.

which usually* hasn't been established as real in the first place.
Meanwhile,
we have the 'simple fact' of human error always operating
in the background.


Human error is always possible. But what do you say when a magazine passes
a
single unit around to several reviewers, all of which live in different
parts
of the country and who do not necessarily know each other and who do not
communicate, but when the evaluations are in, they all have almost the
same
things to say about the piece?


So, the question remains, is there good reason to believe such claims
of difference AREN'T nonsense? Where's the data?


What data? Conventional measurement doesn't reveal anything about these
differences and do nothing to tell anyone what the system is going to
sound
like. THD doesn't seem to mean anything because its been found that the
human
ear is largely insensitive to anything but rather large amounts of it in
amplifying devices. Sine-wave intermodulation distortion is also
undetectable
by ear except in large amounts (much higher than any competently designed
amplifier would ever have). So what does that leave us? SID? DAD? Some
people
discount those as being bogus. So, what is left? Frequency response? With
modern amps having DC to daylight frequency response graphs that look like
they were drawn with a straight-edge, I don't see that being anything. So
what measurement do matter? You will say that this is proof that there is
no
audible difference between amps, I say that we aren't measuring the right
things. Impasse.


Possibly so, but can you then suggest what isn't being measured that would
account for the sonic differences?

The Scientific Method requires predictions that can then be tested
experimentally. Just stating that amplifiers *do* sound different without
proposing a mechanism for such differences doesn't advance the science.


(* sometimes we'll be shown bench test data that indicates, indeed,
that the amp might well sound different ...because the measurements
are so poor compared to other amps, including mass-market ones)


What measurements? I remember once that there was a French tube amp (this
was
probably 15-20 years ago and I do not remember the brand) that measured
terribly (over 2.5% THD!) yet was one of the musical-sounding amps that I
had
ever heard. I was reluctant to send it back. and would have bought it were
it
not for the fact that it cost an arm and a leg.


If two amplifiers are found to sound different, under test conditions that
produce a statistically valid result, then there has *always* been a reason
that has shown up on measurement. I would genuinely love to know of an
instance where this has not been shown to be the case, as analysing these
results could well advance the science.

S.
http://audiopages.googlepages.com



  #116   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default audio culture nonsense?

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:58:24 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Actually, this one is EASY to check - without making any
purchase. Raid the kitchen for eight regular ceramic
coffee cups. Invert them and place them under your
speaker cable to get the cable up off the floor. Now,
listen. Do you hear any difference? Of course not, how
could there be?


Sighted bias.


In favor of raising the cables or against it?


Doesn't matter. Its bias, not reliable data either way.

You are being somewhat more obtuse today than usual.


No, I'm being factual.

I've definately seen audiophile systems with the cables carefully raised
off
of the floor. One system used old telephone pole insulators.


Yes, yes, most of us have, But did it make any difference, that's the
question?


How do you define "makes a difference".

It was obviouis to me that the telephone insulators improved the owner's
sense of well-being. That would be a difference, no?

Enid Lumley thinks so.


The word think implies logic, so I'd be careful about using that word in
conjunction with Ms. Lumley. ;-)

I don't see how.


I'm sure that I could measure some electrical difference due to raising
above some floor audio cables with telephone insulators.

  #117   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default audio culture nonsense?

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...

I don't know if I'd call it hyperbole but some of these "differences"
between
components are quite subtle.


Only if you don't measure them. Then the differences are huge.

Many are so tiny that it takes someone who has
trained themselves to listen for them to hear them, and even more so, it
takes a type of personality who CARES about those tiny differences.


We've always been careful to find listeners who care about the diffference
at hand, and believes that they have trained themselves to hear it.

BTW, there are legitimate ways to train listeners to hear relatively small
differences, but there's one catch - the difference has to be, in some
sense, audible for them to reliably detect it.

