On 29 Mar 2004 16:46:54 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

I have a dozen 2-channel power amplifiers which all sound exactly the same.
Some have asked why???

Reasons:

snip

4) 2 250 wpc Bryston 4B-NRB; purchased because of 20-year warranty (they
certainly need it) and to fend off complaints that I've "never heard a high-end
amp" and to fend off complaints about amplification from high-end subjects in
controlled listening test experiments.

To be fair, that is certainly one reason why I have always kept that
Krell, the Apogee speakers and the Gyrodec - they fend off the tired
old 'you've never heard decent gear' strawman.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:54:31 +0000, Nousaine wrote:

Sean Fulop wrote:



how have you verified the
existence of the phenomena that you are trying to measure and
quantify?

This part of the discussion began with my personal anecdote about my CD
players, not about my scientific research which has nothing to do with
perceptual experiments (too hard to verify results in that field

I never said I personally was trying to measure or verify or quantify
anything. I simply noticed a difference among CD players. I made no
attempt to verify this as a purely audible difference or merely as a
perceived difference, because that doesn't concern me. If I perceive
two items as different, I will continue to use the one that seemed
better, even if it were proven somehow that I actually perceived it as
better because of its dandy case. If the dinner "tastes" better on fine
china, keep serving!

-Sean

There is, of course, nothing wrong with this sentiment. But when the
dinner tastes the same when the diner can no longer see the plate he may
choose to use a grocery store plastic plate and devote more attention
and money to the food itself.

In another vein it's pretty easy to convince yourself that a Mustang
Cobra with it's smoking tires, axle hop and cowl shake "feels" faster
than a Corvette but track statistics say otherwise.

Not a good parallel with the above mentioned issue! Auto buffs and
none buffs are well aware the Mustang Cobra is a neat little sporty
car..but not a Corvette and understand this is not a good
comparison. However, if one is attempting to denigrate the user who
mistakes the "feel" and thinks it is faster than a Corvette.. ..this
non-logical scenario is great...but, not realistic in the
real-world. This consistant flow that we cannot make decent
decisions when incorporating our sensory perceptions is a good
ploy...assuming one has a mindset to utilize the ole "bias-toolset"
The attempt to exclude "feel" and sensory perceptions is a bit out
of line...it makes sense only if one has an "agenda" to push
forward..an agenda that is filled with "absolutes"...not allowing
for any middle ground. They always tend to fizzle..caused by the
extremes.

It's also easy to say that a $125k 911 Turbo is enormously faster than a
$50k C5 Corvette but track times show that it's only marginally faster.

Perceptual "performance" aspects are often wildly divergent from real
performance. Nothing wrong with that but I say give me performance data
(measurements and bias-controlled listening tests) that is un-corrupted
by possible bias mechanisms and then let me make up my mind.

Anticipated conclusion here..up pops ye ole "bias-toolset" again and
again! Make up your own mind...use your bias..it is nothing more
than observation and things learned in the past. It is not a bad
thing..contrary to current PC mumblings. It is within those mental
processes that one reverts back to experience..i.e., when one gets
burned with fire..you don't put your hand near it again.. this is a
part of the bias structure...we all need it. Use it! You have formed
an opinion..it will protect you!! You are better for using it! One
would be a walking zombie without it!

It must be nice to be within an occupation that allows one to use a
tool that wants to nullify your bias. I could pick and choose using
this kind of tool and convince one that "up" is down...and experience
is misleading.. ..ad infinitum! Its got to be neat!! Thankfully,
most people think this is all non-logical stuff!

That makes it much easier to make resource deployment decisions that can
positively affect my overall enjoyment quotient in the most effective
manner. If I absolutely need the absolutely fastest car than I have to
buy the 911. If I'm just interested in "fun" perhaps the Mustang will be
my choice. If I want an incredibly fast car but also want to spend $75k
on a downpayment on a new house too.... then perhaps the Corvette is
best for my application.

But these are not commodity products. In audio applications, like cd
players/amplifiers/wires, where controlled listening tests have shown
that competent devices do not differ in any sonically interesting way I
ask myself "why not just buy a product with features and ergonomics that
I want and stop worrying that I'm missing some sound quality attributes
that nobody can prove actually exist and acquire more program material
instead?"

