Hi,

I recently bought a MTX 502 Thunder Amp and it's built like a tank and is
quite hefty. It works great with my 12" sub. My (4) 6 x 9 speakers are
powered by a Kenwood Excelon 4-channel X-614 amp. The MTX is only a two
channel amp but weighs quite a bit more then the 4 channel Kenwood. This
leads me to believe that the MTX probably has larger capacitors and
Torodials. I was thinking of selling the Kenwood and replacing it with a
MTX 4-channel amp. I'm wondering if anyone has done a comparison of car
amps and if there is a big difference in sound quality from one
manufacturer's amps to another ? Please refrain from posting if you're in
the camp that they all sound the same............I know with home amps that
this is not true and my ears are the proof. I've tested many amps on my
system and have run them at low levels so they amp was not clipping and I
could hear a difference when I flipped back and forth. Some amps produced
better bass, some better mids, some had glaring highs, etc. Thanks

Why did you bother asking? You already said you believe there are
differences - in home amps, why would car amps be any different - and
pre-emptively suggested that people that don't agree with you should
shut up. This is a newsgroup intended for discussion of various car
audio equipment and different viewpoints about the hobby. If you need to
post just so you can hear other people agree with your own theories, you
might want to try rec.audio.[insert your own name]...

JD

Trader wrote:

Hi,

I recently bought a MTX 502 Thunder Amp and it's built like a tank and is
quite hefty. It works great with my 12" sub. My (4) 6 x 9 speakers are
powered by a Kenwood Excelon 4-channel X-614 amp. The MTX is only a two
channel amp but weighs quite a bit more then the 4 channel Kenwood. This
leads me to believe that the MTX probably has larger capacitors and
Torodials. I was thinking of selling the Kenwood and replacing it with a
MTX 4-channel amp. I'm wondering if anyone has done a comparison of car
amps and if there is a big difference in sound quality from one
manufacturer's amps to another ? Please refrain from posting if you're in
the camp that they all sound the same............I know with home amps that
this is not true and my ears are the proof. I've tested many amps on my
system and have run them at low levels so they amp was not clipping and I
could hear a difference when I flipped back and forth. Some amps produced
better bass, some better mids, some had glaring highs, etc. Thanks

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I want to discuss the SQ differences of
car amplifiers that newsgroup owners have experienced. I.E. Kenwood vs.
MTX, etc. I'm trying to decide if I should sell my Excelon and maybe by a
SoundStream, ADS, JL or MTX.


"John Durbin" wrote in message
...
Why did you bother asking? You already said you believe there are
differences - in home amps, why would car amps be any different - and
pre-emptively suggested that people that don't agree with you should shut
up. This is a newsgroup intended for discussion of various car audio
equipment and different viewpoints about the hobby. If you need to post
just so you can hear other people agree with your own theories, you might
want to try rec.audio.[insert your own name]...

JD

Trader wrote:

Hi,

I recently bought a MTX 502 Thunder Amp and it's built like a tank and is
quite hefty. It works great with my 12" sub. My (4) 6 x 9 speakers are
powered by a Kenwood Excelon 4-channel X-614 amp. The MTX is only a two
channel amp but weighs quite a bit more then the 4 channel Kenwood. This
leads me to believe that the MTX probably has larger capacitors and
Torodials. I was thinking of selling the Kenwood and replacing it with a
MTX 4-channel amp. I'm wondering if anyone has done a comparison of car
amps and if there is a big difference in sound quality from one
manufacturer's amps to another ? Please refrain from posting if you're in
the camp that they all sound the same............I know with home amps
that this is not true and my ears are the proof. I've tested many amps on
my system and have run them at low levels so they amp was not clipping and
I could hear a difference when I flipped back and forth. Some amps
produced better bass, some better mids, some had glaring highs, etc.
Thanks

Hi,

I recently bought a MTX 502 Thunder Amp and it's built like a tank and is
quite hefty. It works great with my 12" sub. My (4) 6 x 9 speakers are
powered by a Kenwood Excelon 4-channel X-614 amp. The MTX is only a two
channel amp but weighs quite a bit more then the 4 channel Kenwood. This
leads me to believe that the MTX probably has larger capacitors and
Torodials.

No. More like larger heat sinks.

I was thinking of selling the Kenwood and replacing it with a
MTX 4-channel amp. I'm wondering if anyone has done a comparison of car
amps and if there is a big difference in sound quality from one
manufacturer's amps to another ? Please refrain from posting if you're in
the camp that they all sound the same............

In other words, "engineers please don't respond". Gotcha.

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I want to discuss the SQ differences of
car amplifiers that newsgroup owners have experienced. I.E. Kenwood vs.
MTX, etc. I'm trying to decide if I should sell my Excelon and maybe by a
SoundStream, ADS, JL or MTX.

Does this mean I can respond now? Cool. I've owened MTX, a/d/s, and
Kenwood amps. I've installed even more. The older Kenwood PS series amps
were brutes. Probably heavier than their MTX counterparts, since you're
into the weight thing. The a/d/s/ amps are deceptively heavy too. All
three manufacturers made good amps at affordable prices, IMO. I haven't
had much experience with the newer amps from these manufacturers though,
so I'm probably not of assistance. I go a/d/s/ all the way though simply
because of the extensive crossover settings available on their
multichannel amplifiers.

Fair enough... but what makes the opinion of someone who thinks there is
a SQ difference more valid than someone that has done the same
comparison and didn't?

You mentioned the capacitors and toroid contributing to weight below...
chances are much better that the heat sink extrusion on the MTX plus the
various trim parts and other metal items are far more responsible for a
weight difference. Caps don't weigh much, and the difference in weight
from one transformer to another wouldn't account for much in the way of
perceptible weight. Plus, weight is a very poor indicator of amp
performance in general.

In that the kind of SQ differences you are talking about are far more
subjective than objective - in other words, if you tried to measure for
them using lab equipment in controlled circumstances you'd be
hard-pressed to quantify any difference - shouldn't you do the same
thing you'd do with auditioning speakers and do your own listening
tests? Another person's opinion on how a particular amp sounded to them
is just as irrelevant in terms of how it will sound to you as their
opinion on a pair of speakers would be, no?

JD

Trader wrote:

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I want to discuss the SQ differences of
car amplifiers that newsgroup owners have experienced. I.E. Kenwood vs.
MTX, etc. I'm trying to decide if I should sell my Excelon and maybe by a
SoundStream, ADS, JL or MTX.


"John Durbin" wrote in message
.. .


Why did you bother asking? You already said you believe there are
differences - in home amps, why would car amps be any different - and
pre-emptively suggested that people that don't agree with you should shut
up. This is a newsgroup intended for discussion of various car audio
equipment and different viewpoints about the hobby. If you need to post
just so you can hear other people agree with your own theories, you might
want to try rec.audio.[insert your own name]...