An analogy is oenology. :-


Go to a formal wine tasting. Listen as the oenologist at the front of the
room tells you about the vanilla, coffee, chocolate and raspberry
overtones
of the vintage you are tasting. Huh? All I taste is wine. It's either a
good
wine or a mediocre wine. It's too young and astringent or its older and
more
mellow. It has a good nose, a nice balance of acid and sweet or its bitter
and almost devoid of aroma. That's it.


Wow, you must have an alergy or something. I often sense all those sorts of
things when I'm eating or drinking.

Now is the oenologist pulling our leg or is he indulging in a little
hyperbole?


If we chemically analyze the wine, we find all sorts of chemicals that each
has some characteristic odor and/or taste.

No. He can really detect these
things and has developed (along with other wine scholars and connoisseurs)
a
mutual vocabulary to describe what he's tasting. He can taste it and I
cannot
because he's trained his palate to notice these things.


I must be weird. I tasted a lot of those things the first time I tasted wine
or even coffee. No expert was needed to fill my head with similies and
metaphors.

I cannot because I
don't know what to taste FOR, but equally important, I don't care. I like
a
nice wine, its just not my life. If the wine is pleasant, I'll enjoy it.
I
might also mention that in a double-blind wine tasting, I can't tell one
cabernet from another.


Ouch!

Quite so. Thus my sarcastic
reference to 'soul changing' experiences with amps. But the
rhetoric nevertheless implies *unsubtle* audible difference ...


Many of these differences are subtle. Some are not and some are program
dependent. I'm not going to make any soundstage determinations listening
to
rock-n-roll and three-channel mono jazz recordings.


But you already did. You said that the soundstage of that jazz recording was
like 3-channel mono.

which usually* hasn't been established as real in the first place.
Meanwhile,
we have the 'simple fact' of human error always operating
in the background.


Human error is always possible.


Actually, it is likely maybe even certain.

The question is not whether there is error, the question is how big is it
and can we manage it anyway?

But what do you say when a magazine passes a
single unit around to several reviewers, all of which live in different
parts
of the country and who do not necessarily know each other and who do not
communicate, but when the evaluations are in, they all have almost the
same
things to say about the piece?


Group think. And don't think that group think can't happen when the members
of the group are isolated for a time.

So, the question remains, is there good reason to believe such claims
of difference AREN'T nonsense? Where's the data?


What data?


Answer a question with the identical same question?

Conventional measurement doesn't reveal anything about these
differences


I wouldn't be too sure about that.

and do nothing to tell anyone what the system is going to sound
like.


I wouldn't be too sure about that.

THD doesn't seem to mean anything because its been found that the human
ear is largely insensitive to anything but rather large amounts of it in
amplifying devices.


Mentioning THD at this point in the history of audio technology is like an
excluded-middle argument. If the concept of THD had any life left in it
before a few years back, Geddes and Lee finished it off with their AES
papers.

Sine-wave intermodulation distortion is also undetectable
by ear except in large amounts


In which alternative universe?

(much higher than any competently designed
amplifier would ever have).


That depends on what you call a competently-designed amplfier. You have kept
on talking about how great some tubed amps sound despite their high measured
distortion, so you must think that they are competently designed. I can set
up a DBT that will let you clearly hear the nonlinear distortion in them
when it is a tenth what you say is is.

So what does that leave us? SID? DAD? Some people
discount those as being bogus.


They are just different names for nonlinear distortion.

So, what is left?


Lots of different kinds of linear and nonlinear distortion, and noise.

Frequency response? With
modern amps having DC to daylight frequency response graphs that look like
they were drawn with a straight-edge, I don't see that being anything.


Try hooking one of your favorite tubed amps up to a modern speaker load. The
straight line turns into a cross-section of the Alps!

So what measurement do matter?


Lots of different kinds of linear and nonlinear distortion, and noise.

You will say that this is proof that there is no
audible difference between amps, I say that we aren't measuring the right
things.


I don't see any signs of strong competence with measurements. I do see a lot
of high end journalistic truisms, which are liberally dosed with myths.

