Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:34:53 -0700, c. leeds wrote
(in article ): Sonnova wrote: There was not enough difference between the sound of those two amps to justify a price difference of 4X, much less 80X under the conditions that we were listening... I answered: Fair enough, that's your opinion. Other listeners may have a different set of values and may disagree, of course. Sonnova now says: Disagree with what? Your stated opinion. SIX listeners - some with invested interests declared that the difference between the amps listened to that day were so small as to be essentially insignificant. So what? Another six listeners may have a different set of values and may make a different conclusion. It's a matter of preference. Do you understand that's a personal, subjective choice, and not an objective conclusion subject to your pronouncement as some universal truth? Actually it is an objective conclusion based on a well researched scientific methodology. Many scientific principles are tested in this manner. The point is that this test showed that under most listening situations, the difference in sound quality between most modern, solid state power amps is insignificant.... Again, sez you. But if there was a detectable difference - and apparently there was - the declaration of whether the difference is "significant" is subjective. When a consensus about there being any difference at all could not be reached over a good percentage of "tries" I'd say that any differences heard were insignificant EXCEPT in direct A/B comparison. 10 minutes after the test, the panel couldn't even remember what the differences were or pick them out on long term listening. That's the definition of insignificant. It is pretty well agreed that the differences heard were caused by small anomalies in frequency response and may be speaker load dependent. Again, not a significant reason to choose one amp over the other. I'm just saying that those types of differences wane after "the new" wears off, and the amp just becomes part of what your system sound like. That's your experience, perhaps. It most surely is not mine. Yet you seem convinced that your personal experiences are somehow universal. Without direct comparison, you wouldn't notice that someone else's amplifier(s) sound different from yours when you go over to their place and listen to their system. And you know this how? It's very elementary. Someone else's system sound is mostly influenced by speakers and room. There would be no way for you to tell WHAT effects you were hearing. Speaker sound. Amplifier sound, room sound. How could you? I say that the lion's share of money spent on speakers and room treatments is a much better way to go than spending it on electronics. IOW, a $200 power amp connected to a $4000 pair of speakers makes more AUDIBLE sense than going the other way around. You're changing the subject and just being silly. This is not an "either-or" issue. Some audiophiles spend a lot on speakers (often, much, much more than $4,000), and they also spend big bucks on electronics. And that's fine. Amplifier sound is a tertiary effect at best. That's only common sense. The results said that almost anyone COULD replace their reference amp with a cheap Behringer amp in their system, no matter how much that system cost, and probably not notice much if any difference. That's not an opinion, it's THE logical conclusion of a carefully set-up and executed scientific double blind ABX test. Please don't cite "science" to support your claim of what is a valid preference. Again, that's silly. The fact is there really is no preference. Amplifier sound in modern solid-state amplifiers is a tertiary effect. I have no problem with someone wanting to believe that its a first-order effect and spending accordingly. I'm just reporting that ABX tests say otherwise. And you should know something about your scientific double blind ABX test: it wasn't designed to establish preference, but to reveal differences. Do you understand the distinction? Of course I do. I even mentioned that in my original post. But the point of the exercise is that there isn't much difference and in many "tries" statistically, NO difference was detected. That says a lot. |
#162
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
Sonnova wrote:
There was not enough difference between the sound of those two amps to justify... now he says: When a consensus about there being any difference at all could not be reached over a good percentage of "tries" Given your inconsistent observations, there's no way to know anything about this test without knowing how it was conducted and what the exact results were. There was either a difference, or not. You've stated both to suit your argument. Note that there need not be consensus as to whether there was a difference. Only one listener need reliably detect a difference to establish a difference. Also, you refer to a "consensus." But if the test subjects were allowed to discuss the test as it was conducted, you've tainted your result. |
#163
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:08:55 -0700, c. leeds wrote
(in article ): Sonnova wrote: There was not enough difference between the sound of those two amps to justify... now he says: When a consensus about there being any difference at all could not be reached over a good percentage of "tries" Given your inconsistent observations, The only thing inconsistent here is your selective out-of-context quoting. There is nothing at all inconsistent about my observations. A real, significant difference between the sound of any two amps under test would manifest itself as a clear ability of all six listeners to note that at a difference existed. The results of the tests would be definitive and consistent from listener to listener and from source to source. Since only some listeners could hear a difference some of the time and the only time that everyone was able to hear a difference consistently, they were cuing off of tape hiss and not music. I'd say that makes the observed differences rather subtle and therefore, in the real world, insignificant. Many audio experts and engineers maintain that all things being equal, any two modern Solid State amps of similar power should sound the same and if any difference are heard, they are likely the result in level differences and or frequency response anomalies, the latter often the result of interaction