JD

Trader wrote:



Hi,

I recently bought a MTX 502 Thunder Amp and it's built like a tank and is
quite hefty. It works great with my 12" sub. My (4) 6 x 9 speakers are
powered by a Kenwood Excelon 4-channel X-614 amp. The MTX is only a two
channel amp but weighs quite a bit more then the 4 channel Kenwood. This
leads me to believe that the MTX probably has larger capacitors and
Torodials. I was thinking of selling the Kenwood and replacing it with a
MTX 4-channel amp. I'm wondering if anyone has done a comparison of car
amps and if there is a big difference in sound quality from one
manufacturer's amps to another ? Please refrain from posting if you're in
the camp that they all sound the same............I know with home amps
that this is not true and my ears are the proof. I've tested many amps on
my system and have run them at low levels so they amp was not clipping and
I could hear a difference when I flipped back and forth. Some amps
produced better bass, some better mids, some had glaring highs, etc.
Thanks

I apologize if I insulted anyone I just didn't want my post to turn into a
debate about how a amp is suppose to simplify a signal and if it has a flat
response you would only hear a difference when the amps distort or goes into
clipping. I was just surprised how lighter my new Excelon amp felt compared
to the new MTX amp I just bought. I'm not into the weight thing but I've
found that a heavier amps usually means that they are built better. This
is not always the case. The design of the circuit, quality of parts used,
etc. all play a roll in the overall SQ. And yes I was interested in
subjective responses. There are many people who have owned multiple amps
and have taken the time to do comparisons. I'd love to hear their opinions.
I use to own class A car amps which I remember as having a richer sound but
I've never compared them side-by-side to a class AB amp so......Anyway, I'd
still love to hear your opinion.


"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I recently bought a MTX 502 Thunder Amp and it's built like a tank and is
quite hefty. It works great with my 12" sub. My (4) 6 x 9 speakers are
powered by a Kenwood Excelon 4-channel X-614 amp. The MTX is only a two
channel amp but weighs quite a bit more then the 4 channel Kenwood. This
leads me to believe that the MTX probably has larger capacitors and
Torodials.

No. More like larger heat sinks.

I was thinking of selling the Kenwood and replacing it with a
MTX 4-channel amp. I'm wondering if anyone has done a comparison of car
amps and if there is a big difference in sound quality from one
manufacturer's amps to another ? Please refrain from posting if you're
in
the camp that they all sound the same............

In other words, "engineers please don't respond". Gotcha.

I apologize if I insulted anyone I just didn't want my post to turn into a
debate about how a amp is suppose to simplify a signal and if it has a flat
response you would only hear a difference when the amps distort or goes into
clipping. I was just surprised how lighter my new Excelon amp felt compared
to the new MTX amp I just bought. I'm not into the weight thing but I've
found that a heavier amps usually means that they are built better. This
is not always the case. The design of the circuit, quality of parts used,
etc. all play a roll in the overall SQ. And yes I was interested in
subjective responses. There are many people who have owned multiple amps
and have taken the time to do comparisons. I'd love to hear their opinions.
I use to own class A car amps which I remember as having a richer sound but
I've never compared them side-by-side to a class AB amp so......Anyway, I'd
still love to hear your opinion.

My opinion, based on bench testing amplifiers, designing amplifiers,
building amplifiers, and in general trying to learn as much as I can about
amplifiers, is best summarized by your first sentence.

By the way, your question regarding sound quality comparisons between
amplifiers may yield more responses in a more technical minded newsgroup,
such as rec.audio.tech.

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Trader wrote:

I apologize if I insulted anyone I just didn't want my post to turn into a
debate about how a amp is suppose to simplify a signal and if it has a flat
response you would only hear a difference when the amps distort or goes into
clipping. I was just surprised how lighter my new Excelon amp felt compared
to the new MTX amp I just bought. I'm not into the weight thing but I've
found that a heavier amps usually means that they are built better. This
is not always the case. The design of the circuit, quality of parts used,
etc. all play a roll in the overall SQ. And yes I was interested in
subjective responses. There are many people who have owned multiple amps
and have taken the time to do comparisons. I'd love to hear their opinions.
I use to own class A car amps which I remember as having a richer sound but
I've never compared them side-by-side to a class AB amp so......Anyway, I'd
still love to hear your opinion.


"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I recently bought a MTX 502 Thunder Amp and it's built like a tank and is
quite hefty. It works great with my 12" sub. My (4) 6 x 9 speakers are
powered by a Kenwood Excelon 4-channel X-614 amp. The MTX is only a two
channel amp but weighs quite a bit more then the 4 channel Kenwood. This
leads me to believe that the MTX probably has larger capacitors and
Torodials.

No. More like larger heat sinks.

I was thinking of selling the Kenwood and replacing it with a
MTX 4-channel amp. I'm wondering if anyone has done a comparison of car
amps and if there is a big difference in sound quality from one
manufacturer's amps to another ? Please refrain from posting if you're
in
the camp that they all sound the same............

In other words, "engineers please don't respond". Gotcha.

"Trader" wrote in message
. net...
Hi,

I recently bought a MTX 502 Thunder Amp and it's built like a tank and is
quite hefty. It works great with my 12" sub. My (4) 6 x 9 speakers are
powered by a Kenwood Excelon 4-channel X-614 amp. The MTX is only a two
channel amp but weighs quite a bit more then the 4 channel Kenwood. This
leads me to believe that the MTX probably has larger capacitors and
Torodials.

Believe it or not, one simple test that is often accurate is to weigh 2
different amps. The heavier one will usually sound better (or "perform" better,
depending on how you define "perform".) Now, they could cheat, and make really
heavy metal covers. But that would kind of defeat the purpose - they wouldn't
put much extra money into the extra metal unless the amp was better to begin
with. Manufacturers (especially cheesy ones) manipulate the specs on their amps
so much that I'd go so far as to say you will get a more accurate picture of
which amp sounds better by weighing them than by looking at the usual specs!
(let the flames begin)

"Trader" wrote in message
. net...
I guess I didn't make myself clear. I want to discuss the SQ differences of
car amplifiers that newsgroup owners have experienced. I.E. Kenwood vs.
MTX, etc. I'm trying to decide if I should sell my Excelon and maybe by a
SoundStream, ADS, JL or MTX.

ADS is a high quality company in my experience. I believe Soundstream is as
well, although I don't have one of their amps.

"Believe it or not, one simple test that is often accurate is to weigh 2
different amps. The heavier one will usually sound better (or "perform"
better, depending on how you define "perform".)"

I'd be really interested in hearing your explanation of this.

Tony


--
Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers,
Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and
Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure
"jeffc" wrote in message
...

"Trader" wrote in message
. net...
Hi,

I recently bought a MTX 502 Thunder Amp and it's built like a tank and is
quite hefty. It works great with my 12" sub. My (4) 6 x 9 speakers are
powered by a Kenwood Excelon 4-channel X-614 amp. The MTX is only a two
channel amp but weighs quite a bit more then the 4 channel Kenwood. This
leads me to believe that the MTX probably has larger capacitors and
Torodials.

Believe it or not, one simple test that is often accurate is to weigh 2
different amps. The heavier one will usually sound better (or "perform"
better,
depending on how you define "perform".) Now, they could cheat, and make
really
heavy metal covers. But that would kind of defeat the purpose - they
wouldn't
put much extra money into the extra metal unless the amp was better to
begin
with. Manufacturers (especially cheesy ones) manipulate the specs on
their amps
so much that I'd go so far as to say you will get a more accurate picture
of
which amp sounds better by weighing them than by looking at the usual
specs!
(let the flames begin)

"Believe it or not, one simple test that is often accurate is to weigh 2
different amps. The heavier one will usually sound better (or "perform"
better, depending on how you define "perform".)"