Impasse.


Lack of familiarity with the relevant facts.

(* sometimes we'll be shown bench test data that indicates, indeed,
that the amp might well sound different ...because the measurements
are so poor compared to other amps, including mass-market ones)


What measurements?


Lots of different kinds of linear and nonlinear distortion, and noise.

I remember once that there was a French tube amp (this was
probably 15-20 years ago and I do not remember the brand) that measured
terribly (over 2.5% THD!) yet was one of the musical-sounding amps that I
had
ever heard.


Just an anecdote.

Most likely, the high THD only occurred under conditions that were not
present during the listening evaluation. What you did hear was probably
frequency response shifts caused by the amps' high source impedance. The
alleged listening test wasn't a test because no reliable standard was being
used. IOW, it wasn't a straight-wire bypass test, or something like it.

I was reluctant to send it back. and would have bought it were it
not for the fact that it cost an arm and a leg.


I can easily afford the best-sounding amps around because amp technology has
progressed that far, and I use reasonable means to evaluate amps.

  #118   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 15:50:24 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


The exceptions?
Tubes vs transistors. I think tube amps sound more like
live music than solid-state. Digital vs Analog. We've
been through this before. The best recorded sound I've
ever heard comes from vinyl, not CD. No sense to rehash
the argument here.


Then why are you bringing that argument up, if not to rehash it?

Nothing will be served by it.


Apparently, it is somehow important to recite the same-old, same-old and
try
to cut discussion off right after repeating it.

I also don't believe that double-blind or ABX testing is of much
use in comparing electronics.


I can see why. ABX tests usually provide evidence that disagrees with
your
preferences.

For example, ABX tests show that if a SS amp sounds different than a
tubed
amp, its because the tubed amp is audibly inaccurate.


Thanks for finally admitting that differences DO exist.


I've been saying it all along.

And who cares if the tube amp is "audibly inaccurate".


Everbody who is interested in accuracy. You, know people who know what High
Fidelity really means. It means accuracy.

If it sounds more musical the SS amp, then so be it.


I can make any SS amp sound as musical as just about any tubed amp with an
equalizer and a bias-controlled listening test.

The two most obvious properties of tubed amps is mediocre or worse frequency
response into speaker loads, and a small population of people who are
strongly biased in their favor.

An amplifier is a means to an end. The end is listening to music,
and hopefully of recreating that musical event, as much as is possible, in
the home. If an "inaccurate" amp gives the listener a better glimpse of
the
muse, then what's wrong with that?


The idea that an audibly inaccurate amp would give a better glimpse of
anything but distrurbing amounts of noise and distortion can only be the
result of fond wishes, sentimentality, and personal bias. It comes down to
what you think is the best way to spice a soup - empty the dustpan into it,
or follow a good recipe using fine spices. Sonic accuracy is a good recipe,
and modern technology is as close as we can get to using fine spices.

There's no logical way
that inaccurate reproduction of recorded sound gives a more lifelike
rendition of the origional sound than accurate reproduction would.


Unsupported and unsupportable comment.


How so?

The fact that we have come as far as we have in the past 50 years by
following the sonic accuracy model is more than enough support.

Saying it doesn't make it so.


Exactly - saying that you like an amp that has lots of distortion under
undisclosed conditions means nothing in the larger context.

Similarly, ABX tests show that the vinyl format can be counted on to
distort
the recorded sound, while good digital equipment doesn't.


By way of example, a friend of mine who lives in another state from me
called
me on Saturday to tell me that after almost 20 years of listening to CD
exclusively, he recently pulled out his old record deck and hooked it up.
His
very words we "It was a revelation! I haven't been this "pulled-in" to
recorded music in so long, I'd forgotten that this was what brought me to
audio in the first place."


A sentimental journey on a ship by one person does not contrdict the obvious
benefits of flying for the rest of us.

I'd say he finds records a more satisfying way of
listening to music, wouldn't you?