Then, again I do own a $3500 universal dvd/cd/dvd-A/SACD player and have
been accused of saying one thing in public but "secretly" using high-end
stuff when no one is looking. To that end, I just say that I often have
high-end product in my possession ( a pair of Bryston amplifiers, for
example) because I can buy these products at industry accomodation
prices and because then high-end-o'philes have a harder time claiming
that "well you've never heard a high-end amplifier" and the like.

I will admit that I no longer have a working turntable system in situ;
but because I have a good friend who will transscribe material, that I
think important, to cd-r I really don't feel the need for one.

But, because I now work professionally in the field, I am also happy to
devote resources for other items that many enthusiasts would never need.
So what?

Again my point here is that extant results of controlled listening tests
would be of strong interest to enthusiasts if only as a means of
maximizing listening pleasure by devoting resources to areas that matter
the most. In my world those are speaker systems and the programs you
play on them. There seems to be little reason to anguish over whether
your cd player or wires are adequate when you could be acquiring more
and/or better recordings.

A good honorable thing to do...but, perhaps we should let the user
determine what is best for him. If he is so fuzzy in his thinking
processes and hears a difference in wire..then so be it! Let the user
go. Let him allocate his resources. Many people hear differences in
certain wire! Including fuzzy me!

At some point in time, one has to respect the possibility that
everyone does not hear ,nor mentally interpret what he is hearing,
the same as the guy next door! One cannot bombard him with the
"bias-stuff"...most just do not believe it. So be happy in you audio
intellect..but acknowledge that others interpret things differently.
Let others allocate foolishly, if they so desire.

I tend to agree that there are few differences in the cd-dvd domain.
The devices have become almost "Commodity-like" because of the
sameness in all
aspects of the devices. However, if a friend has
selected something that I think is a bit high priced, I accept the
issue that he hears something that I do not..I do not get nasty with
him because of "my belief system". I do not question his mental
attributes. I might well, at some point in time,
discover what he is hearing..then it is a matter
for my "audio decision process" to give some value to it. I might not
value the difference at all..so be it! Civility has prevailed!

Leonard...

Stewart wrote:

It sounds just fine on the 90dB/W/m 8-ohm Mordaunt-Short MS20s it
normally drives, snip

You haven't noticed that this combination sounds a little, er .... bright?

Stephen

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 18:45:13 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

It must be nice to be within an occupation that allows one to use a
tool that wants to nullify your bias. I could pick and choose using
this kind of tool and convince one that "up" is down...and experience
is misleading.. ..ad infinitum! Its got to be neat!! Thankfully,
most people think this is all non-logical stuff!

If you're ever in an aircraft flying through cloud, you'd better pray
that your pilot is using his instruments, and is *not* relying on his
personal sense of 'up and down', which comes apart in these
circumstances.................pretty much like listening to hi-fi.

That makes it much easier to make resource deployment decisions that can
positively affect my overall enjoyment quotient in the most effective
manner. If I absolutely need the absolutely fastest car than I have to
buy the 911.

Er, no, you want the Carrera GT........... :-)

If I'm just interested in "fun" perhaps the Mustang will be
my choice.

Er,no, you want the Mazda MX-5.......... :-)

If I want an incredibly fast car but also want to spend $75k
on a downpayment on a new house too.... then perhaps the Corvette is
best for my application.

Maybe in the flat, straight US, but an Audi S4 or BMW M3 will destroy
it on European roads.

But these are not commodity products.

Sure they are - walk into any showroom and place your order - well,
maybe not the Carrera GT, but you *did* specify the absolute fastest!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:00:17 GMT, "Stephen McLuckie"
wrote:

Stewart wrote:

It sounds just fine on the 90dB/W/m 8-ohm Mordaunt-Short MS20s it
normally drives, snip

You haven't noticed that this combination sounds a little, er .... bright?

No, reasonably neutral with a warmish bottom end, anything but
'bright'.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"lcw999" wrote in message
news:Zejac.136871$1p.1788446@attbi_s54...
*snip* quoted text

Anticipated conclusion here..up pops ye ole "bias-toolset" again
and
again! Make up your own mind...use your bias..it is nothing more
than observation and things learned in the past. It is not a bad
thing..contrary to current PC mumblings. It is within those
mental
processes that one reverts back to experience..i.e., when one
gets
burned with fire..you don't put your hand near it again.. this
is a
part of the bias structure...we all need it. Use it! You have
formed
an opinion..it will protect you!! You are better for using it!
One
would be a walking zombie without it!

