How do you know that "most people" will do this? What percentage of car
audio
installs in this country have you seen? Do you have facts and stats to
back
this claim up?
Read marks post about how easy it is to clip an amp.

Oh yeah, as for my own system, I never clip my sub amp. It's "oversized"
for my needs at a conservative 550 watts. However, when I'm really
listening loud, I suspect there is a little clipping by my a/d/s/ P840.
It's hard to tell though because my midbass drivers aren't installed very
well right now anyway.

PS - I'll have pics up if any of you want a good laugh. The installers who
did my midbass drivers did such a f'd up job, you'll get a good chuckle.

Good question, what is wrong is this article Mark?



In article ,
(John Atkinson) wrote:
(Soundfreak03) wrote in message
...
http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/

You have got to be kidding me right? You are not actually going to try
and use this for a reference.

I'd be interested in hearing what your objection is to this article. The
measured differences bteween the two amplifiers were certainly large enough
that they should have sounded different.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

What amp is it and what is the output in rms? Did you buy it new, used or
stolen for $300?


Memphis Belle MC1300D
75 watts RMS x 4 at 4 ohms. Class AB
600 watts RMS x 1 at 2 ohms. Class D
Lightly used, in good condition.

All it takes is a bit of research and some searching. BTW the Class D amp is
powering a single Image Dynamics IDQ10. There is plenty of headroom for a good
price.

Les

Oh yeah and why is that ?


You sure are full of questions and yet you refuse to answer any of the ones
that I have asked. Could it be that you have dug yourself into a whole and
answering my questions honestly will further point out how wrong you are?

Les

How do you know that "most people" will do this? What percentage of car
audio
installs in this country have you seen? Do you have facts and stats to back
this claim up?

Read marks post about how easy it is to clip an amp.

I never said it was not easy to do, but that it is avoidable for the most part.
Well in a properly designed and layed out system, but you have never been able
to accomplish that so I can see where the point goes over your head.
In my experience the people that easily and constantly clip an amp could really
care less about SQ, they just want loud. But the "audiophiles" who do not want
to clip thier amps often get hung up on SQ and forget about power, and the
other actually important things, and end up buying an amp because it "sounds
good". But they could get an amp with more power, and likely other key
features, for the same money.

Les

The customer that walks in without
knowing will just go in and get which one "sounds better" but what they will
fail to realize is that they could probably have gotten more amp for less
money!!!!

Yeah if they bought of that was stolen.

Have you been hanging out with your buddy Ghee too much? Try putting down the
crack pipe for 5 minutes and try again.



If it's not avoidable 100% of the time, then by all means it's not avoidable.

You can't have it both ways.

No it is still avoidable, just keep the volume below the clipping threshold. If
you cannot do that then buy a bigger amp. If you cannot afford that then your
screwed.

And this very much applies to the average customer. It dispells the audio
myths
surrounding amplifiers so the customer can make informed, educated desicions
instead of buying an amp because it "sounds better". Do you not see that
point?
Are you that dumb?

What are you a saleman for SparkOmatic? LOL


What are you, head fry maker at McDonalds?
I left you some questions that you avoided, again. Do you see the point that I
quoted above? If not, what part do you disagree with?

Les

I'd be interested in hearing what your objection is to this article. The
measured differences bteween the two amplifiers were certainly large enough
that they should have sounded different.

John,

I will keep it short and just hit the major points.

1) Your magazine is biased. Please do not try and deny it, you have to be and I
understand that. You have a vested interest in the amps performing differently,
you cater to a crowd of, well, stereophiles who expect there to be a
difference. If your tests would show that amps do indeed sound the same the you
would likely lose readers, which means you would lose money.

2) The article referenced a tube amp vs. a solid state amp. The discussion here
has been about SS the entire time, tubes were never included. Nor do they
belong in this discussion.

3) The tube amplifier had known frequency dips of up too 1.5dB, noticeable to
the human ear.

4) You one of the amps through a pot. Whether or not the pot was audiophile
grade or not is irrelevant. What was wrong with the gain adjustments on the
amps themselves?

5) Nothing based on science and physics was offered.