I'd be really interested in hearing your explanation of this.


His explanation was that companies often don't put more metal into an amp
than they have to. This isn't terribly far off the mark, but it's hardly a
reliable indicator either. But I think his last sentence summed it up:

"Manufacturers (especially cheesy ones) manipulate the specs on their amps
so much that I'd go so far as to say you will get a more accurate picture of
which amp sounds better by weighing them than by looking at the usual
specs!"

That's a valid argument. It comes down to - which is worse? Going by the
specs or going by the weight?

"Tony Fernandes" wrote in message
...
"Believe it or not, one simple test that is often accurate is to weigh 2
different amps. The heavier one will usually sound better (or "perform"
better, depending on how you define "perform".)"

I'd be really interested in hearing your explanation of this.

MZ said it, but so did Trader to begin with. Check out this review of *good*
home amplifiers. These are in the $10,000 range. Search for the word "weight"
and read the whole paragraph. The amp that weighs 10 lbs more costs $1,000
more. It is the "high performance" version of the amp. But note to begin with
that these are expensive amps, and they weigh over 100 pounds. So it goes.
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/a...amp_iiachp.htm

Like I said to begin with, believe it or not, weight is a pretty decent
indicator of quality (including power output and headroom.) Of course, we're
not talking about tube amps here.

"jeffc" wrote in message
...
Like I said to begin with, believe it or not, weight is a pretty decent
indicator of quality (including power output and headroom.) Of course, we're
not talking about tube amps here.

Having said that, check out this. Again, search on "weight"
http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/875/
Heh heh.

Well I agree with everything you wrote. However, there are many here who
believe that amps all sound the same. This doesn't make sense because how
could an amp with a superior circuit design and premium parts sound the same
as a RadioShack special. I've personally have auditioned many amps on my
Klipschorns and can testify that all amps don't sound the same. I don't buy
into the theory that distortion is what I'm hearing because even at moderate
levels I can hear a substantial difference. I'm sure that some speakers are
not revealing enough to hear much of a difference but with Klipschorns you
hear everything that is present. My Father in-law is an engineer and he has
a cheap Bose system and it sounds like ****. He laughed when I bought a
tube amp for my Klipschorns and thought that it couldn't possibly sound
good. Well it sounded amazing although I still prefer my SS amp. But yeah
believe what you want and buy the low-end gear if it makes you happy.


"jeffc" wrote in message
...

"jeffc" wrote in message
...
Like I said to begin with, believe it or not, weight is a pretty decent
indicator of quality (including power output and headroom.) Of course,
we're
not talking about tube amps here.

Having said that, check out this. Again, search on "weight"
http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/875/
Heh heh.

Well I agree with everything you wrote. However, there are many here who
believe that amps all sound the same.

That's not quite what we're telling you. We're telling you that two amps
that *AREN'T CLIPPING* will sound the same. The reason for this is
because even the worst amps don't present enough distortion or a poor enough
frequency response to be distinguished. Especially when you consider that
speakers, by their very nature, produce a huge amount of distortion and a
screwy frequency response. And even moreso when we're talking about road
noise and the poor listening conditions of a car.

This doesn't make sense because how
could an amp with a superior circuit design and premium parts sound the same
as a RadioShack special.

Because the RadioShack special will reproduce the sound with literally no
distortion. The technology is there to do it extremely cheaply. Sure,
the amp may shut down when you push it, or it may be more prone to
breaking, or it may only deliver half of what they claim it will deliver,
but when it's actually working it will sound perfect.

I've personally have auditioned many amps on my
Klipschorns and can testify that all amps don't sound the same.

You never did it under controlled conditions, so how do you know what to
attribute the sound difference to?

I don't buy
into the theory that distortion is what I'm hearing because even at moderate
levels I can hear a substantial difference.

What else could you be hearing? Distortion is, by definition, a deviation
of the output signal with respect to the input signal. If there's no
deviation of the signal, then it will move the speaker in the exact same
way...therefore, it's impossible for a sound difference to occur.

I'm sure that some speakers are
not revealing enough to hear much of a difference but with Klipschorns you
hear everything that is present. My Father in-law is an engineer and he has
a cheap Bose system and it sounds like ****.

The reason it sounds like **** is because the speakers are poor, the
amplifier is clipping, and there's a substantial amount of signal
processing going on.

He laughed when I bought a
tube amp for my Klipschorns and thought that it couldn't possibly sound
good. Well it sounded amazing although I still prefer my SS amp. But yeah
believe what you want and buy the low-end gear if it makes you happy.

I don't expect anyone to "believe" anything. It's not generally wise to
believe something that someone says for no good reason at all. If you
really want the truth, then you have no other option but to learn how
amplifiers work and then come to the conclusion yourself. I'd be more
than happy to suggest some introductory electronics textbooks that will
help you learn these things. After that, maybe you'd be able to bench
test your own amps with no expense other than a good computer sound card.

If there are so many variables then why even bring up the old argument that
all amps sound the same? The fact is that in real world situations you
usually get what you pay for. Given that at some price point the benefits
are not significant to justify the extra dollars. I do understand how
amplifiers work and specs don't always tell the true tale of what the
consumer is buying or how it will sound. I don't believe you can measure,
with instruments, how an amp will wound in the real world. It's like fine
wine - you can measure the alcohol content of two fine wines but can you
can't measure the fragrance and taste. I'll take my ears over your
instruments any day. No offense but that is how I feel. Please come over
with your Radio Shack amp and I will challenge you that I can spot the
inferior amp - every time! Even at low listening levels. Cheap amps don't
have the same revealing amplification as a well made amp. And it's not
distortion that is the deciding factor. There are many other factors that
your instruments can't measure.
"MZ" wrote in message
...
Well I agree with everything you wrote. However, there are many here who
believe that amps all sound the same.

That's not quite what we're telling you. We're telling you that two amps
that *AREN'T CLIPPING* will sound the same. The reason for this is
because even the worst amps don't present enough distortion or a poor
enough
frequency response to be distinguished. Especially when you consider that
speakers, by their very nature, produce a huge amount of distortion and a
screwy frequency response. And even moreso when we're talking about road
noise and the poor listening conditions of a car.

This doesn't make sense because how
could an amp with a superior circuit design and premium parts sound the
same
as a RadioShack special.

Because the RadioShack special will reproduce the sound with literally no
distortion. The technology is there to do it extremely cheaply. Sure,
the amp may shut down when you push it, or it may be more prone to
breaking, or it may only deliver half of what they claim it will deliver,
but when it's actually working it will sound perfect.

I've personally have auditioned many amps on my
Klipschorns and can testify that all amps don't sound the same.

You never did it under controlled conditions, so how do you know what to
attribute the sound difference to?

I don't buy
into the theory that distortion is what I'm hearing because even at
moderate
levels I can hear a substantial difference.

What else could you be hearing? Distortion is, by definition, a deviation
of the output signal with respect to the input signal. If there's no
deviation of the signal, then it will move the speaker in the exact same
way...therefore, it's impossible for a sound difference to occur.

