"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...
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)

Eddie Runner, Master of the Obvious.

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.)

It depends what you refer to when you say "what I can tell with my ear". If
you're referring to detection of harmonic distortion, detection of noise, or
detection of IMD, then I can tell you with certainty that we've long had the
test equipment to be able to perform such simple measures. In fact, all you
need is a high quality microphone to capture the signal, and the analysis
can be done on any PC (with free software, no less!). But if instead you
mean whether or not we have test equipment to detect the mood of someone's
voice, to detect a voice as someone you know under all conditions (eg. even
when their voice is altered because they have a cold, etc), or to translate
a voice into speech, then no, the human brain is still superior to test
equipment. But again, I'm not talking about determining which sound is
better, more musical, warmer, brighter, smoother, realistic, etc. I'm
simply referring to whether or not one can detect a difference under a
controlled setting.

As for the equipment that's used to bench amps, nothing terribly expensive
or elaborate is required. In recent years, I've used expensive data
acquisition cards to do that sort of thing. I've used simpler USB data
acquisition devices. And, even more recently, I've used a good sound card's
input, a homemade attenuator, and some custom written matlab software to do
it. People who benchtest for a living undoubtedly use more sophistocated
equipment, but it's not necessary IMO. In short, you can get incredibly
precise equipment for extremely low prices. Hell, Arny Krueger benches
soundcards WITH a soundcard, and his tests are among the most comprehensive
available!

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.

My point was that just because you say it's so doesn't make it so. Your
tests have not properly isolated variables, therefore you cannot attribute
the perceived differences to the variable of your choosing.


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.)

That's not what "peer reviewed" means. Peer reviewed implies that the
methodology and the logic has been examined by others that are active
researchers in the field. Whether the results are in line with the reviewer
is irrelevant. In fact, it's not uncommon for competing theories to be
accepted into publication by the same set of "peers".


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.

Even "audiophile" magazines that claim you CAN detect differences never
claim 100%. In fact, someone posted one here recently which based its claim
on a statistical measure that amounted to something akin to 51% correct vs
49% incorrect. I suspect either your test was not adequately controlled or
the equipment was faulty. I see no mention of assurances that both
amplifiers were behaving linearly, for starters.

WHO SAID THAT???

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

Eddie Runner, Master of the Obvious.

I don't know that it's necessarily obvious. "Trader" would apparently
disagree with that statement, because he's already implied that amplifiers
outputting an identical signal (in terms of voltage) into the same speaker
can sound different.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
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.

My point was that just because you say it's so doesn't make it so.

Likewise, just because you say it isn't so doesn't make it not so.

Your
tests have not properly isolated variables, therefore you cannot attribute
the perceived differences to the variable of your choosing.

Says you.

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.)

That's not what "peer reviewed" means. Peer reviewed implies that the
methodology and the logic has been examined by others that are active
researchers in the field.

Whatever. Now we have the same problem with "researchers". Again, they will
only be people that you consider to have the correct perspective. Stereo gear
reviewers happen to believe in their methodology and logic, even if you don't.
If they hear something to be true, and the "tests" indicate otherwise, they have
every bit as good a reason to be suspicious of the methodology and logic of the
testers as the testers are of them. Maybe the testers are incompetant. Maybe
the equipment was malfunctioning or calibrated incorrectly, or not as precise as
claimed. etc.

Even "audiophile" magazines that claim you CAN detect differences never
claim 100%. In fact, someone posted one here recently which based its claim
on a statistical measure that amounted to something akin to 51% correct vs
49% incorrect. I suspect either your test was not adequately controlled or
the equipment was faulty.

And I suspect you just are going to believe what you're going to believe
regardless. According to you, any time I hear something different, I either
cheated or my stereo is broken. Fine. I claim that everytime you measured
something, your testing equipment is broken, or you cheated. Something akin to
the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle springs to mind. Certainly, I will trust
my own ears in a simple test before I will trust the results of some testing
that some guy I don't know did, with some equipment that I haven't myself
tested, under some conditions I'm not aware of, when those people might or might
not have had some ulterior motive I can't be aware of. This isn't rocket
science.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
WHO SAID THAT???

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

Eddie Runner, Master of the Obvious.

I don't know that it's necessarily obvious. "Trader" would apparently
disagree with that statement, because he's already implied that amplifiers
outputting an identical signal (in terms of voltage) into the same speaker
can sound different.

It is glaringly obvious. No one would disagree with that statement. Eddie
didn't say anything about signals, just sound. Now, what does "identical signal
in terms of voltage" imply?

My point was that just because you say it's so doesn't make it so.

Likewise, just because you say it isn't so doesn't make it not so.

Right, which is why I'm offering citations (from peer reviewed
publications - not editorials) for everything I say. Just be specific about
what you want cited.

That's not what "peer reviewed" means. Peer reviewed implies that the
methodology and the logic has been examined by others that are active
researchers in the field.

Whatever. Now we have the same problem with "researchers". Again, they
will
only be people that you consider to have the correct perspective.

If by "correct perspective" you mean people who know how to conduct tests
that are designed to minimize assumptions, then I agree.

Stereo gear
reviewers happen to believe in their methodology and logic, even if you
don't.

But they're demonstrably wrong when they refuse to implement the proper
controls. This is logic 101.

If they hear something to be true, and the "tests" indicate otherwise,
they have
every bit as good a reason to be suspicious of the methodology and logic
of the
testers as the testers are of them. Maybe the testers are incompetant.
Maybe
the equipment was malfunctioning or calibrated incorrectly, or not as
precise as
claimed. etc.

Exactly correct. That's why we need to control for testers' competency,
equipment malfunction and calibration. Now you're getting the idea!