6) It is a tube amp vs. solid state, and a tube amp with known freq. dips.
Yes I know I already pointed that out, but it is important. Compare apples to
apples.

I will be happy to clarify anything for you John, just ask.

Les

If I had four Memphis Belle MC1300D's, I'd still clip them without damaging my
subs.



In article ,
othanks (Soundfreak03) wrote:
What amp is it and what is the output in rms? Did you buy it new, used or
stolen for $300?


Memphis Belle MC1300D
75 watts RMS x 4 at 4 ohms. Class AB
600 watts RMS x 1 at 2 ohms. Class D
Lightly used, in good condition.

All it takes is a bit of research and some searching. BTW the Class D amp is
powering a single Image Dynamics IDQ10. There is plenty of headroom for a good
price.

Les

I'd like him to explain himself.



In article ,
othanks (Soundfreak03) wrote:
Oh yeah and why is that ?


You sure are full of questions and yet you refuse to answer any of the ones
that I have asked. Could it be that you have dug yourself into a whole and
answering my questions honestly will further point out how wrong you are?

Les

2 JBL BP1200.1s. 2500 watts or so at 2 or 1 ohm on each amp and less than
$500.



Paul Vina



I've got two pairs of Blaupunkt ODW1200 dual voice-coil they handle
600 watts rms, what cost effective amp do you have in mind?

If I had four Memphis Belle MC1300D's, I'd still clip them without
damaging my
subs.

No way, man! Clipping blows speakers!

Then I guess that you would agree that many people can hear a difference
between amps under these conditions. I for one am finding it very hard to find
an amp that is sufficient to power my system, never mind cost effective.


In article , "Mark Zarella"
wrote:
since most people do and will clip
their amplifiers

How do you know that "most people" will do this? What percentage of car
audio
installs in this country have you seen? Do you have facts and stats to
back
this claim up?
Read marks post about how easy it is to clip an amp.

I do agree that many people drive their amplifiers into clipping. It's not
difficult. This is easily avoidable, however. The problem is that people
either buy amps that are too small for their needs or base their listening
habits on the limitations of their equipment (especially bassheads - there's
no such thing as "enough" for them).

If I had four Memphis Belle MC1300D's, I'd still clip them without damaging
my
subs.

So? 600 watts RMS into an IDQ10 is plenty loud. As is the 75w RMS to my
compenents. Do you have a point to your post?
Oh and why have you still not answered any of my questions? I guess your
afraid.

Les

I have twice as much power in my system (pair of mtx 801d's) and I clip those
amps without effort. But I'm working on that issue.



In article , "Mark Zarella"
wrote:
How do you know that "most people" will do this? What percentage of car
audio
installs in this country have you seen? Do you have facts and stats to
back
this claim up?
Read marks post about how easy it is to clip an amp.

Oh yeah, as for my own system, I never clip my sub amp. It's "oversized"
for my needs at a conservative 550 watts. However, when I'm really
listening loud, I suspect there is a little clipping by my a/d/s/ P840.
It's hard to tell though because my midbass drivers aren't installed very
well right now anyway.

PS - I'll have pics up if any of you want a good laugh. The installers who
did my midbass drivers did such a f'd up job, you'll get a good chuckle.

I'd like him to explain himself.


I would like you to explain yourself. I have asked repeatedly for you to answer
simple questions but you still refuse. You must be afraid that you will make
yourself look stupid. But don't worry, you do that in every post you make.

Les

Then I guess that you would agree that many people can hear a difference
between amps under these conditions.

It still does not change the fact that one should understand the subject of SQ
of an amp. It also does not change they fact that there are more important
things to focus on when choosing an amp. Does that concept confuse you?

I for one am finding it very hard to find
an amp that is sufficient to power my system, never mind cost effective.


It would likely be more cost effective than choosing an amp on it's "SQ" which
is what the argument is about. Cost effective is relative in this discussion.

Les

I never said it was not easy to do, but that it is avoidable for the most part.

So all amps sound the same for the MOST part.

Well in a properly designed and layed out system, but you have never been able
to accomplish that so I can see where the point goes over your head.

I guess that would be hard to accomplish with a single 250 watt 10 inch sub.
We don't play ball in the same ballpark.