I'm sure that some speakers are
not revealing enough to hear much of a difference but with Klipschorns
you
hear everything that is present. My Father in-law is an engineer and he
has
a cheap Bose system and it sounds like ****.

The reason it sounds like **** is because the speakers are poor, the
amplifier is clipping, and there's a substantial amount of signal
processing going on.

He laughed when I bought a
tube amp for my Klipschorns and thought that it couldn't possibly sound
good. Well it sounded amazing although I still prefer my SS amp. But
yeah
believe what you want and buy the low-end gear if it makes you happy.

I don't expect anyone to "believe" anything. It's not generally wise to
believe something that someone says for no good reason at all. If you
really want the truth, then you have no other option but to learn how
amplifiers work and then come to the conclusion yourself. I'd be more
than happy to suggest some introductory electronics textbooks that will
help you learn these things. After that, maybe you'd be able to bench
test your own amps with no expense other than a good computer sound card.

If there are so many variables then why even bring up the old argument that
all amps sound the same?

Because it dispels the many myths out there that revolve around the notion
that amplifiers have a "sonic signature". It points out that comments
attributing one type of sound to amplifiers made by one company, and
another type of sound to another company, have no basis in fact.

The fact is that in real world situations you
usually get what you pay for. Given that at some price point the benefits
are not significant to justify the extra dollars.

This is exactly true, within limits. While it's true that oftentimes
spending more on an amplifier will get you better reliability, better
support, and usually more power, sometimes the "get what you pay for"
doctrine doesn't hold true. For example, there's absolutely no reason to
spend $10k on an amp. But some people do it - at least in home audio.

I do understand how
amplifiers work and specs don't always tell the true tale of what the
consumer is buying or how it will sound. I don't believe you can measure,
with instruments, how an amp will wound in the real world.

Why not?

It's like fine
wine - you can measure the alcohol content of two fine wines but can you
can't measure the fragrance and taste.

The only reason we can't measure the fragrance and taste is because we
haven't worked out the details of the human olfactory system. Very little
is known about it, in fact - MUCH less than the other senses. We do, however,
have a good idea about what aspects of sound humans can perceive differences,
and we can easily translate these thresholds to electrical and
acoustical measurements. Furthermore, we can in fact isolate the
amplifier as the lone variable and perform basic tests challenging
observers to tell the difference between two amplifiers. The key here is
isolation of variables - making sure that the only difference is the
amplifier. This requires careful level matching, assurances that both
amplifiers are not clipping, and that the experiment is being performed
double blind. You haven't done this, so quite frankly, this renders your
own personal observations useless.

I work in sensory neuroscience. I get a paycheck to investigate how people's
senses work, and the underlying theme throughout all of what we know
about human sensation is that the brain is NOT interested in accurate
reproduction of our surroundings. It's interested in only those
components that are important for survival, and in order to promote this
goal, it's devised ways to actually distort incoming information to better
suit the needs of the animal. The bottom line: you cannot always trust
your senses - not only do they have the tendency to deceive you; they're
actually DESIGNED to deceive you. As such, prior knowledge about the
audio equipment that you're using, misconceptions between sound quality
and accuracy, sound quality and loudness, etc. all lead to the perception
that system A is superior to system B, even if no difference is actually
present. This is why it's vital to remove these variables from the
equation when you're performing the tests.

I'll take my ears over your
instruments any day. No offense but that is how I feel. Please come over
with your Radio Shack amp and I will challenge you that I can spot the
inferior amp - every time!

Well, I don't have the time or desire to do it, obviously. But there's a
fellow named Richard Clark who has offered a $10,000 amplifier challenge
who will be more than willing to let you give it a try. Why not? If you
genuinely believe that you can tell the difference and you can pick your
amplifier out from the Radio Shack amplifier, you'll end up $10k richer.

Even at low listening levels. Cheap amps don't
have the same revealing amplification as a well made amp. And it's not
distortion that is the deciding factor. There are many other factors that
your instruments can't measure.

You've made mention of this a few times, but never elaborated. What is it
that instruments can't measure that could be responsible? Of all the
questions I've asked you, this is the one I'd really like to hear an
answer for.

MZ wrote: "We're telling you that two amps that *AREN'T CLIPPING* will sound
the same."

Mark,

Some questions.

I assume that different amps will produce varied amounts of audible
distortion when clipping? Enough to hear the differences between them? And
why would we care since the aim is to not drive them into clipping to begin
with? Isn't it a moot point?Because I usually don't drive my amps into
clipping. My PG amps deliver gobs of power...especially so since my spakers
are tri-amped. I can make myself go deaf and have inordinate amounts of
CLEAN volume, all of which I'm assuming are unclipped signals due to the
absence of distortion (at least none that I can detect with my ears).

So what exactly ARE the differences that different amps display when
clipping? If we agree that they behave very similarly at unclipped levels,
then what separates the good from the bad in terms of performance when
clipped?

My summation in all of this is as follows...correct me if I am wrong. As
long as my amplifer gives me enough power (volume) without clipping AND has
the features I want, then it really doesn't matter AT ALL which brand I buy
or how much I spend. (durability aside)

Also...if I'm not mistaken, Richard Clark has never lost $10K to anyone
during one of his challenges. This alone, regardless of someone's grasp (or
lack thereof) of sound reproduction should clear things up a little.

Tony

--
Eclipse CD8454 Head Unit, Phoenix Gold ZX475ti, ZX450 and ZX500 Amplifiers,
Phoenix Gold EQ-232 30-Band EQ, Dynaudio System 360 Tri-Amped In Front and
Focal 130HCs For Rear Fill, 2 Soundstream EXACT10s In Aperiodic Enclosure
sound card.

Because it dispels the many myths out there that revolve around the notion
that amplifiers have a "sonic signature". It points out that comments
attributing one type of sound to amplifiers made by one company, and
another type of sound to another company, have no basis in fact.

See here is where we differ. I believe that amplifiers do have a sonic
signature and it's not distortion that is present. I believe what I'm
hearing is not measurable with instruments. All the amps I've tested have a
flat response from 20 -20,000hz with in audible distortion at moderate
listening levels. This would support my assumption that there are factors
that can't be measured with instruments. This is the only way to explain how
one amp can sound different then another. I don't buy that what I'm hearing
is distortion.


This is exactly true, within limits. While it's true that oftentimes
spending more on an amplifier will get you better reliability, better
support, and usually more power, sometimes the "get what you pay for"
doctrine doesn't hold true. For example, there's absolutely no reason to
spend $10k on an amp. But some people do it - at least in home audio.

Yes.. We agree here. At some price point you're paying for the name,
esoteric goodies, and lots of overkill. These are the same people who
probably buy Hummers to drive to the deli.


The only reason we can't measure the fragrance and taste is because we
haven't worked out the details of the human olfactory system. Very little
is known about it, in fact - MUCH less than the other senses. We do,
however,
have a good idea about what aspects of sound humans can perceive
differences,
and we can easily translate these thresholds to electrical and
acoustical measurements.