between the amp and the speaker load its driving. there's no way to know anything about this test without knowing how it was conducted and what the exact results were. There was either a difference, or not. You've stated both to suit your argument. No I haven't. I have been scrupulously consistent. On some program material differences were heard with a fairly high degree of probability, I.E, the written results tallied with the master sheet made by the person doing the switching more than 70% of the time. On other recordings, the results were a low correlation, 55% or less. On these tries, it was apparent that a clear correlation between the number of times that the amps were switched and the ability of the listening panel to pick-up on the fact was essentially blind chance. That obviously means that the changes, when detected were subtle enough that one amp could be distinguished from the other only sometimes and then only by some of the listeners which is exactly what I said above. Note that there need not be consensus as to whether there was a difference. Only one listener need reliably detect a difference to establish a difference. I agree. But that's the point, isn't it? If everyone detected a change in amplifier every time the amps were switched (or not). Then there would be a clear case for deducing that the amps under test were significantly different from one another. Since the ability to detect a change in amplifiers was difficult enough to have often wildly different results which sometimes correlated as a consensus and sometimes as blind chance, shows that the differences between amps were not that significant that everyone could notice them all the time. Also, you refer to a "consensus." But if the test subjects were allowed to discuss the test as it was conducted, you've tainted your result. The consensus was arrived at by comparing the tally sheets that each listener filled out for each different CD played. The sheet consisted of a three column table made in Word and marked at ten 30 second intervals. Next to each time marker were two columns marked "change" and "no change". While listenig to each program source for five minutes, the person (in another room) doing the switching (by pressing a button)would mark each sheet as to whether she hit the switch (change) or not (no change) which was her choice while the listeners would mark the same kind of sheet with whether or not he detected a change in amplifier at each 30 second interval. No discussion of the tests was allowed DURING the testing. I was strongly in the camp that all amps sounded very different before I was party to this test. Now I'm more in the Julian Hirsch camp " Like all modern amplifiers this amp contributes no sound of its own.." an stand that I firmly believed was wrong in those days. Maybe in the 1960's and 1970's amps did vary more than they do now, after all, there were more variables in circuit design then there are now (for instance, output transformer design in tube amps varried quite a bit, some early solid-state amps (like McIntosh) used interstage transformers on their solid-state amps, often amps used marginal transistors (to get the current necessary) and many amps were unstable [Acoustech]). Today its looks like much design philosophy has converged. I sure didn't expect the results we got. It was certainly an epiphany of sorts. I was hoping to come back here with a result that upheld my prejudice so that I could tell Arny Kruger and Steven Sullivan that they are wrong. Well, they are right and I was wrong it looks like. Now I'm thinking "How much other audiophile mythology is just as wrong?" Cables differences have been shown to be imaginary, and now amplifier differences have been reduced to tertiary effects. What next? Is SACD vs Red Book CD a myth as well? Do all CD players sound the same regardless of price? I wonder, now. |
#164
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
Sonnova wrote:
There was not enough difference between the sound of those two amps to justify... he also wrote: When a consensus about there being any difference at all could not be reached over a good percentage of "tries" when questioned about the contradictory remarks, he says: The only thing inconsistent here is your selective out-of-context quoting. There is nothing at all inconsistent about my observations. Sorry, there was either a difference, or there was not. A real, significant difference between the sound of any two amps under test would manifest itself as a clear ability of all six listeners to note that at a difference existed. Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. There is no need for universal agreement among test subjects to establish a difference. The results of the tests would be definitive and consistent from listener to listener and from source to source. No, this is not inherently true at all. You clearly do not understand test methodology. This is why I told him: there's no way to know anything about this test without knowing how it was conducted and what the exact results were. he now says: I have been scrupulously consistent. You really don't understand what you're doing, which is no great offense. Your problem are your pronouncements of "fact" based on a flawed methodology of a test you've shown you don't understand. Performing a valid blind test - ABX or otherwise - is not as simple as it may appear at first glance. |
#165
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
From the tiny little (I think) I know, many of the critical components of an