In my experience the people that easily and constantly clip an amp could really
care less about SQ, they just want loud. But the "audiophiles" who do not want
to clip thier amps often get hung up on SQ and forget about power, and the
other actually important things, and end up buying an amp because it "sounds
good". But they could get an amp with more power, and likely other key
features, for the same money.

If the amp doesn't have the sq that they are looking for they still end up
making the wrong choice even if they get an amp with more power, and likely
other key features, after all they are buying the amp to satisfy their own
liking and not yours.


Les

In article , othanks (Soundfreak03) wrote:
Then I guess that you would agree that many people can hear a difference
between amps under these conditions.

It still does not change the fact that one should understand the subject of SQ
of an amp. It also does not change they fact that there are more important
things to focus on when choosing an amp. Does that concept confuse you?

That's nothing but your own personal opinion.


I for one am finding it very hard to find
an amp that is sufficient to power my system, never mind cost effective.


It would likely be more cost effective than choosing an amp on it's "SQ" which
is what the argument is about. Cost effective is relative in this discussion.

Les

No it is still avoidable, just keep the volume below the clipping threshold. If
you cannot do that then buy a bigger amp. If you cannot afford that then your
screwed.

To fully avoid clipping you'd waste a ****load of power.




And this very much applies to the average customer. It dispells the audio
myths
surrounding amplifiers so the customer can make informed, educated desicions
instead of buying an amp because it "sounds better". Do you not see that
point?
Are you that dumb?

What are you a saleman for SparkOmatic? LOL


What are you, head fry maker at McDonalds?
I left you some questions that you avoided, again. Do you see the point that I
quoted above? If not, what part do you disagree with?


I'm a crack dealer, just ask your mom.


Les

2) The article referenced a tube amp vs. a solid state amp. The discussion here
has been about SS the entire time, tubes were never included. Nor do they
belong in this discussion.

As I recall you said that ALL amp sound the same unless clipped. Nothing was
ever said about soild state only, and it not like tube amps are not available
for car audio.

I guess that would be hard to accomplish with a single 250 watt 10 inch sub.
We don't play ball in the same ballpark.



I have done the big subs and huge installs plenty of times before. My last
vehicle had 4 18" subs and about 4500 watts RMS. This system I wanted stealth
in my daily driver and since it is an F-150 the setup I have is perfect and can
get uncomfortably loud if I would like.

If the amp doesn't have the sq that they are looking for they still end up
making the wrong choice even if they get an amp with more power, and likely
other key features, after all they are buying the amp to satisfy their own
liking and not yours.


But SQ is not a factor. Come on dumbass, if you really think it is then be a
man and actually tell us why. Quit being a scared little girl and answer the
questions I have asked you. If they get an amp with enough power and features
then they will be satisfied. If they complain about the sound quality then they
are fooling themselves or they have a defective amp.

Les

That's nothing but your own personal opinion.

But what is not a personal opinion is that when you operate an amp within there
linear range they sound the same. Your opinions on the matter are irrelevent as
they have been proven false on many occasions.

Les

To fully avoid clipping you'd waste a ****load of power.

No you wouldn't. I don't think you even fully grasp the concept of clipping and
power consumption. You do know what those are correct? Why don't you share.

Do you see the point that I
quoted above? If not, what part do you disagree with?

Remember these questions? You still didn't answer them. You know with how you
avoid questions I am starting to think that you and Pugsly are the same person.
Both idiots who know very little about car audio, and who are little crybabies
who refuse to answer questions because they know that if they answer them
honestly then they would prove themselves wrong!

Les

As I recall you said that ALL amp sound the same unless clipped. Nothing was
ever said about soild state only, and it not like tube amps are not available

for car audio.

I guess you missed most of the thread. The thread the entire time has been
about SS amps, if I said all then it was in relation to the thread topic. Which
in this case reflected on SS amps. But I can see how you would get lost in
that, you are an idiot.

Les

I've got two pairs of Blaupunkt ODW1200 dual voice-coil they handle
600 watts rms, what cost effective amp do you have in mind?