And I suspect you just are going to believe what you're going to believe
regardless.

No, I'm going to believe what the evidence supports.

According to you, any time I hear something different, I either
cheated or my stereo is broken. Fine.

No, I'm claiming that you haven't published these results because, first of
all, they're incomplete and, second of all, they haven't properly isolated
variables. Until then, I'm not going to take your conclusions into
consideration. Instead, I'll rely on published results. I'm always willing
to read other attempts to get to the answer of this question. You just
haven't provided any.

I claim that everytime you measured
something, your testing equipment is broken, or you cheated. Something
akin to
the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle springs to mind. Certainly, I will
trust
my own ears in a simple test before I will trust the results of some
testing
that some guy I don't know did, with some equipment that I haven't myself
tested, under some conditions I'm not aware of, when those people might or
might
not have had some ulterior motive I can't be aware of. This isn't rocket
science.

Let me ask you this. If you're content to trust your own ears in a
listening test (without implementing the proper controls), are you content
to trust your own eyes when you go to a magic show?

I don't know that it's necessarily obvious. "Trader" would apparently
disagree with that statement, because he's already implied that
amplifiers
outputting an identical signal (in terms of voltage) into the same
speaker
can sound different.

It is glaringly obvious. No one would disagree with that statement.
Eddie
didn't say anything about signals, just sound. Now, what does "identical
signal
in terms of voltage" imply?

It states quite clearly that amplifier A's output is identical to amplifier
B's output, both driving the same speaker. That is, if the output voltage
is identical under both circumstances, will the same sound be produced?

"Trader" doesn't seem to think so.

thank you Mark

And I even agree what I said is obvious, but I cant
see why folks just dont get it, I think they just dont pay attention
to all the words we use, they would rather make useless claims.

this is the way I see it

ALL AMPS CAN BE SET TO SOUND THE SAME!
(assuming working audio amps)

BUT ALL AMPS CAN ALSO BE SET TO SOUND DIFFERENT!

ALL AMPS ARE NOT THE SAME!

AMPS set the same with no distortion WILL sound the same.!!

For the above statement to be true, please know what the defintion
of distortion is!! (Distortion is a change to the sound other than amplitude)

Why is this so hard to understand?

Folks hear that undistorted amps sound the same and they agree with
the facts, but they go right out and claim ALL amps sound the same
(with no stipulations about WHEN they can sound the same)

Other folks hear that amps sound different cause Joe Blow can hear
the differences, and most folks have problably heard differences themselves.
So they argue that ampshave sonic differences...

DUH!!

Mark what sobvious to us, may not be so obvious to the masses..

ha ha ha

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





MZ wrote:

WHO SAID THAT???

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

Eddie Runner, Master of the Obvious.

I don't know that it's necessarily obvious. "Trader" would apparently
disagree with that statement, because he's already implied that amplifiers
outputting an identical signal (in terms of voltage) into the same speaker
can sound different.

"MZ" wrote in message
...

And I suspect you just are going to believe what you're going to believe
regardless.

No, I'm going to believe what the evidence supports.

No, you're only going to believe the evidence you choose.

According to you, any time I hear something different, I either
cheated or my stereo is broken. Fine.

No, I'm claiming that you haven't published these results because, first of
all, they're incomplete and, second of all, they haven't properly isolated
variables. Until then, I'm not going to take your conclusions into
consideration.

This is an internet forum. This is not a scientific journal. I have now
"published" the results here.

Instead, I'll rely on published results. I'm always willing
to read other attempts to get to the answer of this question. You just
haven't provided any.

I have. You just don't like them.

Let me ask you this. If you're content to trust your own ears in a
listening test (without implementing the proper controls), are you content
to trust your own eyes when you go to a magic show?

Who says I didn't implement proper controls? How would you know? And your
analogy is absurd. For one thing, the likelihood of being deceived when there
is no intent to deceive is very small compared to when there is intent. For
another, why would you trust your own eyes when watching your test equipment?
Relying on "peer review" in that case is about as reliable as relying on your
fellow magic show observers.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
I don't know that it's necessarily obvious. "Trader" would apparently
disagree with that statement, because he's already implied that
amplifiers
outputting an identical signal (in terms of voltage) into the same
speaker
can sound different.

It is glaringly obvious. No one would disagree with that statement.
Eddie
didn't say anything about signals, just sound. Now, what does "identical
signal
in terms of voltage" imply?

It states quite clearly that amplifier A's output is identical to amplifier
B's output, both driving the same speaker. That is, if the output voltage
is identical under both circumstances, will the same sound be produced?

What is the difference between "identical signals" and "identical signals (in
terms of voltage)"?

And I suspect you just are going to believe what you're going to
believe
regardless.

No, I'm going to believe what the evidence supports.

No, you're only going to believe the evidence you choose.

According to you, any time I hear something different, I either
cheated or my stereo is broken. Fine.

No, I'm claiming that you haven't published these results because, first
of
all, they're incomplete and, second of all, they haven't properly
isolated
variables. Until then, I'm not going to take your conclusions into
consideration.

This is an internet forum. This is not a scientific journal. I have now
"published" the results here.

Instead, I'll rely on published results. I'm always willing
to read other attempts to get to the answer of this question. You just
haven't provided any.

I have. You just don't like them.

Let me ask you this. If you're content to trust your own ears in a
listening test (without implementing the proper controls), are you
content
to trust your own eyes when you go to a magic show?

Who says I didn't implement proper controls? How would you know? And
your
analogy is absurd. For one thing, the likelihood of being deceived when
there
is no intent to deceive is very small compared to when there is intent.
For
another, why would you trust your own eyes when watching your test
equipment?
Relying on "peer review" in that case is about as reliable as relying on
your
fellow magic show observers.

