In rec.audio.opinion Sander deWaal wrote:
Steven Sullivan said:

How closely have you level matched them? And are you doing the
comparisons blind? Your amps *could* sound intrinsically different,
or they might really sound the same. How do you determine
which is actually the case?


sigh
Let me try to explain this just one more time.

sigh I know what's coming. A shame it comes from *you* Sander.


The way hobbyists and music lovers listen at home, is *sighted* .
The way they determine differences in amps, DACs etc. is done sighted.


Yes, and some people consult horoscopes to 'determine' how their day will
be. They aren't *really* doing anything of the sort, of course. A person
*believing* he's determining difference, doesn't mean he is 'determining'
anything in any substantive way -- that is, a way that is distinguishable
from a private delusion. A person anecdotally 'determining' that a
horoscope 'predicted' how his day will be, does not demonstrate the truth
of astrology.

And of course there are other hobbyists and music lovers who realize the
pitfalls of 'determining difference' this way, and simply adjust their
claims about difference accordingly. Or, if they are so motivated, they
arrange to compare amps in a more rigorous fashion.

I wonder if there's any other technically-oriented hobby where there's
such a strong strain of hostility towards objective verification of
truth-claims about the performance of the gear involved?


You see, it *doesn't matter* one whit if two amps sound the same in a
DBT; when there's a difference in listening sighted, that's all that
matters.

You see, it doesn't matter one whit to me if that's 'all that matters' to
some audiophiles. In fact, if all they ever wrote was 'it sounds different
to me and that's all that matters', then you'd hardly ever see any
rebuttal. But they *don't* confine themselves to such limited
truth-claims about the real world, do they, Sander?


Listening sighted is the reality of everyday's life, the ideal
circumstances in a laboratory are *not*.

sigh
So, scientific fact and 'everyday' fact have no overlap?

*Of course* what is *true* about the physical world *matters*, Sander.
An industry does not exist in a vaccuum. An industry that encourages
consumers to believe what isn't true coupled wiht a consumer base that
doesn't think objective truth 'matters' isn't likely to be accountable
for its own claims.



I'm an EE, I know amplifier topology, I know that most likely 99% of
all amps sound alike in a DBT, but *it simply doesn't matter* for the
consumer at home, since other biases can't be ignored when returning
to listening for pleasure.

Who are you to say 'it simply doesn't matter to the consumer at home'? Are
consumers at home even being given the *choice* in the matter -- e.g. a
source of data from controlled listening tests? Do you assert it
wouldn't matter to *any* of them if magazines began conducting such tests?

I guarantee you that assertion would be wrong.

The success of endeavors like Consumer Reports indicates that a population
of consumers exists who *do* want accurate information about performance
of consumer products. Why would you believe that audio hobbyists aren't
among them?


One can't avoid looking at his amp, enjoying the thick faceplate, the
brand name, the gold-plated connectors or the huge heatsinks or tubes
sticking out.
Such things *have* to alter the perception.

Yes, the *perception*. But making claims about a *perception*, and making
claims about the *source*, are not the same thing, are they? It's quite
easy to make a badly-reasoned leap from cause to effect. The belief that
'perception is reality' leads inevitably to embarrassing 'emperor's new
clothes' paradoxes.


Ignoring for this moment those amp topologies, where differences are
built into it *on purpose*.
It should be clear that those designs sound even more different :-)

Of course amps can be designed to 'sound different'; no one claims
otherwise.




--

-S