I don't the model number and price of every amp avaliable off the top of my
head. Do your own research and go to the store, I'm sure you'll find something.

I for one am finding it very hard to find
an amp that is sufficient to power my system, never mind cost effective.

If cost isn't a big issue then how about an Eclipse DA7122? It can make 1000
(RMS) x2 at 2 OHMS. More than enough to drive those Blaupunkts You have
numerous other options as well.

Oh yeah and why is that ?

Why? There's such a great number of products on the market that it's virtually
impossible not to be able to find an amp that will fit your needs without
spending a fortune. OTOH, if you by subs designed to take 2000 watts a piece,
logic dictates that it's going to cost more to find amps big enough to power
those.

"Feeling" has nothing to do with SQ dumbass. Do you not understand that?

So you can
understand...from zero watts to max power, that Ultimate never made me
feel the lows like the Tantrum did at a moderate level

So? The other amp did not have the same amount of power as the tantrum. Does
that not make sense to you? The power stamped on the amp or box is meaningless.



Soundfreak why can't you just explain to him in a nice way that:

1. Regardless of what the "specs" on the box say the amps aren't close
to being identical.

2. It's true he heard the diff. Reason is you said: the PG has more
power!

3. When he means SQ he is trying to tell you he doesn't know why or
what but that for whatever reason the PG sounds better.

4. HE DOESN'T understand the power rating isn't even close, he is
READING what the specs are off the box. Therefore he assumes one amp
is "better sq" than the other because, well, sh1t, it sounds better.
Drums are more defined - hmmm I'm no expert but sounds like LACK OF
POWER not SQ.

5. HE doesn't understand "zero watts to max power". Will, You are not
"turning up watts" on the amp as you increase the volume on the HU.
You are simply increasing the voltage of the input so it gets louder.
The amp has no volume knob, it's how much you feed it! So when you
feed an elephant and a dog the same food the same amount of sh1t comes
out but one is a bit wider and thinner and the other longer and
skinnier. Jeez what am I talking about?

Will,

If you put a more powerful amp at "such low volume it barely moves the
speakers" it will sound better than a less powerful one. But that
doesn't mean one amp has better SQ than the other but rather more
power. The PG has more power than the othe amp. Stuff written on the
box lies.

Soundfreak,

Look I'm not saying you're wrong man because you ain't but sometimes
you just got to explain it to folk in way he understand cuz he don't.


Z

2) The article referenced a tube amp vs. a solid state amp. The
discussion here
has been about SS the entire time, tubes were never included. Nor do they
belong in this discussion.

As I recall you said that ALL amp sound the same unless clipped. Nothing
was
ever said about soild state only, and it not like tube amps are not
available
for car audio.

I don't know about Les, but I've always explicitly referred to solid-state
amps. I assumed he did too.

Doesn't matter much though. Those butler amps are barely tube amps. If I'm
not mistaken, they still have solid-state preamps and are too clean to be
distinguished from their SS counterparts. But don't quote me on that.

Our listening habits are quite different. Sometimes the bass is too much
for me.

I have twice as much power in my system (pair of mtx 801d's) and I clip
those
amps without effort. But I'm working on that issue.



In article , "Mark Zarella"
wrote:
How do you know that "most people" will do this? What percentage of
car
audio
installs in this country have you seen? Do you have facts and stats to
back
this claim up?
Read marks post about how easy it is to clip an amp.

Oh yeah, as for my own system, I never clip my sub amp. It's "oversized"
for my needs at a conservative 550 watts. However, when I'm really
listening loud, I suspect there is a little clipping by my a/d/s/ P840.
It's hard to tell though because my midbass drivers aren't installed very
well right now anyway.

PS - I'll have pics up if any of you want a good laugh. The installers
who
did my midbass drivers did such a f'd up job, you'll get a good chuckle.

I don't know about Les, but I've always explicitly referred to solid-state
amps. I assumed he did too.


That was my assumption and understanding that the discussion was about SS amps.
The OP talked about SS amps, and all the amps refered to within have been SS
amps. Not to mention that tube amps are not common in any way shape or fashion.
But howdy gets confused easily so there you go.