Once again, I'll point out your fallacy. Your entire argument must assert
one of two things:
1) distortion is present in the output of the amplifier - enough to exceed
human thresholds of detection; OR
2) while there's no distortion present, one can still hear the difference.

You've already rejected #2 in your reply to Eddie Runner in this thread. So
you are therefore claiming that #1 is the case. Yet, when one measures the
distortion content of the two amplifiers, there's none to be found
(certainly far less than what is audible to humans). So your assertions
have knocked down 75 years of well-established psychophysical data all in
one fell swoop. And you wonder why I question your methodology?

Your reasoning has been that the test equipment is wrong. That's a cop out
if I've ever heard one. Measuring voltage is not rocket science. It's
incredibly easy to do, and it's incredibly precise. The fact that you don't
realize this implies that you don't do much electronics work and so you
never have the opportunity to deal with these devices yourself. Take it
from those of us who do, or from the manufacturers who build this equipment,
instead of making yourself sound like a lunatic with claims that all the
manufacturers are lying and that all the error bars in every single paper
that incorporates such measurements are fabricated. You started out in this
thread with intelligent and articulate replies, but not you're coming off as
a conspiracy theorist.

It states quite clearly that amplifier A's output is identical to
amplifier
B's output, both driving the same speaker. That is, if the output
voltage
is identical under both circumstances, will the same sound be produced?

What is the difference between "identical signals" and "identical signals
(in
terms of voltage)"?

None. The signal is measured in voltage, so the two terms are synonymous.

"MZ" wrote in message
...

Once again, I'll point out your fallacy. Your entire argument must assert
one of two things:
1) distortion is present in the output of the amplifier - enough to exceed
human thresholds of detection; OR
2) while there's no distortion present, one can still hear the difference.

You're implying that (some) amplifiers are perfect. There is no such thing.
*All* amplifiers output a distorted signal. If the testing equipment can't
detect this, then the error is with the testing equipment.

You've already rejected #2 in your reply to Eddie Runner in this thread. So
you are therefore claiming that #1 is the case.

No I'm not. See above. However, it's perfectly feasible that some amplifiers
output a signal that is below the threshold of human hearing to detect
distortion, and also below the threshold of current measuring devices.

Yet, when one measures the
distortion content of the two amplifiers, there's none to be found
(certainly far less than what is audible to humans).

Which is it? None, or less that what is audible to humans? Again, if you can't
measure distortion, then your equipment isn't good enough. Again, there is no
such thing as a perfect amplifier. Hell, there is no such thing as a perfect
*wire*. The signal will change.

Your reasoning has been that the test equipment is wrong. That's a cop out
if I've ever heard one. Measuring voltage is not rocket science.

Measuring voltage to infinite limits is beyond rocket science.

It's incredibly easy to do, and it's incredibly precise. The fact that you
don't
realize this implies that you don't do much electronics work and so you
never have the opportunity to deal with these devices yourself.

The fact that you keep saying the same thing without understanding what the
*actual* problem is implies that you've already made your mind up about this
years ago, without bothering to consider anything new.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
It states quite clearly that amplifier A's output is identical to
amplifier
B's output, both driving the same speaker. That is, if the output
voltage
is identical under both circumstances, will the same sound be produced?

What is the difference between "identical signals" and "identical signals
(in
terms of voltage)"?

None. The signal is measured in voltage, so the two terms are synonymous.

Then why did you ad the parenthetical "in terms of voltage"?

When you can hook up test equipment to the human brain then you will have an
instrument that can measure sound the way we perceive it. Test equipment
can't hear-test equipment doesn't have ears. Test equipment can measure and
take the sound waves and turn it into electronic impulses to be read on a
screen and then subjectively analyzed. You will never have a machine that
can tell you what a wine tastes like. Unless you can hook it into a human
brain. My point is that your electronic waveform is not telling the whole
story.

I agree that my tests were not ideal and I did know the amps involved. In
fact, I wanted to like the amp I thought lacked the ability to allow my
human ears hear all there is to hear in the upper octaves of the music I
used for my tests. This guy Clark can claim anything he wants. Is he a
scientist doing controlled experiments. Not likely just some guy trying to
make a name for themselves.

Science is mostly theory. There is not much fact to science. Scientist do
research and complete studies and can come to a reasonable conclusion but
most of what they do is theory and can usually be challenged by another
researcher with their own theories.

Who is to say all humans hear or see the same exact way. We just don't
know. We certainly know that not all human taste food the same because
there are people who have their favorites which may be your most hated
foods.


"jeffc" wrote in message
...

"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.

Once again, I'll point out your fallacy. Your entire argument must
assert
one of two things:
1) distortion is present in the output of the amplifier - enough to
exceed
human thresholds of detection; OR
2) while there's no distortion present, one can still hear the
difference.

You're implying that (some) amplifiers are perfect. There is no such
thing. *All* amplifiers output a distorted signal. If the testing equipment
can't detect this, then the error is with the testing equipment.

No, I'm implying that ALL amplifiers are "perfect". In car audio, this is
indeed the case. Every amplifier I've benched exhibits this tendency - even
the el cheapo models. The independently conducted bench testing I've seen
on the net of car audio amplifiers even show the same thing (though I have
no way of verifying their methodology). There's absolutely no reason to
believe that these amplifiers, when not driven into clipping, would not be
able to do this. Quite frankly, amplifiers are easy and cheap to build.

Note that by "perfect" I mean that the level of distortion is well below (at
least one order of magnitude) what's considered audible. And, when you
further take into account the masking that occurs due to road noise, the
distortion inherent in your average loudspeaker setup, and the sloppy
transfer function of an automobile, you'll find that levels of distortion
are well below what they need to be.