There are parts of the brain and the universe that we will never understand
or explain. Just because you can see a waverform on a LCD screen doesn't
mean that there aren't nuances to that signal that you can't measure. We
don't even know if all average humans hear alike. The human brain is unique
to each person so wouldn't it make sense that not all humans can process
outside stimuli in the same way. There are too many variable to make a
blanket statement that all amplifiers sound the same when they are not
clipping or producing distortion. It's like a microscope. If you look at a
cell at 10x you don't see much but if you magnify it to 500x you can see
more detail. Who's to say that you measurements are too crude to measure
all that is inherant in an audio signal?


Furthermore, we can in fact isolate the
amplifier as the lone variable and perform basic tests challenging
observers to tell the difference between two amplifiers. The key here is
isolation of variables - making sure that the only difference is the
amplifier. This requires careful level matching, assurances that both
amplifiers are not clipping, and that the experiment is being performed
double blind. You haven't done this, so quite frankly, this renders your
own personal observations useless.

I've heard of these tests, but any blind listening test would be flawed
because humans don't process the same information in the same way from
person to person. I have friends who are happy with a boombox and take them
to a high-end stereo store and they still don't get it. I've done my own
listening tests that were very accurate and my conclusions are much
different then yours. There are also millions of stereo enthusiasts that
would agree with me. Have you actually done your own testing.


I work in sensory neuroscience. I get a paycheck to investigate how
people's
senses work, and the underlying theme throughout all of what we know
about human sensation is that the brain is NOT interested in accurate
reproduction of our surroundings. It's interested in only those
components that are important for survival, and in order to promote this
goal, it's devised ways to actually distort incoming information to better
suit the needs of the animal. The bottom line: you cannot always trust
your senses - not only do they have the tendency to deceive you; they're
actually DESIGNED to deceive you.

This is all theory and while it sounds great how can you prove it and make
it a fact. The simple fact is that you can't. We think this is true
but...........I'm sure there are scientists, in your field, that dispute
your above statement and have their own research to support their own
theories. So basically what your saying is that our need for survival has
also distorted the incoming stimuli. Wouldn't that mean that you
scientificvally measure this distortion caused by the human brain and this
is just one more variable that is under your radar?

audio equipment that you're using, misconceptions between sound quality
and accuracy, sound quality and loudness, etc. all lead to the perception
that system A is superior to system B, even if no difference is actually
present. This is why it's vital to remove these variables from the
equation when you're performing the tests.

Agreed. I've sone all this in my tests. I have a preamp that can make two
amps output match. Did I have a sound meter no but from my tests I'm still
a believer.



Well, I don't have the time or desire to do it, obviously. But there's a
fellow named Richard Clark who has offered a $10,000 amplifier challenge
who will be more than willing to let you give it a try. Why not? If you
genuinely believe that you can tell the difference and you can pick your
amplifier out from the Radio Shack amplifier, you'll end up $10k richer.

Clark's test is very controversial and not the end all in this debate. How
revealing was the speakers he was using? How revealing and different were
the amps he was using? Who were the testers who took his challenge and why
should they be chosen for critical listening? Too many variable to make
this test reliable. I go by what my ears tell me not what some guy says who
wants to be controversial and make a name for themselves.


Even at low listening levels. Cheap amps don't
have the same revealing amplification as a well made amp. And it's not
distortion that is the deciding factor. There are many other factors
that
your instruments can't measure.

You've made mention of this a few times, but never elaborated. What is it
that instruments can't measure that could be responsible? Of all the
questions I've asked you, this is the one I'd really like to hear an
answer for.

How do you measure love, or the felling of how a child makes you feel or
someone's faith. There are just some things in life we will not understand
or will not be measurable.

MZ wrote: "We're telling you that two amps that *AREN'T CLIPPING* will sound
the same."

Mark,

Some questions.

I assume that different amps will produce varied amounts of audible
distortion when clipping? Enough to hear the differences between them?

This is generally the case. In fact, what I said wasn't entirely true
either. The other situation where a distinction between amplifiers often
exists is at extremely low volumes, where S/N can sometimes be an issue
and where THD is sometimes high. I'm talking about less than 1 watt here.
But I usually ignore these conditions for two reasons. First, at these
volume levels, road noise tends to act as a mask anyway. Second, audible
thresholds tend to change at these levels.

And
why would we care since the aim is to not drive them into clipping to begin
with? Isn't it a moot point?Because I usually don't drive my amps into
clipping. My PG amps deliver gobs of power...especially so since my spakers
are tri-amped. I can make myself go deaf and have inordinate amounts of
CLEAN volume, all of which I'm assuming are unclipped signals due to the
absence of distortion (at least none that I can detect with my ears).

There's probably loads of distortion, but it's coming from the speakers.
This is just unavoidable, really. And sometimes people LIKE distortion.
They choose speakers that produce distortion that sounds pleasing to them
(I'm not talking about speakers bottoming out). There's one paper from
the j.AES that I've got a reprint of that actually examines a listener's
preference between distortion-free music and music with a little
distortion added, and many times the listener chooses the distorted one.
Maybe I'll post a link to the pdf.

Anyway, this issue is important because many folks claim that some amps
sound different from others even when they're not clipping. They claim,
for instance, that a/d/s/ amps are "warmer" and more suitable to drive
midrange speakers whereas MTX amps are better for subs, and so forth.

So what exactly ARE the differences that different amps display when
clipping? If we agree that they behave very similarly at unclipped levels,
then what separates the good from the bad in terms of performance when
clipped?

The spectral content of the distortion can differ between amplifiers. The
key word here is "can". When driven severely into clipping, they don't
always exhibit the perfect signal and perfect flat top that we usually
think of when we think of clipping amplifiers. Guitar amps, for example,
are notorious for generating vastly different sounds when driven into
clipping (which is most of the time). Probably an unfair example because
they have high distortion content to begin with, but it's worth noting
that the differences between them tend to become greater as you drive them
further into clipping.

My summation in all of this is as follows...correct me if I am wrong. As
long as my amplifer gives me enough power (volume) without clipping AND has
the features I want, then it really doesn't matter AT ALL which brand I buy
or how much I spend. (durability aside)

Right.

Also...if I'm not mistaken, Richard Clark has never lost $10K to anyone
during one of his challenges. This alone, regardless of someone's grasp (or
lack thereof) of sound reproduction should clear things up a little.

To my knowledge, he hasn't lost $10k. I haven't followed it too closely
though. It's more of a fun exercise than a properly conducted study, so I
wouldn't draw a whole lot of conclusions from it.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Well I agree with everything you wrote. However, there are many here who
believe that amps all sound the same.

That's not quite what we're telling you. We're telling you that two amps
that *AREN'T CLIPPING* will sound the same.

Who's "we"? I never said that. Different amps do sound different. I've proven
that to myself many times with blind testing, with 100% certainty. If you can't
tell any difference, then more power to you - you will save a lot of money.

Because it dispels the many myths out there that revolve around the notion
that amplifiers have a "sonic signature". It points out that comments
attributing one type of sound to amplifiers made by one company, and
another type of sound to another company, have no basis in fact.

See here is where we differ. I believe that amplifiers do have a sonic
signature and it's not distortion that is present. I believe what I'm
hearing is not measurable with instruments.

But what is it? Do you not agree that if the waveform produced by
amplifier A perfectly matches the waveform produced by amplifier B, there
will be no difference in sound?