Les

Soundfreak why can't you just explain to him in a nice way that:

I tried. Read the first couple of days of posting. But after finding a few
different ways of explaining it, it became quite obvious that Will was not
going to understand unless he actually read what I wrote.

2. It's true he heard the diff. Reason is you said: the PG has more
power!

Most likely, or crossover differences. I told him that I believed he heard a
difference but what he attributed to was wrong.

Soundfreak,

Look I'm not saying you're wrong man because you ain't but sometimes
you just got to explain it to folk in way he understand cuz he don't.


I did explain it in many different ways to him. He chose not to listen.I was
even nice for a couple of days, a rarity for me. I have a fairly low tolerence
for noobs who do not listen and insist on arguing without any proof. It became
clear early on that Will was not going to get it.

Les

Aw, I made poor little SoundFag angry, lol

So, SQ has nothing to do with "feeling"? Wow. So 20 to 30hz note
aren't supposed to feel like anything huh, lol.

SoundFag: Boohoo, after all my precious time of researching Car Audi
some guy still doesn't agree with me. Boohoo. Everything I say is
fact although I can't prove it, and he still won't agree with me
Boohoo. Dammit, that's it, anyone who doesn't agree with ME "The Al
Mighty SoundFag" is a noob or an idiot.



Your a joke,lol!
How many times must I say "don't respond to my posts", or "Give it up"
Now, simply put, a person who can't understand those 2 sentences, o
atleast one of them,lol, is the REAL IDIOT. LOL!! Hmmm...SoundFag :

Well since your to much of a big-headed bit(h to understand "don'
respond to my posts", or "Give it up", let me explain it a littl
different for people who rode the short bus to school like you

If your still confused :confused
Here is a very simple 3-step procedure for getting off my di(k. It goe
as follows

1) Re-open your mout

2) Remove my ballz from your jaw

3) And slowly step away from my sac

Understand now?

SoundFag you are a joke, you FAG [laughing

-
Will_Skill
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via RealCarAudio.com - The checkmate of the caraudio community
http://www.RealCarAudio.co
Will_Skillz's Profile: http://www.realcaraudio.com/forums/m...nfo&userid=118
View this thread: http://www.realcaraudio.com/forums/s...?threadid=4551

othanks (Soundfreak03) wrote in message
...
John Atkinson wrote in message
:
(Soundfreak03) wrote in message
...
http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/

You have got to be kidding me right? You are not actually going to
try and use this for a reference.

I'd be interested in hearing what your objection is to this article.
The measured differences bteween the two amplifiers were certainly
large enough that they should have sounded different.

1) Your magazine is biased. Please do not try and deny it...

But you are biased, too, Les. As is everybody. It is dirty pool for you
to try to make your point by attacking those you are arguing with instead
of addressing their arguments. In the case of this 1989 test I took the
appropriate steps to ensure that any beliefs I might have did not
influence the test results. While I designed the test, I used an
independent operator who was hidden both from me and from the audience,
and I had the test results analyzed by a third party. I also offered the
complete test results in the article for others to examine and draw their
own conclusions.

2) The article referenced a tube amp vs. a solid state amp. The
discussion here has been about SS the entire time, tubes were never
included. Nor do they belong in this discussion.

Amplifiers are amplifiers. I don't believe that tubes can add any "magic."
If you wish to exclude amplifiers that sound different from this
discussion, then you have every right to do so, except that your position
then devolves to "amplifiers sound the same unless they sound different,"
which is not very helpful.

3) The tube amplifier had known frequency dips of up too 1.5dB [when
hooked up the speakers in the test], noticeable to the human ear.

Yes. I pointed that out in the article. Amplifiers differ considerably
in the source impedances, which is why I measure this for every amplifier
that is reviewed in Stereophile and show the change in frequency response
you get with the amplifier driving a simulated loudspeaker load.

4) You one of the amps through a pot. Whether or not the pot was
audiophile grade or not is irrelevant. What was wrong with the gain
adjustments on the amps themselves?

First, any comparison between amplifiers that does not match levels is
invalid. And as neither amplifier had any gain adjustment controls, one
had to have its sensitivity reduced with an external pot. There was no
measured reason why this pot disadvantaged the amplifier.