You've already rejected #2 in your reply to Eddie Runner in this thread.
So
you are therefore claiming that #1 is the case.

No I'm not. See above. However, it's perfectly feasible that some
amplifiers
output a signal that is below the threshold of human hearing to detect
distortion, and also below the threshold of current measuring devices.

Just in case you're still unclear about this point, the threshold of current
measuring devices is waaaaaay below the threshold of human hearing.


Yet, when one measures the
distortion content of the two amplifiers, there's none to be found
(certainly far less than what is audible to humans).

Which is it? None, or less that what is audible to humans?

Fractions of a percent. I consider that to be none. It's insignificant.

Again, if you can't
measure distortion, then your equipment isn't good enough.

My equipment is good enough. I can create a signal with a tiny level of
distortion and then measure it with this equipment. Therefore, it's good
enough. An alternative technique that serves to eliminate the test
equipment as the culprit is to subtract the measured signal from the input
signal. When you do this, you'll find that the result is essentially zero.
I suggest you give this a try.

Again, there is no
such thing as a perfect amplifier. Hell, there is no such thing as a
perfect
*wire*. The signal will change.

Yep. But it's too small to be audible. So, by psychoacoustical standards,
it's perfect.


Your reasoning has been that the test equipment is wrong. That's a cop
out
if I've ever heard one. Measuring voltage is not rocket science.

Measuring voltage to infinite limits is beyond rocket science.

Why would infinite limits ever be necessary?

None. The signal is measured in voltage, so the two terms are
synonymous.

Then why did you ad the parenthetical "in terms of voltage"?

I put it there before I added the "into the same speaker" bit. I forgot to
delete it. It turned out to be a redundancy. If you're not going into the
same speaker, then you need to measure both voltage and current to make
certain that the amplifier output is indeed equivalent in both cases. It's
a control.

Trader wrote:

When you can hook up test equipment to the human brain then you will have an
instrument that can measure sound the way we perceive it. Test equipment
can't hear-test equipment doesn't have ears.

Test gear cannot duplicate the BAD things involved in human
hearing like predjudice, or lack of high frequency response that
some folks have or DEAFNESS.... ;-)

But test gear for audio is FAR more accurate than a humans
perception... If you can hear the difference it can be measured!!!

But, some folks IMAGINE that they hear differences when no
differences really exist, those of course cannot be measured!!

Not differences in HOW YOU HEAR, but differences in the
sounds you hear....

You will never have a machine that
can tell you what a wine tastes like.

Im not aware of test equipment that measures tastes, and if there
were any, I would not be prepared to compare its accuracy to
that of audio test gear...Which BTW I am very familiar with...

I can measure sound differences that folks CANNOT HEAR
but I have never seen a LEGITIMATE sound difference that
someone can actually hear that I cannot measure,,...

And isnt this getting off the point about amps sounding different?
Those that think they do are either not conducting the tests correctly
OR being influenced by other variables....


Science is mostly theory. There is not much fact to science.

Not in my science textbooks... I have LOTS of facts... Thats the
basis of SCIENCE!!

You must be confused with SCIENCE FICTION!! ha ha



Eddie Runer
installin since 1974
http://www.installer.com/tech/

When you can hook up test equipment to the human brain then you will have
an
instrument that can measure sound the way we perceive it. Test equipment
can't hear-test equipment doesn't have ears. Test equipment can measure
and
take the sound waves and turn it into electronic impulses to be read on a
screen and then subjectively analyzed. You will never have a machine that
can tell you what a wine tastes like. Unless you can hook it into a human
brain. My point is that your electronic waveform is not telling the whole
story.

I understand what your point is. However, it's incorrect. The sound wave
is being captured by the device. It is being transduced from mechanical
energy (that's what a sound wave is) to electrical energy. The output is
then sent on to a machine to be analyzed. Now, I bet you're thinking that
I'm talking about a microphone. But I'm talking about the ear! It behaves
in essentially the same way that a microphone behaves (but, instead of using
Faraday's law, it uses ion channels triggered by movement of hair cells).
So the microphone is using the same exact piece of information to make its
measurement (compression and rarefaction of air molecules). Therefore, it
can't possibly have more information available to it than the microphone.
So, in light of this explanation, how could it not be telling the whole
story?

Science is mostly theory. There is not much fact to science.

Not sure what this means. We derive facts from logic. Science is applied
logic.

Scientist do
research and complete studies and can come to a reasonable conclusion but
most of what they do is theory and can usually be challenged by another
researcher with their own theories.

Right. So I suggest you dig up just one researcher who believes that the
ear works on something other than sound waves - or whatever it is you're
suggesting. Frankly, I don't think you know what it is you're suggesting.


Who is to say all humans hear or see the same exact way. We just don't
know.

Well, if you mean who is to say that all humans have the same abilities,
they don't. This has been examined. There is of course a range of
capabilities, and we know what it is.

We certainly know that not all human taste food the same because
there are people who have their favorites which may be your most hated
foods.

You're getting confused. People do indeed have preferences. They like
different kinds of sounds, different kinds of music. That doesn't mean that
some people have different hearing capabilities because of it. The
information getting TO the brain (that allows you to then make decisions
about what you like and what you don't like) is limited. And I've tried to
explain to you that these limitations, while not identical in everyone, are
in a certain range. And that range is far from the level that exists
between the two amplifiers.

a.. I want to calrify the post I made about scientist. Obviously there is a
huge amount of scientific facts in textbooks and scientific journals but
there is also a tremendous amount of scientific discovery based on theory.
I mean to write that most scientific discovery is based on theory. Here is
a definition of science from dictionary.com
1.. The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2.. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3.. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

a.. I want to calrify the post I made about scientist. Obviously there is a
huge amount of scientific facts in textbooks and scientific journals but
there is also a tremendous amount of scientific discovery based on theory.
I mean to write that most scientific discovery is based on theory. Here is
a definition of science from dictionary.com
1.. The observation, identification, description, experimental
investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2.. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3.. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

Even simpler: science = attempting to answer questions.