All the amps I've tested have a
flat response from 20 -20,000hz with in audible distortion at moderate
listening levels. This would support my assumption that there are factors
that can't be measured with instruments.

Or it would support my assertion that the differences are not due to the
amplifier, but rather due to some other aspect of the test.

The only reason we can't measure the fragrance and taste is because we
haven't worked out the details of the human olfactory system. Very little
is known about it, in fact - MUCH less than the other senses. We do,
however,
have a good idea about what aspects of sound humans can perceive
differences,
and we can easily translate these thresholds to electrical and
acoustical measurements.

There are parts of the brain and the universe that we will never understand
or explain. Just because you can see a waverform on a LCD screen doesn't
mean that there aren't nuances to that signal that you can't measure.

Yes, it DOES mean that there aren't nuances that you can't measure. The
resolution of modern day test equipment is extremely good. Certainly
better than the thresholds of human hearing. If the test equipment
doesn't reveal a difference, then a difference does not exist. There
aren't unknown parameters to measure. Speakers operate on voltage and
current, and nothing else.

We
don't even know if all average humans hear alike. The human brain is unique
to each person so wouldn't it make sense that not all humans can process
outside stimuli in the same way.

No one has ever exhibit superhuman abilities such that they can hear the
tiniest of differences, see with microscopic precision, or smell a cup of
coffee 5 miles away. While there is indeed a substantial amount of
variablity between people, there's probably much less than you realize and
certainly much less than what would be responsible for detecting the
differences in signal that we've measured between two amplifiers.

There are too many variable to make a
blanket statement that all amplifiers sound the same when they are not
clipping or producing distortion. It's like a microscope. If you look at a
cell at 10x you don't see much but if you magnify it to 500x you can see
more detail. Who's to say that you measurements are too crude to measure
all that is inherant in an audio signal?

Because the measurements are made with nanovolt and microsecond
resolutions. Humans can't detect differences that small.

I've heard of these tests, but any blind listening test would be flawed
because humans don't process the same information in the same way from
person to person. I have friends who are happy with a boombox and take them
to a high-end stereo store and they still don't get it. I've done my own
listening tests that were very accurate and my conclusions are much
different then yours. There are also millions of stereo enthusiasts that
would agree with me. Have you actually done your own testing.

Yes, I have actually done my own testing. Anyway, blind testing is
essential because it removes an extra stimulus from the equation - that
is, it doesn't allow prior knowledge to enter into the decision. It's
like taking the pepsi challenge. If you already have a preconceived
notion that you like Pepsi better than Coke, then you need to remove
knowledge of which can is Pepsi and which can is Coke in order to
accurately measure which one you like better. You don't agree with this?

This is all theory and while it sounds great how can you prove it and make
it a fact. The simple fact is that you can't.

No, it's not all theory. It's the result of years of carefully conducted
scientific observation.

We think this is true
but...........I'm sure there are scientists, in your field, that dispute
your above statement and have their own research to support their own
theories.

Quite frankly, there aren't. What I said was one of the central tenets of
neuroscience. I can't think of a single notable scientist that believes
otherwise. It's clear as day when you simply acknowledge the strategies
that even the sensory apparatus themselves are engaging in to transduce
the stimulus into a neural code.

So basically what your saying is that our need for survival has
also distorted the incoming stimuli. Wouldn't that mean that you
scientificvally measure this distortion caused by the human brain and this
is just one more variable that is under your radar?

I'm saying, by definition, your brain is transforming incoming information
to better suit its purposes. The human visual system, for example, is not
a spectrophotometer. It does not have a flat response across all
wavelengths (you've only got a few hundred nanometers of range to play
with). It does not have the ability to distinguish between two points of
light separated by a nanometer. It does not have the ability to
distinguish between two flashes a nanosecond apart. These are
nonlinearities of the visual system, hence, by definition, distortion.
Moreover, even at the level of the human retina, you're not seeing a
faithful reproduction of the stimulus being captured by the neural code.
Adaptation effects, center-surround effects, and the density of
photoreceptors being a function of eccentricity make sure of this. So an
accurate signal isn't even getting to your brain.

Surely, this shouldn't be surprising to you, right? After all, you can't
see ultraviolet light, can you? And you can't see the details of a
mountaintop from 10 miles away, right?



audio equipment that you're using, misconceptions between sound quality
and accuracy, sound quality and loudness, etc. all lead to the perception
that system A is superior to system B, even if no difference is actually
present. This is why it's vital to remove these variables from the
equation when you're performing the tests.

Agreed. I've sone all this in my tests. I have a preamp that can make two
amps output match. Did I have a sound meter no but from my tests I'm still
a believer.

You didn't double blind your tests. You didn't measure the output level
of the amps to test that they were truly level-matched. And you didn't
ensure that the amps were not clipping. Your tests don't hold up.




Well, I don't have the time or desire to do it, obviously. But there's a
fellow named Richard Clark who has offered a $10,000 amplifier challenge
who will be more than willing to let you give it a try. Why not? If you
genuinely believe that you can tell the difference and you can pick your
amplifier out from the Radio Shack amplifier, you'll end up $10k richer.

Clark's test is very controversial and not the end all in this debate. How
revealing was the speakers he was using?

His conditions stipulate that you can use any speakers you want.

How revealing and different were
the amps he was using?

His conditions stipulate that you can use any solid state amplifiers you
want, as long as they're not broken.

Who were the testers who took his challenge and why
should they be chosen for critical listening?

Whoever asks to try. You should give it a shot. At least contact him to
find out more information. It may be worth 10 grand for you.

You've made mention of this a few times, but never elaborated. What is it
that instruments can't measure that could be responsible? Of all the
questions I've asked you, this is the one I'd really like to hear an
answer for.

How do you measure love, or the felling of how a child makes you feel or
someone's faith. There are just some things in life we will not understand
or will not be measurable.

We can measure audible perception rather flawlessly. You're just ignorant
of the studies that do so, never having done them yourself or read any of
the original papers by the folks that do them. Nor have you built,
designed, bench-tested, or taken the time to learn in depth how amplifiers
(the topic of this discussion) work. That's ok. I probably wouldn't have any
idea about the intricacies of your profession either, even if it was my
hobby.

I don't believe you can measure,
with instruments, how an amp will wound in the real world. It's like fine
wine - you can measure the alcohol content of two fine wines but can you
can't measure the fragrance and taste. I'll take my ears over your
instruments any day.

That is true. In fact, it CAN be measured - in theory. But testing tools that
are as accurate as our ears (and tongues and noses) don't exist,

Clearly you don't know how the ear, tongue, and nose work then. They're
extremely inaccurate, partly by design and partly because of their
shortcomings.

and there isn't
any market for them at the cost for developing them. (There might be some
market, but it would be very very expensive, and esoteric.) Someday, it will
probably happen.

Not sure what you mean here. If you're talking about artificial ears,
eyes, and so forth, then yes there's a rather large group of researchers
trying to develop sensory neural prosthesis devices. Surely you've heard
of cochlea implants, for example?

Well I agree with everything you wrote. However, there are many here who
believe that amps all sound the same.

That's not quite what we're telling you. We're telling you that two amps
that *AREN'T CLIPPING* will sound the same.

Who's "we"? I never said that.