5) Nothing based on science and physics was offered.

With all due respect, this is simply argument by assertion, just as you
did above when you dissed the test on the grounds that I am "biased."
What, specifically, in this 1989 test and article was not "based on
science and physics"?

Regarding the questions raised by others in this thread about this
amplifier comparison, the amplifiers were not clipped and their
noise floors were not factors in the auditioning. Those interested
in tests like this should also read http://www.stereophile.com/features/587.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message

1) Your magazine is biased. Please do not try and deny it...

But you are biased, too, Les. As is everybody. It is dirty pool for you
to try to make your point by attacking those you are arguing with instead
of addressing their arguments.

John,

Calm down, that was not an attack, rather a statement of the truth. And sure
I am biased, I have always freely admitted that!! But my bias' really only
affect me. The magazine industry has to have bias' and because of those you
have to give your target audience, audiophiles in this case, what they want.
And I could not address your arguments because you did not give any. You
merely asked what I did not like and I told you.

In the case of this 1989 test I took the
appropriate steps to ensure that any beliefs I might have did not
influence the test results. While I designed the test, I used an
independent operator who was hidden both from me and from the audience,
and I had the test results analyzed by a third party. I also offered the
complete test results in the article for others to examine and draw their
own conclusions.

I never questioned your test results. And yes you did offer the evidence,
but you know damn good and well that the layout, order, and wording will
affect the way most people interpret the results. Not to mention that the
article is fairly one-sided. But that is ok, I did not even bring it up the
first time but you did this time so I'll discuss it.


2) The article referenced a tube amp vs. a solid state amp. The
discussion here has been about SS the entire time, tubes were never
included. Nor do they belong in this discussion.

Amplifiers are amplifiers. I don't believe that tubes can add any "magic."
If you wish to exclude amplifiers that sound different from this
discussion, then you have every right to do so, except that your position
then devolves to "amplifiers sound the same unless they sound different,"
which is not very helpful.

And there is the typical magazine writers spin on what was said. The
discussion has always been about SS amps, it will continue to be so. Tubes
are unpredictable, they age, some well and others not so. As time goes on
tubes can start to lose some of thier freq. response. Again, not all but
some do, it really depends on the tube in question. Not that those
automatically apply to your amp in the test but does apply to tube amps in
general, which could include your test subject. Tube amps are also way more
impedence senstive than SS amps. Comparing tube amps to SS is not the same.
Tube amps are allowed to slide in thier tolerences moreso than SS amps. But
all of that aside, what Mark, myself, and others have been refering to in
this thread is SS. Next time I will make sure I explicity point that out for
everyone a hundred times over.


3) The tube amplifier had known frequency dips of up too 1.5dB [when
hooked up the speakers in the test], noticeable to the human ear.

Yes. I pointed that out in the article. Amplifiers differ considerably
in the source impedances, which is why I measure this for every amplifier
that is reviewed in Stereophile and show the change in frequency response
you get with the amplifier driving a simulated loudspeaker load.

You showed important data at the end. How long have you been writing for
magazines? Obviously several years, and you know that by the time people get
to page 6 of the article thier minds have been virtually made up.
What I would like to have seen, and this is me, is all of the data up front.
Give the explanation of how the tests were conducted, then give the
amplifiers measured specs, then show the data with little commentary. Then
you and the other guy can go in and give your interpretations of the
results, after the reader has had time to absorb what all is seen and
process it. Maybe that format is not good for a magazine, I don't read that
many, and you would know better about that. But at the very least you should
have presented "the other side" as it were and allowed someone from the amps
sound the same camp to chime in.
That is one of the problems with mags and those news specials like Dateline,
rarely do you get to see the other side!! Watch one of those court specials
on dateline just once, halfway through you are usually thinking "Well he is
innocent, just look at the evidence". Well, you think that until you hear
the other side and then he looks pretty guilty. Similar situation to your
article.


4) You one of the amps through a pot. Whether or not the pot was
audiophile grade or not is irrelevant. What was wrong with the gain
adjustments on the amps themselves?