If there's a question, then theories usually arise from a set of
observations. Further data is generally needed to provide a logical basis
for that theory. And, quite simply, the theory with the most compelling
evidence wins. Sometimes the evidence is overwhelming. Other times it's
not, either due to technical constraints or a theory that is wrong or
fails to capture the phenomenon in its entirety.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
So the microphone is using the same exact piece of information to make its
measurement (compression and rarefaction of air molecules). Therefore, it
can't possibly have more information available to it than the microphone.
So, in light of this explanation, how could it not be telling the whole
story?

The problem is not the information. The problem is the measurement of the
information. First, you are not strictly correct - the microphone does not
have the same information available to it, because it's not shaped like an
ear. If it were, not all human ears are shaped the same. But that's not
relevant. The real problem is that microphones are not perfect and can't
send a perfect signal to be analyzed. There is always some distortion of
the original signal.

"MZ" wrote in message
...

No, I'm implying that ALL amplifiers are "perfect".

Well, you're wrong. There is no such thing as a perfect amplifier.

Every amplifier I've benched exhibits this tendency - even
the el cheapo models.

Your test equipment isn't perfect either. Sorry.

Note that by "perfect" I mean that the level of distortion is well below
(at
least one order of magnitude) what's considered audible.

Well, that's quite a different thing. We know for a fact that all
amplifiers produce signals that distort the original. Claiming that these
distortions can be measured would be akin to claiming that you can count the
number of molecules in a glass of water, which is silly. Yet according to
you, these devices measure with complete precision. The bottom line is that
you're just guessing as to the accuracy of test equipment vs. the human ear,
simply because you haven't heard otherwise.

"jeffc" wrote in message
...

"MZ" wrote in message
...

And I suspect you just are going to believe what you're going to
believe
regardless.

No, I'm going to believe what the evidence supports.

No, you're only going to believe the evidence you choose.

The evidence supports what Mark and Eddie have both claimed. I don't
understand why you see different. There is scientific evidence to support
their claims and yet you have only subjective, and logically flawed,
"evidence" that cannot be verified.


According to you, any time I hear something different, I either
cheated or my stereo is broken. Fine.

No, I'm claiming that you haven't published these results because, first
of
all, they're incomplete and, second of all, they haven't properly
isolated
variables. Until then, I'm not going to take your conclusions into
consideration.

This is an internet forum. This is not a scientific journal. I have now
"published" the results here.

Sorry, that is not cosidered publishing your results. But you do seem to be
the type that would attempt to argue that point.


Instead, I'll rely on published results. I'm always willing
to read other attempts to get to the answer of this question. You just
haven't provided any.

I have. You just don't like them.

What were they? Your flawed tests that you got 100% in? Your theory that
test equipment is flawed and somehow inferior to our ears?


Let me ask you this. If you're content to trust your own ears in a
listening test (without implementing the proper controls), are you
content
to trust your own eyes when you go to a magic show?

Who says I didn't implement proper controls? How would you know? And
your
analogy is absurd. For one thing, the likelihood of being deceived when
there
is no intent to deceive is very small compared to when there is intent.
For
another, why would you trust your own eyes when watching your test
equipment?

Because the test equipment is easily verified that it is working correctly.
Your logic is asinine. With your logic you cannot trust anything anywhere.

According to you there is some magical mysterious aspect to sound quality
that somehow amp designers know how to get it by using the right parts or
layout or whatever and YET none of them can explain it.
Sounds a little stupid to me. If there were able to create it then they
would be able to measure it, or at least have a working theory on what it
was. But I have never heard an amp designer claim the supposed SQ difference
attributed to the unknown.

Les

"jeffc" wrote in message
news

"MZ" wrote in message
...

No, I'm implying that ALL amplifiers are "perfect".

Well, you're wrong. There is no such thing as a perfect amplifier.

Every amplifier I've benched exhibits this tendency - even
the el cheapo models.

Your test equipment isn't perfect either. Sorry.

And where do you get this from? Test equipment that can measure the change
in signal is way beyond what our ears can detect. How is it not?


Note that by "perfect" I mean that the level of distortion is well below
(at
least one order of magnitude) what's considered audible.

Well, that's quite a different thing. We know for a fact that all
amplifiers produce signals that distort the original. Claiming that these
distortions can be measured would be akin to claiming that you can count
the
number of molecules in a glass of water, which is silly.

No, your analogy is silly. You are attempting to compare an apple to a
muffler. These distortions CAN be measured and HAVE been measured numerous
times. Measuring voltage and current is not really that hard. Where does
your distrust in test equipment come from?

Yet according to
you, these devices measure with complete precision. The bottom line is
that
you're just guessing as to the accuracy of test equipment vs. the human
ear,
simply because you haven't heard otherwise.

What is there to hear otherwise? You either know that the test equipment can
measure differences that we cannot hear or you believe in some wild
mysterious immeasureable component to audio that people know how to acheive
but cannot explain what it is or how they acheived it.

Les

"Les" wrote in message
...

Your test equipment isn't perfect either. Sorry.

And where do you get this from? Test equipment that can measure the change
in signal is way beyond what our ears can detect. How is it not?

First you wonder why I claim it's not perfect, then you talk about how it's
better than our ears. What do those 2 things have in common?

These distortions CAN be measured and HAVE been measured numerous
times. Measuring voltage and current is not really that hard. Where does
your distrust in test equipment come from?