I'd say that in all likelihood, this too will pass.

Its easy to see why someone would dislike a testing methodology that goes
counter to their tightly-held beliefs.


Dislike is not the proper word.


And the following is a statement of true love? ;-)

The proper word is that they're "irrelevant"
possibly because the testing establishment is measuring the wrong things


Words like possibly, based on out-of-date information is just piling hedge
words on top of errors.

  #119   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 17:07:36 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"willbill" wrote in message


anyway my view is it's down to 3 choices for my next
improvement: 1) tube amps for the front 3 speakers,
2) room sound treatment, or 3) better front L/R speakers


Unless your room is atypically wonderful, the obvious choice is (2)


I agree. The problem is that without test equipment it's hard to know
exactly
where the best place is to deploy such treatment.


I think you might be surprised how much useful work with practical acoustics
is done without test equipment.

Are you familiar with the live-end-dead-end method of room treatment?


Of course.

Do you agree with it?


Yes and no. Live end/dead end seems to suggest a dichotomy, but I know that
you have to look at the room holisticially.

IIRC, Bert Whyte was a big enthusiast about this methodology.


Bert was a big man in audio, but he's been gone so long that just about
every train he ever rode on has long since left the station, never to
return.

  #120   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default Do all amplifiers sound the same?

Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:22:58 -0800, Randy Yates wrote
(in article ):


Sonnova writes:

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 19:39:17 -0800, Randy Yates wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova writes:
[...]
I also don't believe that double-blind or ABX testing is of much use in
comparing electronics.

I don't belive a stop watch is of much use in comparing sports cars.


You are right. It isn't of much use in comparing sports cars. However, as
one
of a number of tools used in the process (some of which, like seating
position, steering feedback, turn-in, understeer and oversteer, are either
totally or largely subjective), can tell you all you need to know about
various sports cars. But the stop watch by itself? Almost useless.


You missed my point.


You didn't state it very well.

Stating (or at least implying) that ABX listening tests are not of much
use in comparing the sound of equipment is like stating that a stop
watch is not of much use in comparing the 0-60 MPH ET of sports cars. In
both cases, the tests give objective measurements instead of relaying on
subjective judgements.


The number of turns a wheel makes in a mile at a given speed is an objective
measurement, yet it really tells one nothing qualitative about the car.


A stopwatch isn't used to tell you the 'number of turns a wheel makes'. It tells
you how fast a car gets from point A to point B. To manyd rivers that is ONE indicator
of quality.

The problem with analogies to cars is that 'driving' is not analogous to 'listening'.
"Driving" engages several senses at once. Audible difference depends on just ONE.
*If* you are buying based on *audible difference alone*, then there is no analogy to
'driving'.

So how about we drop the irrelevant analogies to cars and driving?

I've
never seen an ABX or a double-blind listening test that I thought was set up
in any way to find anything other than that the results are ambiguous.


Even when they are positive?

Do you have a *clue* how MP3 codecs have been developed, for example?
They *depend* on unambiguous, positive ABX results.

And then there's Sean Olive's double-blind loudspeaker quality rating studies.
Those not good enough for you?

And finally there's the positive and negative ABX results compiled at Dave Carlstrom's
site:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_data.htm

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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DLS Amplifiers g35dude[_2_] Car Audio 1 August 4th 07 09:47 AM
Why cables and amplifiers affect sound quality Ed Huber High End Audio 20 November 23rd 05 04:33 AM
FA: 2 TOA 8-Channel 30 watt Amplifiers w/3 sound modules each - last 2 days! Luke Perry Pro Audio 0 June 8th 04 05:37 PM
FA: 2 TOA 8-Channel 30 watt Amplifiers w/3 sound modules each Luke Perry Pro Audio 0 June 5th 04 06:52 AM
FA: 2 TOA 8-Channel 30 watt Amplifiers w/3 sound modules each Luke Perry Pro Audio 0 June 5th 04 06:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:46 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"