First, any comparison between amplifiers that does not match levels is
invalid. And as neither amplifier had any gain adjustment controls, one
had to have its sensitivity reduced with an external pot. There was no
measured reason why this pot disadvantaged the amplifier.

Good, but you still introduced something into the signal. To be safe I would
have installed a pot on the other amps. BTW those things can pick up slight
noise that comes and goes, even "audiophile grade" whatever that means. RF
can especially be bad. Not saying that happened but you did set yourselves
up for the chance. But I do not believe this was signifigant to this
particular test, I just do not feel it is a good idea.

5) Nothing based on science and physics was offered.

With all due respect, this is simply argument by assertion, just as you
did above when you dissed the test on the grounds that I am "biased."
What, specifically, in this 1989 test and article was not "based on
science and physics"?

None of the interpretations were based on those things. Perhaps the
electrical and mechanical aspects were. But you do not actually provide
scientific reasoning for your interps. Noone answers the questions I ask
below.


Your magazine HAS TO cater to it's target audience, that is how business
works. By that you have a vested interest in seeing that 2 amps sound
different (Yes, I know I have interests in the opposite, but my interests do
not hurt magazine sales ) . So you choose amps that are in 2 different
worlds, tubes vs. solid state. Not only that you have a tube amp with
noticeable freq. dips!! Of course there will be large number that can pick
that difference up. But what happens when you take 2 SS amps and match them
up in the test? I have measured and seen measured a considerable number of
SS amps. You get to answer the million dollar question. (Typical level
matching etc. applies, same as in your test) How can amps whose specs (freq.
response, slew rate, things that contribute to "SQ") are close enough, to
the point where humans cannot detect the difference, sound different? How
can you hear a sizzle or presence in comparing amps when they have the same
freq. response? How can the notes blur together when the factors that would
contribute to that are way above what we could ever detect? I am just
waiting for someone to give me some answers to those.

John, as a note, I at times come across and a little, well, brash. And alot
of times that is intentional. Keep a couple of things in mind. I think you
are a highly intelligent individual and know alot about audio. I do admire
that you put up a good argument to "the other side" and that I can tolerate
and handle. It is when you get the noobs like Will and Howdy that play the
argument of " I heard it" and refuse to answer questions that you get tired
of it, but a good discussion is a welcome change.

Les
At work.

1) Your magazine is biased. Please do not try and deny it...

But you are biased, too, Les. As is everybody. It is dirty pool for you
to try to make your point by attacking those you are arguing with instead
of addressing their arguments. In the case of this 1989 test I took the
appropriate steps to ensure that any beliefs I might have did not
influence the test results. While I designed the test, I used an
independent operator who was hidden both from me and from the audience,
and I had the test results analyzed by a third party. I also offered the
complete test results in the article for others to examine and draw their
own conclusions.

I agree with you, John. You went to all the steps necessary to remove bias
sufficiently. Perhaps Les meant something to the effect of "your magazine
is biased, so if the opposite conclusion was reached it never would have
been published."

2) The article referenced a tube amp vs. a solid state amp. The
discussion here has been about SS the entire time, tubes were never
included. Nor do they belong in this discussion.

Amplifiers are amplifiers. I don't believe that tubes can add any "magic."
If you wish to exclude amplifiers that sound different from this
discussion, then you have every right to do so, except that your position
then devolves to "amplifiers sound the same unless they sound different,"
which is not very helpful.

Tube amps are notorious for having higher harmonic distortion levels at high
output levels with a more concentrated spectral content than their solid
state counterparts. How significant was this distortion in this test? I
don't know. I've never benched the amp in question. It's also not uncommon
for there to be funny frequency response characteristics. I didn't see any
freq response graphs for this amp either. Saying there was a 1.5dB dip
without telling me the bandwidth of the dip and the location of the dip
doesn't tell me anything.

4) You one of the amps through a pot. Whether or not the pot was
audiophile grade or not is irrelevant. What was wrong with the gain
adjustments on the amps themselves?

First, any comparison between amplifiers that does not match levels is
invalid. And as neither amplifier had any gain adjustment controls, one
had to have its sensitivity reduced with an external pot. There was no
measured reason why this pot disadvantaged the amplifier.