amp have +/- tolerances. No two pieces are identical, additionally if and when an amp has been repaired, two amps would never be the _same_, so if they have tiny sound differences, reliably identified or not, so what? "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:08:55 -0700, c. leeds wrote (in article ): Sonnova wrote: There was not enough difference between the sound of those two amps to justify... now he says: When a consensus about there being any difference at all could not be reached over a good percentage of "tries" Given your inconsistent observations, The only thing inconsistent here is your selective out-of-context quoting. There is nothing at all inconsistent about my observations. A real, significant difference between the sound of any two amps under test would manifest itself as a clear ability of all six listeners to note that at a difference existed. The results of the tests would be definitive and consistent from listener to listener and from source to source. Since only some listeners could hear a difference some of the time and the only time that everyone was able to hear a difference consistently, they were cuing off of tape hiss and not music. I'd say that makes the observed differences rather subtle and therefore, in the real world, insignificant. Many audio experts and engineers maintain that all things being equal, any two modern Solid State amps of similar power should sound the same and if any difference are heard, they are likely the result in level differences and or frequency response anomalies, the latter often the result of interaction between the amp and the speaker load its driving. there's no way to know anything about this test without knowing how it was conducted and what the exact results were. There was either a difference, or not. You've stated both to suit your argument. No I haven't. I have been scrupulously consistent. On some program material differences were heard with a fairly high degree of probability, I.E, the written results tallied with the master sheet made by the person doing the switching more than 70% of the time. On other recordings, the results were a low correlation, 55% or less. On these tries, it was apparent that a clear correlation between the number of times that the amps were switched and the ability of the listening panel to pick-up on the fact was essentially blind chance. That obviously means that the changes, when detected were subtle enough that one amp could be distinguished from the other only sometimes and then only by some of the listeners which is exactly what I said above. Note that there need not be consensus as to whether there was a difference. Only one listener need reliably detect a difference to establish a difference. I agree. But that's the point, isn't it? If everyone detected a change in amplifier every time the amps were switched (or not). Then there would be a clear case for deducing that the amps under test were significantly different from one another. Since the ability to detect a change in amplifiers was difficult enough to have often wildly different results which sometimes correlated as a consensus and sometimes as blind chance, shows that the differences between amps were not that significant that everyone could notice them all the time. Also, you refer to a "consensus." But if the test subjects were allowed to discuss the test as it was conducted, you've tainted your result. The consensus was arrived at by comparing the tally sheets that each listener filled out for each different CD played. The sheet consisted of a three column table made in Word and marked at ten 30 second intervals. Next to each time marker were two columns marked "change" and "no change". While listenig to each program source for five minutes, the person (in another room) doing the switching (by pressing a button)would mark each sheet as to whether she hit the switch (change) or not (no change) which was her choice while the listeners would mark the same kind of sheet with whether or not he detected a change in amplifier at each 30 second interval. No discussion of the tests was allowed DURING the testing. I was strongly in the camp that all amps sounded very different before I was party to this test. Now I'm more in the Julian Hirsch camp " Like all modern amplifiers this amp contributes no sound of its own.." an stand that I firmly believed was wrong in those days. Maybe in the 1960's and 1970's amps did vary more than they do now, after all, there were more variables in circuit design then there are now (for instance, output transformer design in tube amps varried quite a bit, some early solid-state amps (like McIntosh) used interstage transformers on their solid-state amps, often amps used marginal transistors (to get the current necessary) and many amps were unstable [Acoustech]). Today its looks like much design philosophy has converged. I sure didn't expect the results we got. It was certainly an epiphany of sorts. I was hoping to come back here with a result that upheld my prejudice so that I could tell Arny Kruger and Steven Sullivan that they are wrong. Well, they are right and I was wrong it looks like. Now I'm thinking "How much other audiophile mythology is just as wrong?" Cables differences have been shown to be imaginary, and now amplifier differences have been reduced to tertiary effects. What next? Is SACD vs Red Book CD a myth as well? Do all CD players sound the same regardless of price? I wonder, now. |
#166
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:43:05 -0700, c. leeds wrote
(in article ): Sonnova wrote: There was not enough difference between the sound of those two amps to justify... he also wrote: When a consensus about there being any difference at all could not be reached over a good percentage of "tries" when questioned about the contradictory remarks, he says: The only thing inconsistent here is your selective out-of-context quoting. There is nothing at all inconsistent about my observations. Sorry, there was either a difference, or there was not. A real, significant difference between the sound of any two amps under test would manifest itself as a clear ability of all six listeners to note that at a difference existed. Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. There is no need for universal agreement among test subjects to establish a difference. The results of the tests would be definitive and consistent from listener to listener and from source to source. No, this is not inherently true at all. You clearly do not understand test methodology. This is why I told him: there's no way to know anything about this test without knowing how it was conducted and what the exact results were. he now says: I have been scrupulously consistent. You really don't understand what you're doing, which is no great offense. Your problem are your pronouncements of "fact" based on a flawed methodology of a test you've shown you don't understand. Performing a valid blind test - ABX or otherwise - is not as simple as it may appear at first glance. Fine. I disagree. I think that a double-blind test that shows that differences in amps are so small as to be not readily noted in an ABX comparison means that the differences between these amps are MINISCULE. Disagree if you like, but to me and the other 5 listeners involved, the results were clear. |