Because it's not perfect. Where does your distrust in ears come from?
Besides, if you're saying it's been measured, that just proves my original
point.

What is there to hear otherwise? You either know that the test equipment
can
measure differences that we cannot hear or you believe in some wild
mysterious immeasureable component to audio that people know how to
acheive
but cannot explain what it is or how they acheived it.

Huh? Don't jump into the middle of a conversation next time if you haven't
been paying attention.

"Les" wrote in message
...



Because the test equipment is easily verified that it is working
correctly.

LOL by what, other flawed equipment?

According to you there is some magical mysterious aspect to sound quality
that somehow amp designers know how to get it by using the right parts or
layout or whatever and YET none of them can explain it.

Uh, no, that's just what you'd like my position to be so you can jump on the
bandwagon and toe the party line.

"jeffc" wrote in message
m...

"Les" wrote in message
...

Your test equipment isn't perfect either. Sorry.

And where do you get this from? Test equipment that can measure the
change
in signal is way beyond what our ears can detect. How is it not?

First you wonder why I claim it's not perfect, then you talk about how
it's
better than our ears. What do those 2 things have in common?

These distortions CAN be measured and HAVE been measured numerous
times. Measuring voltage and current is not really that hard. Where does
your distrust in test equipment come from?

Because it's not perfect. Where does your distrust in ears come from?
Besides, if you're saying it's been measured, that just proves my original
point.

You never answered the question. I have no distrust in my ears, but I do
know ears limitations. And I fail to see how it proves your original point.
The point I made is that any distortions that are present have been and can
be measured and in a properly functioning amp the differences in signal are
below the human threshold of hearing. How does that line up with your
original point.


What is there to hear otherwise? You either know that the test equipment
can
measure differences that we cannot hear or you believe in some wild
mysterious immeasureable component to audio that people know how to
acheive
but cannot explain what it is or how they acheived it.

Huh? Don't jump into the middle of a conversation next time if you
haven't
been paying attention.


I've been paying attention. That is basically the 2 options. Since you seem
to have something against test equipment and believe it is not accurate
enough to measure some component that gives an amp a sonic signature, then
you must think there is an immeasureable (at least for now) compenent that
can be created with accuracy yet has no way to be measured.

Obviously to subscribe to the philosophy that amps have signatures then
logically their designers and makers would be able to know how to give them
their sonic characteristics, right? Unless we want to get delve further into
a reality where physics means nothing and assume they all just guess and
hope people like it.

I fail to see what other explanation there could be for amps having "sonic
signatures" and sounding different than that.

Les

So the microphone is using the same exact piece of information to make its
measurement (compression and rarefaction of air molecules). Therefore, it
can't possibly have more information available to it than the microphone.
So, in light of this explanation, how could it not be telling the whole
story?

The problem is not the information. The problem is the measurement of the
information. First, you are not strictly correct - the microphone does not
have the same information available to it, because it's not shaped like an
ear. If it were, not all human ears are shaped the same. But that's not
relevant.

The pinna introduces distortion, actually. That's the point of it. It
improves high frequency response for sounds coming in front of you (this
is good) but intentionally blocks high frequencies for sounds coming
behind you. As such, it assists the brain with localization.
Importantly, it's also responsible for the brain's ability to estimate
elevation of the source. You'll note that it's not symmetrical from top
to bottom. Early auditory areas deep in the brain spend the bulk of their
resources making these computations (the inferior colliculus perhaps the most
prominent - anyway, not even having reached the cortex yet).

This is an example of the auditory system, like all of the other sensory
systems, intentionally introducing distortion into the signal in order to pull
out attributes of the stimulus that are important for the animal to work. The
visual system is probably even more guilty of employing this strategy. It's a
common trend, all the way from humans to invertebrates.

So yes, it's a GOOD THING that microphones don't use these tricks. We
want accuracy, so ideally it will collect sounds from all directions
equally.

The real problem is that microphones are not perfect and can't
send a perfect signal to be analyzed. There is always some distortion of
the original signal.

But substantially less than the human auditory system introduces.
Microphones tend to have a reasonably flat response from 20 to 20kHz (the
good ones at least). The human auditory system has an awful response,
peaking around 1kHz or less (the dominant part of human speech,
incidentally) and responding poorly above 15kHz and below about 100Hz.
Additionally, microphones have a cleaner transduction mechanism, not
having to rely on a network of bones attached to an asymmetric diaphragm.
Also, the auditory system inherently produces its own distortion known as
otoacoustic emissions which are much more significant than distortion
effects produced by decent microphones. Finally, and most importantly,
the microphone is able to make an electrical measurement that's limited
only by the inductance of the coil (which is why it's able to have such a
great spectral range). The auditory system, however, relies on a network
of neurons that are each tuned to relatively wide band of frequencies to
encode the signal by essentially performing a rough fourier transform of
the signal, and then, before the signal is even transmitted to the brain,
computations are performed to essentially subtract adjacent frequencies
from each other (a form of lateral inhibition - another bit of distortion
added to the system). As a result, the signal being sent to the brain is
a far cry from the signal that reached the ear drum.

In short, microphones do a much better job at capturing the original
signal than does the human auditory system. Not only because it uses more
precise materials and mechanisms, but also because it's designed for
perfect reproduction - the auditory system is not.

"jeffc" wrote in message
m...

"Les" wrote in message
...



Because the test equipment is easily verified that it is working
correctly.

LOL by what, other flawed equipment?

So what do you trust? This is obviously going nowhere as you just dismiss
any scientific facts with the argument that the equipment is wrong, and if
you don't believe the evidence then you won't believe the conclusion.


According to you there is some magical mysterious aspect to sound
quality
that somehow amp designers know how to get it by using the right parts
or
layout or whatever and YET none of them can explain it.