You didn't provide us with any measurements of the pot. That's why I said
you should have used pots for both amplifiers and measured both of them.


5) Nothing based on science and physics was offered.

With all due respect, this is simply argument by assertion, just as you
did above when you dissed the test on the grounds that I am "biased."
What, specifically, in this 1989 test and article was not "based on
science and physics"?

Looks like it's based on science to me. I think Les may have been referring
to your lack of an explanation for the differences. But that's not really
necessary for you to do. It would just be conjecture anyway, because you
didn't provide a measurement correlation.


Regarding the questions raised by others in this thread about this
amplifier comparison, the amplifiers were not clipped and their
noise floors were not factors in the auditioning. Those interested
in tests like this should also read
http://www.stereophile.com/features/587.

How do you know that the noise floors were not issues? Did you measure?

In addition, I'm still concerned with your test for significance. It
appears you just used chi-square, but I'm not necessarily sure that's a
valid test as it assumes independence. I'd have to think that one over.

"Paul Vina" wrote:




If all amps shared the same levels of distortion and x-over distortion,
and
other factors, you'de be right about the above, but that is not the case.


If the distortion is below the level of audibility then it can't change the
sound of the amp, can it?


It shows that people do hear a difference in amps even under normal use.
That's my point.


If "under use" means "driving your amp into clipping on a constant basis"
then yes, you will hear a difference.



Paul Vina

You know it's funny buut I don't know anyone who has actively investigated even
this situation. What I mean it seem to me that the most common "sound" of
amplifiers driven into overload may not be the "clipping" but the action of
overload protection circuitry or the behavior of loudspeakers driven into
excess distortion.

Just fishing here and I wonder what others may have discovered in this regard.

"Mark Zarella" pam wrote:


If I had four Memphis Belle MC1300D's, I'd still clip them without
damaging my
subs.

No way, man! Clipping blows speakers!

Too much power blows speakers. Technically, especially woofers where impedance
rises quickly at higher frequencies, it doesn't matter if the incoming signal
is "clipped" or not.

Too much power for too long damages woofers. It is true that sustained clipping
raises the average power level delivered and can cause failure but unless the
amplifier has enough basic energy capability clipping may have little impact of
failure. For example a 5000 watt Crown Macro-Tech has enough capability to
eventually fry an expensive 15-inch woofer even using a clean signal while a
Bryston 2B (100 x 2 watts in to 4-ohms) driven into hard clipping for a long
period may not even cause the speaker to blink.

So the clipping and correlated under-powering conventional wisdom needs to be
considered with understanding.

I have an Orion 2100HCCA that I want to install to run each pair. Right now
I'm looking for a matching Orion 2100HCCA for a fair price, another problem is
that this amp as been remodeled 3 or 4 times over the years which makes it
even harder to find a match. I'm half way there.

In article ,
(Steve Grauman) wrote:
I for one am finding it very hard to find
an amp that is sufficient to power my system, never mind cost effective.

If cost isn't a big issue then how about an Eclipse DA7122? It can make 1000
(RMS) x2 at 2 OHMS. More than enough to drive those Blaupunkts You have
numerous other options as well.

If you like a totally balanced system with a lot of sq then my system would
make you sick, it's anything but that. But if you like system that will rattle
your head and turn heads as you're driving by, it a dream come true.

In article , "Mark Zarella"
wrote:
Our listening habits are quite different. Sometimes the bass is too much
for me.

I have twice as much power in my system (pair of mtx 801d's) and I clip
those
amps without effort. But I'm working on that issue.



In article , "Mark Zarella"
wrote:
How do you know that "most people" will do this? What percentage of
car
audio
installs in this country have you seen? Do you have facts and stats to
back
this claim up?
Read marks post about how easy it is to clip an amp.

Oh yeah, as for my own system, I never clip my sub amp. It's "oversized"
for my needs at a conservative 550 watts. However, when I'm really
listening loud, I suspect there is a little clipping by my a/d/s/ P840.
It's hard to tell though because my midbass drivers aren't installed very
well right now anyway.

PS - I'll have pics up if any of you want a good laugh. The installers
who
did my midbass drivers did such a f'd up job, you'll get a good chuckle.