#167
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:43:05 -0700, c. leeds wrote (in article ): Sonnova wrote: There was not enough difference between the sound of those two amps to justify... he also wrote: When a consensus about there being any difference at all could not be reached over a good percentage of "tries" when questioned about the contradictory remarks, he says: The only thing inconsistent here is your selective out-of-context quoting. There is nothing at all inconsistent about my observations. Sorry, there was either a difference, or there was not. A real, significant difference between the sound of any two amps under test would manifest itself as a clear ability of all six listeners to note that at a difference existed. Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. There is no need for universal agreement among test subjects to establish a difference. The results of the tests would be definitive and consistent from listener to listener and from source to source. No, this is not inherently true at all. You clearly do not understand test methodology. This is why I told him: there's no way to know anything about this test without knowing how it was conducted and what the exact results were. he now says: I have been scrupulously consistent. You really don't understand what you're doing, which is no great offense. Your problem are your pronouncements of "fact" based on a flawed methodology of a test you've shown you don't understand. Performing a valid blind test - ABX or otherwise - is not as simple as it may appear at first glance. Fine. I disagree. I think that a double-blind test that shows that differences in amps are so small as to be not readily noted in an ABX comparison means that the differences between these amps are MINISCULE. Disagree if you like, but to me and the other 5 listeners involved, the results were clear. I'm the original owner of a vintage amp (used in a secondary system) which I sent for repair to a gentleman who specializes in this area. He called in the actual designer of the component, and they labored together in an effort to get both of its 2 channels to sound the same. I took several months and they claimed they did the best that they could. Before any wild speculation is made about the sound characteristics of two different amplifiers, I'd very much like to see the results of a study comparing the sound of the two channels of just ONE single stereo amplifier. In any bet my money is on the result showing that they do NOT sound the same, (and that this entire endeavor represents foolishness). |
#168
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:43:05 -0700, c. leeds wrote (in article ): Sonnova wrote: There was not enough difference between the sound of those two amps to justify... he also wrote: When a consensus about there being any difference at all could not be reached over a good percentage of "tries" when questioned about the contradictory remarks, he says: The only thing inconsistent here is your selective out-of-context quoting. There is nothing at all inconsistent about my observations. Sorry, there was either a difference, or there was not. A real, significant difference between the sound of any two amps under test would manifest itself as a clear ability of all six listeners to note that at a difference existed. Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. There is no need for universal agreement among test subjects to establish a difference. The results of the tests would be definitive and consistent from listener to listener and from source to source. No, this is not inherently true at all. You clearly do not understand test methodology. This is why I told him: there's no way to know anything about this test without knowing how it was conducted and what the exact results were. he now says: I have been scrupulously consistent. You really don't understand what you're doing, which is no great offense. Your problem are your pronouncements of "fact" based on a flawed methodology of a test you've shown you don't understand. Performing a valid blind test - ABX or otherwise - is not as simple as it may appear at first glance. Fine. I disagree. I think that a double-blind test that shows that differences in amps are so small as to be not readily noted in an ABX comparison means that the differences between these amps are MINISCULE. Disagree if you like, but to me and the other 5 listeners involved, the results were clear. This agress with the responses of the listeners that helped me develop the PCABX amplifier tests. In the end we were able to hear some differences, but they were so small that they were no more signficant than say the differences due to moving one's head an inch or two. I know from field tests that there are differences in response of several dB in the sensitive middle frequency range between nearby locations in a theatre, symphony hall, or other performance space. If you include locations on the stage, there may be differences of 10 dB or more. This means that there is not just one absolute sound, even when electronics are excluded from live performances. |
#169
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 10:42:09 -0700, Norman M. Schwartz wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:43:05 -0700, c. leeds wrote (in article ): Sonnova wrote: There was not enough difference between the sound of those two amps to justify... he also wrote: When a consensus about there being any difference at all could not be reached over a good percentage of "tries" when questioned about the contradictory remarks, he says: The only thing inconsistent here is your selective out-of-context quoting. There is nothing at all inconsistent about my observations. Sorry, there was either a difference, or there was not. A real, significant difference between the sound of any two amps under test would manifest itself as a clear ability of all six listeners to note that at a difference existed. Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. There is no need for universal agreement among test subjects to establish a difference. The results of the tests would be definitive and consistent from listener to listener and from source to source. No, this is not inherently true at all. You clearly do not understand test methodology. This is why I told him: there's no way to know anything about this test without knowing how it was conducted and what the exact results were. he now says: I have been scrupulously consistent. You really don't understand what you're doing, which is no great offense. Your problem are your pronouncements of "fact" based on a flawed methodology of a test you've shown you don't understand. Performing a valid blind test - ABX or otherwise - is not as simple as it may appear at first glance. Fine. I disagree. I think that a double-blind test that shows that differences in amps are so small as to be not readily noted in an ABX comparison means that the differences between these amps are MINISCULE. Disagree if you like, but to me and the other 5 listeners involved, the results were clear. I'm the original owner of a vintage amp (used in a secondary system) which I sent for repair to a gentleman who specializes in this area. He called in the actual designer of the component, and they labored together in an effort to get both of its 2 channels to sound the same. I took several months and they claimed they did the best that they could. Before any wild speculation is made about the sound characteristics of two different amplifiers, I'd very much like to see the results of a study comparing the sound of the two channels of just ONE single stereo amplifier. In any bet my money is on the result showing that they do NOT sound the same, (and that this entire endeavor represents foolishness). That's not the point. We found the amplifiers to sound different, but not significantly so. IOW, we didn't find any of the amps ABX'ed that day to sound different enough that any of us could decide which we would like to take home with us based on the sound. I could put on my engineering hat and say that I prefer the Mark Levinson amps because they had a huge power supplies, were monoblocks, and would likely recover from large transients and be better at low bass. Or I could put on my greedy hat and say that I would love to have the Mark Levinsons because they cost $24000, or I could put on my Interior decorator hat and say that I prefer the Audio Research amp because it matches my Audio Research preamp. But none of those reasons had anything whatsoever to do with the sound either of these amplifier (or the $200 Behringer) made through those Magneplanar speakers, that Sunday. Based on the listening tests, all the amps sounded much more alike than different and usually it was only certain very subtle cues that told any of us that the amps had switched. Sure, it's possible for two amps or even two channels of the same amp to have sonic differences, but do these differences make any real difference in the listening? I'd say, based upon that Sunday's listening, that the answer is no. |
#170
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 10:43:17 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:43:05 -0700, c. leeds wrote (in article ): Sonnova wrote: There was not enough difference between the sound of those two amps to justify... he also wrote: When a consensus about there being any difference at all could not be reached over a good percentage of "tries" when questioned about the contradictory remarks, he says: The only thing inconsistent here is your selective out-of-context quoting. There is nothing at all inconsistent about my observations. Sorry, there was either a difference, or there was not. A real, significant difference between the sound of any two amps under test would manifest itself as a clear ability of all six listeners to note that at a difference existed. Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. There is no need for universal agreement among test subjects to establish a difference. The results of the tests would be definitive and consistent from listener to listener and from source to source. No, this is not inherently true at all. You clearly do not understand test methodology. This is why I told him: there's no way to know anything about this test without knowing how it was conducted and what the exact results were. he now says: I have been scrupulously consistent. You really don't understand what you're doing, which is no great offense. Your problem are your pronouncements of "fact" based on a flawed methodology of a test you've shown you don't understand. Performing a valid blind test - ABX or otherwise - is not as simple as it may appear at first glance. Fine. I disagree. I think that a double-blind test that shows that differences in amps are so small as to be not readily noted in an ABX comparison means that the differences between these amps are MINISCULE. Disagree if you like, but to me and the other 5 listeners involved, the results were clear. This agress with the responses of the listeners that helped me develop the PCABX amplifier tests. In the end we were able to hear some differences, but they were so small that they were no more signficant than say the differences due to moving one's head an inch or two. Those are essentially my findings as well. There are differences but they are so small as to be insignificant. I know from field tests that there are differences in response of several dB in the sensitive middle frequency range between nearby locations in a theatre, symphony hall, or other performance space. If you include locations on the stage, there may be differences of 10 dB or more. This means that there is not just one absolute sound, even when electronics are excluded from live performances. I'll buy that, 100%. |
#171
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
c. leeds wrote:
So what? Another six listeners may have a different set of values and may make a different conclusion. It's a matter of preference. Do you understand that's a personal, subjective choice, and not an objective conclusion subject to your pronouncement as some universal truth? Exactly that is not the case. It is often found (in excessive experiments) that nearly nobody is able to distinguish one amp from another as soon as the test is done in a double blind testing. And as soon as the amps are equaled in frequency response and volume nobody was ever able to win the "Richard Clark amplifier challenge" [1]. And you should know something about your scientific double blind ABX test: it wasn't designed to establish preference, but to reveal differences. Do you understand the distinction? If there is no difference, there can't be a preference. You understand the problem at all? cug [1] http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm -- http://www.event-s.net |