Uh, no, that's just what you'd like my position to be so you can jump on
the
bandwagon and toe the party line.

Then how do you explain your theory that amps sound different? You claim
that there is a difference but that test equipment cannot measure it, the
equipment is flawed. But amp designers would have to know how to design
superior sounding amps than the competition but unfortunately for them they
are unable to measure their work.
What is this mysterious difference and how does one design it into their
amp?

Les

Note that by "perfect" I mean that the level of distortion is well below
(at
least one order of magnitude) what's considered audible.

Well, that's quite a different thing. We know for a fact that all
amplifiers produce signals that distort the original.

Of course. As you pointed out earlier, simple copper wires distort the
original too. But, in the context of this conversation (which revolves
around audibility), they can be considered perfect.

Claiming that these
distortions can be measured would be akin to claiming that you can count the
number of molecules in a glass of water, which is silly.

You CAN count the number of molecules in water. You measure the amount of
water you have and you divide by the molecular weight at that temperature.
If we've only got a few molecules of water, we can't make this
measurement. But then again, there are so few that it wouldn't make any
sense to drink it. Similarly, if we have enough distortion we can measure
it. If the distortion is so small that it escapes measure, then it
doesn't matter to us anyway because we can't hear it. Again, you're
having trouble understanding that TEST EQUIPMENT IS MORE PRECISE THAN THE
AUDITORY SYSTEM. This is in all the textbooks. Want references?

Yet according to
you, these devices measure with complete precision. The bottom line is that
you're just guessing as to the accuracy of test equipment vs. the human ear,
simply because you haven't heard otherwise.

No, I'm not. The accuracy of test equipment is in the manual or on the
back of the instrument itself. It's also plain as day when you use the
subtraction method that I mentioned previously. As for the human auditory
system, I've outlined its shortcomings as best as I can without getting
too technical. If you prefer, I can get as detailed and technical as
you'd like. After all, it is my field.

Heres a link to the Richard Clark challenge
http://www.talkaudio.co.uk/vbb/showt...threadid=18815

"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)

Mark,

You obviously know way too much about how the human ear and testing devices
actually work to be productive in this discussion. Here you are providing
scientific evidence and displaying a strong understanding of the subject
matter. Noone wants that, we want conspiracy theories about test equipment
and talk about magical and mysterious unknowns that we can all perceive in
different ways. That way noone can ever be wrong and everyone can be right!
Get it together.

(Note for the readers who are unable to detect sarcasm. The above paragraph
is dripping with it, there is so much of it that right now it should be
leaking out your computer's open ports. I now return you to your regularly
scheduled flame-war.)

Les


"MZ" wrote in message
...
So the microphone is using the same exact piece of information to make
its
measurement (compression and rarefaction of air molecules).
Therefore, it
can't possibly have more information available to it than the
microphone.
So, in light of this explanation, how could it not be telling the
whole
story?

The problem is not the information. The problem is the measurement of
the
information. First, you are not strictly correct - the microphone does
not
have the same information available to it, because it's not shaped like
an
ear. If it were, not all human ears are shaped the same. But that's
not
relevant.

The pinna introduces distortion, actually. That's the point of it. It
improves high frequency response for sounds coming in front of you (this
is good) but intentionally blocks high frequencies for sounds coming
behind you. As such, it assists the brain with localization.
Importantly, it's also responsible for the brain's ability to estimate
elevation of the source. You'll note that it's not symmetrical from top
to bottom. Early auditory areas deep in the brain spend the bulk of their
resources making these computations (the inferior colliculus perhaps the
most
prominent - anyway, not even having reached the cortex yet).

This is an example of the auditory system, like all of the other sensory
systems, intentionally introducing distortion into the signal in order to
pull
out attributes of the stimulus that are important for the animal to work.
The
visual system is probably even more guilty of employing this strategy.
It's a
common trend, all the way from humans to invertebrates.

So yes, it's a GOOD THING that microphones don't use these tricks. We
want accuracy, so ideally it will collect sounds from all directions
equally.

The real problem is that microphones are not perfect and can't
send a perfect signal to be analyzed. There is always some distortion
of
the original signal.

But substantially less than the human auditory system introduces.
Microphones tend to have a reasonably flat response from 20 to 20kHz (the
good ones at least). The human auditory system has an awful response,
peaking around 1kHz or less (the dominant part of human speech,
incidentally) and responding poorly above 15kHz and below about 100Hz.
Additionally, microphones have a cleaner transduction mechanism, not
having to rely on a network of bones attached to an asymmetric diaphragm.
Also, the auditory system inherently produces its own distortion known as
otoacoustic emissions which are much more significant than distortion
effects produced by decent microphones. Finally, and most importantly,
the microphone is able to make an electrical measurement that's limited
only by the inductance of the coil (which is why it's able to have such a
great spectral range). The auditory system, however, relies on a network
of neurons that are each tuned to relatively wide band of frequencies to
encode the signal by essentially performing a rough fourier transform of
the signal, and then, before the signal is even transmitted to the brain,
computations are performed to essentially subtract adjacent frequencies
from each other (a form of lateral inhibition - another bit of distortion
added to the system). As a result, the signal being sent to the brain is
a far cry from the signal that reached the ear drum.

In short, microphones do a much better job at capturing the original
signal than does the human auditory system. Not only because it uses more
precise materials and mechanisms, but also because it's designed for
perfect reproduction - the auditory system is not.

LOL by what, other flawed equipment?

The subtraction of signals, for instance, takes the test equipment out of
the picture entirely.

Uh, no, that's just what you'd like my position to be so you can jump on the
bandwagon and toe the party line.