By "we", I was referring to the "many here who believe that amps all sound
the same".

Different amps do sound different. I've proven
that to myself many times with blind testing, with 100% certainty. If you can't
tell any difference, then more power to you - you will save a lot of money.

I suggest you publish these results then. It would be groundbreaking
news.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Different amps do sound different. I've proven
that to myself many times with blind testing, with 100% certainty. If you
can't
tell any difference, then more power to you - you will save a lot of money.

I suggest you publish these results then.

I just did.

It would be groundbreaking news.

No, it wouldn't.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
I don't believe you can measure,
with instruments, how an amp will wound in the real world. It's like fine
wine - you can measure the alcohol content of two fine wines but can you
can't measure the fragrance and taste. I'll take my ears over your
instruments any day.

That is true. In fact, it CAN be measured - in theory. But testing tools
that
are as accurate as our ears (and tongues and noses) don't exist,

Clearly you don't know how the ear, tongue, and nose work then. They're
extremely inaccurate, partly by design and partly because of their
shortcomings.

That's completely irrelevant. See below.

and there isn't
any market for them at the cost for developing them. (There might be some
market, but it would be very very expensive, and esoteric.) Someday, it will
probably happen.

Not sure what you mean here. If you're talking about artificial ears,
eyes, and so forth, then yes there's a rather large group of researchers
trying to develop sensory neural prosthesis devices. Surely you've heard
of cochlea implants, for example?

Of course I have. The original point made by Trader stands. We don't have
measuring devices that can measure taste and smell (of wine, for example) with
the same accuracy as human taste. Yes, I know we can measure particles in terms
of parts per million or billion. But that still can't describe and explain
human taste.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Because it dispels the many myths out there that revolve around the notion
that amplifiers have a "sonic signature". It points out that comments
attributing one type of sound to amplifiers made by one company, and
another type of sound to another company, have no basis in fact.

See here is where we differ. I believe that amplifiers do have a sonic
signature and it's not distortion that is present. I believe what I'm
hearing is not measurable with instruments.

But what is it? Do you not agree that if the waveform produced by
amplifier A perfectly matches the waveform produced by amplifier B, there
will be no difference in sound?

Of course. Unfortunately, they don't measure as accurately as you think they
do.

"jeffc" wrote in message
...

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Because it dispels the many myths out there that revolve around the
notion
that amplifiers have a "sonic signature". It points out that comments
attributing one type of sound to amplifiers made by one company, and
another type of sound to another company, have no basis in fact.

See here is where we differ. I believe that amplifiers do have a sonic
signature and it's not distortion that is present. I believe what I'm
hearing is not measurable with instruments.

But what is it? Do you not agree that if the waveform produced by
amplifier A perfectly matches the waveform produced by amplifier B, there
will be no difference in sound?

Of course. Unfortunately, they don't measure as accurately as you think they
do.

That didn't make much sense out of context of Trader's remark. When he said
what he's hearing isn't "measurable", I don't really know what he means. What I
mean is that it is measurable, of course - for example, human ears can hear it.
That's not the same thing as saying current tools *are* measuring it. That's
the problem. It certainly *can* be meausured, and some day maybe it will be.
That will be nice.

But what is it? Do you not agree that if the waveform produced by
amplifier A perfectly matches the waveform produced by amplifier B, there
will be no difference in sound?

Of course. Unfortunately, they don't measure as accurately as you think they
do.

Yes they do. Today's modern test equipment is extremely precise. Much
more precise than our senses. It can introduce a virtually nonexistent
impedance (thank goodness for op amps) and has an error of measurement far
below what you think it is. The error is usually listed in the manual or
on the back of the machine itself.

Not sure what you mean here. If you're talking about artificial ears,
eyes, and so forth, then yes there's a rather large group of researchers
trying to develop sensory neural prosthesis devices. Surely you've heard
of cochlea implants, for example?

Of course I have. The original point made by Trader stands. We don't have
measuring devices that can measure taste and smell (of wine, for example) with
the same accuracy as human taste. Yes, I know we can measure particles in terms
of parts per million or billion. But that still can't describe and explain
human taste.

Trying to mimic perception is a matter of being unable to work out the
neural code for the olfactory system. However, we are better equipped to
distinguish between chemicals with test equipment than we are with our
olfactory system. Bringing it back to the auditory system, we are better
equipped to measure differences in sound with test equipment than our
ears. Our hearing simply isn't precise enough in the transduction
process, nor does it have the information content in the neural code to
account for high precision. In addition, the internal state of the animal
(attention, arousal, etc) adds a highly nonlinear component to the signal,
thereby introducing distortion (this is, as I stated in my other post, an
example of the brain introducing distortion in order to benefit the
animal).

I suggest you publish these results then.

I just did.

I'm talking about a peer-reviewed publication. Let's see if your
methodology passes the reviewers.

It would be groundbreaking news.

No, it wouldn't.

Well, considering there aren't any peer-reviewed publications that make
the claims you've made, yes it would.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
But what is it? Do you not agree that if the waveform produced by
amplifier A perfectly matches the waveform produced by amplifier B, there
will be no difference in sound?

Of course. Unfortunately, they don't measure as accurately as you think
they
do.

Yes they do. Today's modern test equipment is extremely precise. Much
more precise than our senses. It can introduce a virtually nonexistent
impedance (thank goodness for op amps) and has an error of measurement far
below what you think it is. The error is usually listed in the manual or
on the back of the machine itself.

No, you still don't get it. You still think, for example, that because we can
detect parts per billion, that scientific measuring devices are more precise
than our tongue and nose. It's not a question of precision, it's a question of
accuracy. Those tools are not measuring the same way we're measuring. It's too
complicated. The wine example was a good one. Even though they can do a
chemical analysis on it, they still can't determine which blend of tastes and
smells will make up a good wine and which will taste best. Sure, they can
detect obvious things like spoilage or the presence of some awful chemical, but
they can't figure out which wine would be preferred in a blind tasting.

Yes they do. Today's modern test equipment is extremely precise. Much
more precise than our senses. It can introduce a virtually nonexistent
impedance (thank goodness for op amps) and has an error of measurement
far
below what you think it is. The error is usually listed in the manual
or
on the back of the machine itself.

No, you still don't get it. You still think, for example, that because we
can
detect parts per billion, that scientific measuring devices are more
precise
than our tongue and nose. It's not a question of precision, it's a
question of
accuracy. Those tools are not measuring the same way we're measuring.
It's too
complicated. The wine example was a good one. Even though they can do a
chemical analysis on it, they still can't determine which blend of tastes
and
smells will make up a good wine and which will taste best. Sure, they can
detect obvious things like spoilage or the presence of some awful
chemical, but
they can't figure out which wine would be preferred in a blind tasting.

But what you're failing to grasp here is that we're not trying to classify
perception in and of itself. This discussion is not addressing which forms
of distortion are less pleasing than others, and what the underlying neural
mechanisms are to explain it. The discussion is much simpler than that - it
is whether or not it can be detected in two independent samples. Or, more
precisely, what is the "just noticable difference"? So, using your wine
example, we're not interested in which wine is more fruity. We're
interested in whether or not you can tell the difference between wine A and
wine B, and how test equipment compares in the ability to detect the
difference. Are you still claiming that we're able to detect differences
(not the quality of the difference, but the difference itself) that test
equipment cannot? If you dropped 10 molecules of something into the glass,
would you be able to detect it with your senses? Would the test equipment?