#172
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... Now I'm thinking "How much other audiophile mythology is just as wrong?" Cables differences have been shown to be imaginary, and now amplifier differences have been reduced to tertiary effects. What next? Is SACD vs Red Book CD a myth as well? Do all CD players sound the same regardless of price? I wonder, now. I can tell the difference between my tube amps and solid state ones. And the old JVC 85WPC-with-the-5-band-graphic-equalizer-and-built-in-tuner-with-50-yes-50-presets my wife owned when we met, I could pick that old piece of crap out of a crowd. But... I'll wager if I overhauled it, replaced the old electrolytics, coupling caps, out-of-spec resistors it'd probably sound okay with the right pair of loudspeakers. From what I've read, CD vs. SACD double-blind trials have been done, the results posted in this very forum under the heading "the emporer's new sample rate". Guess what? 44KHz 16-bit sounds exactly like 192KHz 24-bit in double-blind ABX tests. I will say on a personal level that all CD players definitely do not sound the same but I'd qualify that the same way you did amplifiers. YES, there are some bottom of the barrel cheap-ass junk CD players which suffer from poor parts quality, poor design and layout, and shoddy construction. But I doubt you'd be surprised if you found that no CD player costing more than $150 could be repeatedly identified in a double-blind test. Maybe even $100. "c. leeds" wrote in message ... Again, that's your opinion. Personally, I prefer electronics of better build quality than Behringer. Much, much better. Again culled from the annals of RAHE, another post entitled "the power of expectation" has a link to an article about a scientific study about expectation. In the study a group of test subjects were served the same wine. Some were told that it was expensive, some were told that it was cheap. The ones drinking the "expensive" wine actually had a measurable amount of increased activity in the portion of the brain associated with pleasure vs. the ones drinking the "cheap" wine. The conclusion? Expectation of value or pleasure is (can be) a self-fulfilling prophesy if you will. So, listening to a $24,000 pair of ML amps CAN, in its' own right with no regard to sound quality, be pleasurable to the select few who can afford them simply BECAUSE they cost so much. Maybe that's what gives rise to ol' Mr. C. Leeds preference. Or, maybe he enjoys protracted sessions of listening to tape hiss. Hmmmm.... maybe it's NOT all about sound... I must say I feel smug whenever I someone that's dropped a few hundred bucks on cables; glad that my few hundred went for some expensive wine instead ;-) |
#173
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:30:08 -0700, Dave wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... Now I'm thinking "How much other audiophile mythology is just as wrong?" Cables differences have been shown to be imaginary, and now amplifier differences have been reduced to tertiary effects. What next? Is SACD vs Red Book CD a myth as well? Do all CD players sound the same regardless of price? I wonder, now. I can tell the difference between my tube amps and solid state ones. I don't doubt that. But the differences between similarly powered SS amps are damn difficult to detect with any certainty. Most tube amps do sound different from similar powered SS amps because tubes impart a euphonic "warmness" to the sound that SS amps do not. Some people (actually, a lot of people if one goes by the number of brands of tube amps and preamps being sold today) really like that warmness and it's easy to hear. And the old JVC 85WPC-with-the-5-band-graphic-equalizer-and-built-in-tuner-with-50-yes-50- pres ets my wife owned when we met, I could pick that old piece of crap out of a crowd. But... I'll wager if I overhauled it, replaced the old electrolytics, coupling caps, out-of-spec resistors it'd probably sound okay with the right pair of loudspeakers. Maybe. Maybe not. Early transistor gear was not designed all that well, because the differences between solid-state and tube circuit designs necessary for good performance were not well understood. So, it's not just a question of power supply and stage coupling components, its the transistors used and how the amps' output stages were biased. A case in point would be the Dynaco Stereo 120. Early versions used marginal transistors that Dyna had to hand select, such as the 40233, 2N3053, and 2N3055 all of which were replaced after about 1969 with more modern, and robust types and the amp's bias was increased to run the amp more into class AB rather than the class B that the earlier amps had to run because of the marginal transistors. Early Stereo 120's had a nasty crossover notch where the two halves of the push-pull output crossed zero volts. It made the early ones sound awful. Macintosh actually used inter-stage transformers to couple audio from stage of their early solid-state amplifiers to another, with predictably poor results. |
#174
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
I wrote:
Personally, I prefer electronics of better build quality than Behringer. Much, much better. Dave says: ...a scientific study about expectation. In the study a group of test subjects were served the same wine. Some were told that it was expensive, some were told that it was cheap. The ones drinking the "expensive" wine actually had a measurable amount of increased activity in the portion of the brain associated with pleasure vs. the ones drinking the "cheap" wine. The conclusion? Expectation of value or pleasure is (can be) a self-fulfilling prophesy if you will. This isn't a valid analogy. It's trivially easy to distinguish the build quality betwen Behringer products and, by way of example, Audio Research. I much prefer the quality of ARC products. So, listening to a $24,000 pair of ML amps CAN, in its' own right with no regard to sound quality, be pleasurable to the select few who can afford them simply BECAUSE they cost so much. Maybe that's what gives rise to ol' Mr. C. Leeds preference. No, I simply prefer better build quality. Or, maybe he enjoys protracted sessions of listening to tape hiss. What does this have to do with build quality? |
#175
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
Some manufactorers admit that they Color or "voice" their amplifiers.