People who have built amplifiers and understand their architecture say one
thing. People who have not built amplifiers and don't understand their
architecture say another thing. I wonder why that is?

"MZ" wrote in message
...
So the microphone is using the same exact piece of information to make its
measurement (compression and rarefaction of air molecules). Therefore, it
can't possibly have more information available to it than the microphone.
So, in light of this explanation, how could it not be telling the whole
story?

The problem is not the information. The problem is the measurement of the
information. First, you are not strictly correct - the microphone does not
have the same information available to it, because it's not shaped like an
ear. If it were, not all human ears are shaped the same. But that's not
relevant.

blah blah blah

So yes, it's a GOOD THING that microphones don't use these tricks. We
want accuracy, so ideally it will collect sounds from all directions
equally.

When I said "it's not relevant", what didn't you understand?

The real problem is that microphones are not perfect and can't
send a perfect signal to be analyzed. There is always some distortion of
the original signal.


In short, microphones do a much better job at capturing the original
signal than does the human auditory system. Not only because it uses more
precise materials and mechanisms, but also because it's designed for
perfect reproduction - the auditory system is not.

Completely beside the point. Whether the microphone hears the sound or the ear
does isn't the point. The point is that microphones aren't perfect, period.
"Designed for perfect reproduction" is completely irrelevant. It's doesn't work
perfectly.

"Les" wrote in message
...
Noone wants that, we want conspiracy theories about test equipment
and talk about magical and mysterious unknowns that we can all perceive in
different ways.

The only one talking about "mysterious unknowns" is you. I certainly haven't
mentioned any.

"Les" wrote in message
...

These distortions CAN be measured and HAVE been measured numerous
times. Measuring voltage and current is not really that hard. Where does
your distrust in test equipment come from?

Because it's not perfect. Where does your distrust in ears come from?
Besides, if you're saying it's been measured, that just proves my original
point.

You never answered the question. I have no distrust in my ears, but I do
know ears limitations. And I fail to see how it proves your original point.

My original point - if you had been in the discussion all along rather than
jumping in with your tired old preconceptions about audio "mysteries" and
"magic" - was that differences in amplifiers can be measured. MZ said they can
not because there aren't any. Now he's backpedaling. ALL amplifiers - ALL -
exhibit distortion. The only question is whether test equipment is precise and
accurate enough to measure this distortion. That's unlikely in all cases, since
perfect test equipment does not exist any more than perfect amplifiers exist.


The point I made is that any distortions that are present have been and can
be measured and in a properly functioning amp the differences in signal are
below the human threshold of hearing. How does that line up with your
original point.

The differences were not below my threshold of hearing in one of the tests I
conducted. You can believe that's possible, or you can stick your head in the
sand and toe the party line.

I've been paying attention. That is basically the 2 options. Since you seem
to have something against test equipment and believe it is not accurate
enough to measure some component that gives an amp a sonic signature, then
you must think there is an immeasureable (at least for now) compenent that
can be created with accuracy yet has no way to be measured.

I have nothing at all against test equipment, which just proves you really
haven't been paying attention.

Obviously to subscribe to the philosophy that amps have signatures then
logically their designers and makers would be able to know how to give them
their sonic characteristics, right?

No, that is not necessarily a logical conclusion. People design amps the way
they design them. Each one sounds different at some level of accuracy of
measurement. Whether or not in each particular case it's below the threshold of
human hearing is the only question. I gave one example where it was not below
the threshold of my hearing (I happen to have better hearing than most people,
which explains why I sometimes hear differences in speakers etc that some others
can't notice.) Presumably, the difference I heard can be measured by test
equipment. If the test equipment cannot detect a difference that I can hear,
then obviously the test equipment is flawed or not precise enough.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Note that by "perfect" I mean that the level of distortion is well below
(at
least one order of magnitude) what's considered audible.

Well, that's quite a different thing. We know for a fact that all
amplifiers produce signals that distort the original.

Of course. As you pointed out earlier, simple copper wires distort the
original too. But, in the context of this conversation (which revolves
around audibility), they can be considered perfect.

I already gave you an example where that wasn't so.

Claiming that these
distortions can be measured would be akin to claiming that you can count the
number of molecules in a glass of water, which is silly.

You CAN count the number of molecules in water. You measure the amount of
water you have and you divide by the molecular weight at that temperature.

Riiiiight. Real easy. To say that something is theoretically possible is
different from saying that it can be done in practice.

If we've only got a few molecules of water, we can't make this
measurement.

Wait, I thought you CAN do it? What difference does the number of molecules
make? If you can't count 3 molecules, then your test equipment isn't good
enough.

Again, you're
having trouble understanding that TEST EQUIPMENT IS MORE PRECISE THAN THE
AUDITORY SYSTEM.

Sorry, maybe some is, but it clearly doesn't explain all the errors that have
been published in stereo review magazines that "prove" 2 different components
sound the same, when any fool can tell they don't. Again, you don't understand
the difference between precision and accuracy.

"Les" wrote in message
...

Because the test equipment is easily verified that it is working
correctly.

LOL by what, other flawed equipment?

So what do you trust? This is obviously going nowhere as you just dismiss
any scientific facts with the argument that the equipment is wrong, and if
you don't believe the evidence then you won't believe the conclusion.

Exactly, that's my point. It's the exact same argument you guys used earlier.
I sat down and listened to a clear difference between 2 Adcom amplifiers and 2
CD players. But according to you guys, the equipment was flawed, or I was
cheating. This is obviously going nowhere if you're going to claim that I can't
trust my own ears. This is just as reliable as you trusting your own eyes when
you read the test equipment. If you say the components measure the same, I can
just claim you didn't read it right. Besides, how do you know the components I
listened to measured the same? Did you measure them?