Again getting back to audition, I think the answer is more clearcut. It's
common knowledge that we can measure sounds with sensitive microphones that
simply aren't loud enough for humans. It's also common knowledge that we
can measure harmonic distortion down to millionths of a percent with test
equipment, but we can't make the distinction with our ears. It's also
common knowledge that you can use an SPL meter to tell the difference
between a sound that's 80.000dB and a sound that's 80.001dB, but the best a
human can do is roughly in the 0.5dB range broadband. It's also well known
that humans have a greater difficulty perceiving a narrowband dip in
frequency response than a narrowband boost in frequency response, whereas
test equipment has no such difficulty. We also know that masking can
prevent things from being heard - test equipment does not experience this
phenomenon.

Not only is there demonstrable evidence pointing to the fact that test
equipment can beat all of our sensory modalities (in terms of detection!),
but it's also common knowledge.

Trader wrote:

However, there are many here who
believe that amps all sound the same.

WHO SAID THAT???

Amps playing the SAME SOUND, do sound the same!!
(listen to those words carefully)

But all amps DO NOT SOUND THE SAME!!

In other words, if two amps play the same music, at the same
volume level, through the same speakers, in the same car, AND
neither amp is straining or clipping or producing audible distortion,
THEN THEY WILL SOUND THE SAME!!

However, most folks NEVER set up this kind of comparison,
they often compare 1 amp in a Mazda with 6 inch Pioneer speakers
and an Alpine headunit and a audiobahn EQ

TO an amp in a Firebird with 6x9 Fozzgate speakers and a
Sony headunit with no EQ...

AND NOT LEVEL MATCHED!! Typicly you get in and
turn it up, TO CLIPPING, and BEYOND to evaluate a system!

SO of course the amps sound different..!
OF COURSE!!!

Eddie Runner
installin since 1974
http://www.teamrocs.com

Tony Fernandes wrote:

So what exactly ARE the differences that different amps display when
clipping? If we agree that they behave very similarly at unclipped levels,
then what separates the good from the bad in terms of performance when
clipped?

Different amps although they should sound the same when not clipping
and played at the same levels.... can vary greatly in the point at which
clipping and audable distortion starts... THIS is what most folks percieve
as being the sonic differences in amplifiers...

IT CAN CARY GREATLY from one amp to another...

My summation in all of this is as follows...correct me if I am wrong. As
long as my amplifer gives me enough power (volume) without clipping AND has
the features I want, then it really doesn't matter AT ALL which brand I buy
or how much I spend. (durability aside)

I would say thats pretty much true.
Oh, you would also have to overlook the phsycological happienes
of of owning a certain brand name... ;-)


Also...if I'm not mistaken, Richard Clark has never lost $10K to anyone
during one of his challenges. This alone, regardless of someone's grasp (or
lack thereof) of sound reproduction should clear things up a little.

Richard Clark is a ****head... Even if he did loose HE WOULD NOT PAY!

He has LIED on many occasions to sell his products....
He told me once if I bought his tech papers and could find ANY errors
he would reimburse me.... HE DID NOT!!

Although he is an often refered to example, he is not a good person.
and the fact he has never paid is not indicitive that folks never won, IMO
its more indicitive that Richard is a crook...

Eddie Runner

Richard Clark is a ****head... Even if he did loose HE WOULD NOT PAY!

He has LIED on many occasions to sell his products....
He told me once if I bought his tech papers and could find ANY errors
he would reimburse me.... HE DID NOT!!

Although he is an often refered to example, he is not a good person.
and the fact he has never paid is not indicitive that folks never won, IMO
its more indicitive that Richard is a crook...

If you can't tell, Eddie doesn't look Clark very much.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Are you still claiming that we're able to detect differences
(not the quality of the difference, but the difference itself) that test
equipment cannot? If you dropped 10 molecules of something into the glass,
would you be able to detect it with your senses? Would the test equipment?

OK, well some test equipment can, and some can't. Whether the test equipment
exists today that is good enough to tell what I can tell with my ear is one
question (I don't know whether it exists or not.) Whether that is the test
equipment that is actually used to do a review is another thing. (I'm sure some
reviews have been done with cheaper, less accurate equipment.)

Again getting back to audition, I think the answer is more clearcut. It's
common knowledge that we can measure sounds with sensitive microphones that
simply aren't loud enough for humans.

Right.

It's also common knowledge that we
can measure harmonic distortion down to millionths of a percent with test
equipment, but we can't make the distinction with our ears. It's also
common knowledge that you can use an SPL meter to tell the difference
between a sound that's 80.000dB and a sound that's 80.001dB, but the best a
human can do is roughly in the 0.5dB range broadband.

OK, but again - that is what is *possible* (I'm just taking your word for it.)
I can assure you that that is not the equipment that is being used for most
reviews (or at least has been used in the past.) It's either because such
equipment is just too expensive, or too difficult to use correctly, or maybe
even because the reviewer already believes such precision isn't relevant.

Not only is there demonstrable evidence pointing to the fact that test
equipment can beat all of our sensory modalities (in terms of detection!),
but it's also common knowledge.

But it's not common practice.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
I suggest you publish these results then.

I just did.

I'm talking about a peer-reviewed publication. Let's see if your
methodology passes the reviewers.

I really don't care. I didn't post it for publication and I never will. I
posted it as a general help, just like all help here. If you don't want to
believe, don't. I truly could not care any less.

It would be groundbreaking news.

No, it wouldn't.

Well, considering there aren't any peer-reviewed publications that make
the claims you've made, yes it would.

Sure there are. You just aren't an agreeable peer, that's all. "Peer review"
is a joke, because your definition of "peer" is "someone who already agrees with
me." There are *tons* of "peer reviewed" audiophile publications that make the
claims I have. (Not that I agree with most of them, but the peers of the author
do.)

If you want to know the details of 2 tests that I did (I did many more, but
these are the only 2 significant ones where I found a difference):

- first was a comparison of Adcom GFA-555 with GFA-545, level matched to output
voltage. Blind, technically not double blind, but the effect was the same - I
couldn't see the amps, I couldn't see the tester, and the tester was using
random numbers to hook up the next amp. I named the amp that was being used in
10 tests, 100% correct. The difference I noted was a slight difference in sound
of a few cymbal hits/brushes on the Sheffield drum test record. I preferred one
over the other. I can't honestly say I know which one was more realistic,
because I wasn't in the room when the recording was made.
- second was a comparison of a home JVD cd player (about $400) and a Sony
portable CD player (about $100). Sorry, don't remember the models. Same setup
as above. Again I picked I matched the sound to the player 100% of the time.
It turned out to be the Sony I preferred, which I found a little surprising.

I've also tested many other amps, cd players and cables. I can't honestly say
I've ever heard any difference in any of the good audiophile cables my dealer
sent me home with. That's true even when I knew which cable was in there and
how much they cost, try as I might. I also remember trying to determine the
difference between a $1000 Bryston amp and a $400 amp (can't remember which one)
and again couldn't do it.