Audio Research does and of course there are the Carver solid state amps that were supposedly voiced like tube amplifiers. Another thing. I cannot usually tell the difference between two good amps in an AB test.....But on first listening to an acceptional amp my subconscious tells me it's good after the first few seconds. Maybe that's what a "golden ear" is about....... RobertLang wrote: Can a manufacturer “color” the sound of their amps purposefully so that they *do* sound differently from other amps? If you read the product information you almost get the impression that’s what some may do? Also, is there any reasons why an Class D amp might sound differently from a A/B or why those two classes may sound differently than a Class A? Let me make it clear that over the years I have been unable to discern through subjective listening that audible differences exist among amplifiers as long the amplifiers are operating within their design limits. To best insure that the amplifiers I use do not exceed their limits I tend to use large “beefy” amps with considerably more power than I would probably ever us. I do have criteria, however, when purchasing an amplifier as subjective and perhaps shallow as they may be. Among the criteria are looks (although my amps are now hidden from view), size, rated continuous power of 300 watts + into 8 ohms with low rated distortion across the a wide frequency response and power bandwidth, a doubling of power or near doubling into 4 ohms, substantial increase of rated power into 2 ohms, input sensitivity of 1.5 V or less (for full output) because I employ a passive line stage, and an input impedance friendly for passives. Usually they tend to be of mono design (although that is not a criterion) even if contained in a single chassis. I have found that if an amp meets those criteria in my system I really can’t tell the difference whether it is in bass response, high frequency response, depth, width, height of sound stage, etc. Robert C. Lang |
#176
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
On Thu, 8 May 2008 17:06:48 -0700, Peter Elem wrote
(in article ): Some manufactorers admit that they Color or "voice" their amplifiers. Audio Research does and of course there are the Carver solid state amps that were supposedly voiced like tube amplifiers. Actually Bob Carver's claim was that he could "null" one of his amps to sound like any amplifier he chose. I was party to a demonstration where he made one of his Carver amps sound like a conrad johnson tube amp. Whether or not he actually did this in production, I don't know. But the question that I have is why? Unless each amp was nulled on a bespoke basis, what good is that ability? I would think that such an ability would be best served in making his amps as neutral as possible. Another thing. I cannot usually tell the difference between two good amps in an AB test.....But on first listening to an acceptional amp my subconscious tells me it's good after the first few seconds. Maybe that's what a "golden ear" is about....... That echoes my experience as well. RobertLang wrote: Can a manufacturer “color” the sound of their amps purposefully so that they *do* sound differently from other amps? If you read the product information you almost get the impression that’s what some may do? Also, is there any reasons why an Class D amp might sound differently from a A/B or why those two classes may sound differently than a Class A? Let me make it clear that over the years I have been unable to discern through subjective listening that audible differences exist among amplifiers as long the amplifiers are operating within their design limits. To best insure that the amplifiers I use do not exceed their limits I tend to use large “beefy” amps with considerably more power than I would probably ever us. I do have criteria, however, when purchasing an amplifier as subjective and perhaps shallow as they may be. Among the criteria are looks (although my amps are now hidden from view), size, rated continuous power of 300 watts + into 8 ohms with low rated distortion across the a wide frequency response and power bandwidth, a doubling of power or near doubling into 4 ohms, substantial increase of rated power into 2 ohms, input sensitivity of 1.5 V or less (for full output) because I employ a passive line stage, and an input impedance friendly for passives. Usually they tend to be of mono design (although that is not a criterion) even if contained in a single chassis. I have found that if an amp meets those criteria in my system I really can’t tell the difference whether it is in bass response, high frequency response, depth, width, height of sound stage, etc. Robert C. Lang |
#177
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
Sonnova wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 17:06:48 -0700, Peter Elem wrote (in article ): Another thing. I cannot usually tell the difference between two good amps in an AB test.....But on first listening to an exceptional amp my subconscious tells me it's good after the first few seconds. Maybe that's what a "golden ear" is about....... Sometimes you don't need much of a golden ear. I went to a high end store and did some A/B comparisons of some mid-range A/V receivers (Yamaha, Dennon, Pioneer all priced around the $3,000 mark). I could easily tell the Pioneer out from the other amps as it was quite scratchy. You can definitely tell the difference between two amps of different class (price, build quality, etc). Not so much for the sound (warmth, voice tonality, etc) but for the reproduction ability. A strong amp can give more defined bass, high frequencies are crystal clear, etc. My A/B 2-channel (stereo) example is going from a Yamaha AV2090 (rated ~120W/ch RMS) to a Krell KSA-200S (rated 200W RMS in Class-A). (I don't have the distortion figures with me.) The difference was noticeable to me. That echoes my experience as well. RobertLang wrote: I do have criteria, however, when purchasing an amplifier as subjective and perhaps shallow as they may be. Among the criteria are looks (although my amps are now hidden from view), size, rated continuous power of 300 watts + into 8 ohms with low rated distortion across the a wide frequency response and power bandwidth, a doubling of power or near doubling into 4 ohms, substantial increase of rated power into 2 ohms, input sensitivity of 1.5 V or less (for full output) because I employ a passive line stage, and an input impedance friendly for passives. Usually they tend to be of mono design (although that is not a criterion) even if contained in a single chassis. Yeah, I admit that I have my own personal preference for amps as well. In my rough but not perfect order of preference... (1) Power/Distortion figures (as a guide) (2) Physical presence (it should look intimidating) (3) Physical weight (a cheeky one... useful for Class A amps, totally useless when looking at a Class D amp) (4) Practicality (can I get the cables connected, XLR connectors, etc) I wouldn't mind hearing other peoples way of choosing an amp. On a side note, I would love to hear a nice horn speaker setup on a tube amp. I imagine it would be an experience worth finding out. Phil |
#178
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
"Peter Elem" wrote in message
Some manufactorers admit that they Color or "voice" their amplifiers. Audio Research does and of course there are the Carver solid state amps that were supposedly voiced like tube amplifiers. The fallacy here is the idea that there is some combination of audio colorations that are characteristic of tubed (or SS) power amplifiers. There are some very high quality tubed amplifiers that are sonically transparent - they will pass an audio signal into a loudspeaker load without any audible changes. Most tubed audio equipment will fail straight-wire bypass tests, particularly with tough loudspeaker loads. The root cause is their typically high output impedance, especially at low frequencies. Some tubed amplifiers have design features that seem to be designed to product an amplifier that is not sonically transparent, such as single-end output stages and absence of or severe reduction of inverse feedback. The bottom line is that many of the audible alterations caused by tubed amplifiers have varied and complex sources, and may be strongly dependent on the particular speaker being driven. While duplicating the sound of a certain tubed amplifier may be possible, it would only be a certain tubed amplifier that would be duplicated, and not all or even most tubed amplfiiers that would be duplicated. In the professional audio world there are devices that have user-selectable features that are designed to duplicate the sonic properties of certain amplifier/loudspeaker combinations that are sold as a single unit. This is at least a credible claim, as compared to the claim that a certain SS amp is voiced to sound like tubed amplifiers. |
#179
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Do all amplifiers sound the same?
On Sun, 11 May 2008 08:04:49 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Peter Elem" wrote in message Some manufactorers admit that they Color or "voice" their amplifiers. Audio Research does and of course there are the Carver solid state amps that were supposedly voiced like tube amplifiers. The fallacy here is the idea that there is some combination of audio colorations that are characteristic of tubed (or SS) power amplifiers. There are some very high quality tubed amplifiers that are sonically transparent - they will pass an audio signal into a loudspeaker load without any audible changes. Most tubed audio equipment will fail straight-wire bypass tests, particularly with tough loudspeaker loads. The root cause is their typically high output impedance, especially at low frequencies. Some tubed amplifiers have design features that seem to be designed to product an amplifier that is not sonically transparent, such as single-end output stages and absence of or severe reduction of inverse feedback. The bottom line is that many of the audible alterations caused by tubed amplifiers have varied and complex sources, and may be strongly dependent on the particular speaker being driven. While duplicating the sound of a certain tubed amplifier may be possible, it would only be a certain tubed amplifier that would be duplicated, and not all or even most tubed amplfiiers that would be duplicated. In the professional audio world there are devices that have user-selectable features that are designed to duplicate the sonic properties of certain amplifier/loudspeaker combinations that are sold as a single unit. This is at least a credible claim, as compared to the claim that a certain SS amp is voiced to sound like tubed amplifiers. Carver used test equipment in his demonstrations to make his amp sound like a specific tube amp, not tube amps in general. In the demo I was party to, he made his amp sound like a big conrad johnson amp (I don't remember the model number). He said that he could do that for any amp, but I only know about the one I heard. I think John Atkinson was at a similar Carver demonstration, maybe he can shed some light upon what Carver actually adjusted, and how is "nulling" procedure worked. I don't really remember the details (we're talking 20 years ago, here). |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
DLS Amplifiers | Car Audio | |||
Why cables and amplifiers affect sound quality | High End Audio | |||
FA: 2 TOA 8-Channel 30 watt Amplifiers w/3 sound modules each - last 2 days! | Pro Audio | |||
FA: 2 TOA 8-Channel 30 watt Amplifiers w/3 sound modules each | Pro Audio | |||
FA: 2 TOA 8-Channel 30 watt Amplifiers w/3 sound modules each | Pro Audio |