So if the first amplifier I've ever used from a given company was
absolute
crap (technically and audibly) and they subsequently produce competant,
good
sounding amps, should I be forced into a listening test of their new
stuff
carrying the baggage of "experience" based bias? Should I assume that
everything bearing the Krell badging is quality? This is just
silliness.
There are experiences that are built on and learned from, and there are
those that simply contribute to mental clutter.

It must be nice to be within an occupation that allows one to use
a
tool that wants to nullify your bias. I could pick and choose
using
this kind of tool and convince one that "up" is down...and
experience
is misleading.. ..ad infinitum! Its got to be neat!! Thankfully,
most people think this is all non-logical stuff!

That makes it much easier to make resource deployment decisions that
can
positively affect my overall enjoyment quotient in the most effective
manner. If I absolutely need the absolutely fastest car than I have to
buy the 911. If I'm just interested in "fun" perhaps the Mustang will
be
my choice. If I want an incredibly fast car but also want to spend
$75k
on a downpayment on a new house too.... then perhaps the Corvette is
best for my application.

But these are not commodity products. In audio applications, like cd
players/amplifiers/wires, where controlled listening tests have shown
that competent devices do not differ in any sonically interesting way
I
ask myself "why not just buy a product with features and ergonomics
that
I want and stop worrying that I'm missing some sound quality
attributes
that nobody can prove actually exist and acquire more program material
instead?"

Then, again I do own a $3500 universal dvd/cd/dvd-A/SACD player and
have
been accused of saying one thing in public but "secretly" using
high-end
stuff when no one is looking. To that end, I just say that I often
have
high-end product in my possession ( a pair of Bryston amplifiers, for
example) because I can buy these products at industry accomodation
prices and because then high-end-o'philes have a harder time claiming
that "well you've never heard a high-end amplifier" and the like.

I will admit that I no longer have a working turntable system in situ;
but because I have a good friend who will transscribe material, that I
think important, to cd-r I really don't feel the need for one.

But, because I now work professionally in the field, I am also happy
to
devote resources for other items that many enthusiasts would never
need.
So what?

Again my point here is that extant results of controlled listening
tests
would be of strong interest to enthusiasts if only as a means of
maximizing listening pleasure by devoting resources to areas that
matter
the most. In my world those are speaker systems and the programs you
play on them. There seems to be little reason to anguish over whether
your cd player or wires are adequate when you could be acquiring more
and/or better recordings.

A good honorable thing to do...but, perhaps we should let the user
determine what is best for him. If he is so fuzzy in his thinking
processes and hears a difference in wire..then so be it! Let the
user
go. Let him allocate his resources. Many people hear differences
in
certain wire! Including fuzzy me!

At some point in time, one has to respect the possibility that
everyone does not hear ,nor mentally interpret what he is hearing,
the same as the guy next door! One cannot bombard him with the
"bias-stuff"...most just do not believe it. So be happy in you
audio
intellect..but acknowledge that others interpret things
differently.
Let others allocate foolishly, if they so desire.

At some point in time, one has to respect the possibility that there
might
not be any audible differences between two audio components.

I tend to agree that there are few differences in the cd-dvd
domain.
The devices have become almost "Commodity-like" because of the
sameness in all
aspects of the devices. However, if a friend has
selected something that I think is a bit high priced, I accept the
issue that he hears something that I do not..I do not get nasty
with
him because of "my belief system".

It's not really an issue of a belief system. If my friend is about to
make
what I consider to be a foolish audio purchase, I would encourage him to
level match and listen blindly to the components in question to see if
really can tell the difference. If he can distinguish the components,
it
might well be proven that he can hear something that I can't.


I do not question his mental
attributes. I might well, at some point in time,
discover what he is hearing..then it is a matter
for my "audio decision process" to give some value to it. I might
not
value the difference at all..so be it! Civility has prevailed!

Leonard...

Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 18:45:13 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

It must be nice to be within an occupation that allows one to use a
tool that wants to nullify your bias. I could pick and choose using
this kind of tool and convince one that "up" is down...and experience
is misleading.. ..ad infinitum! Its got to be neat!! Thankfully,
most people think this is all non-logical stuff!

If you're ever in an aircraft flying through cloud, you'd better pray
that your pilot is using his instruments, and is *not* relying on his
personal sense of 'up and down', which comes apart in these
circumstances.................pretty much like listening to hi-fi.

That makes it much easier to make resource deployment decisions that can
positively affect my overall enjoyment quotient in the most effective
manner. If I absolutely need the absolutely fastest car than I have to
buy the 911.

Er, no, you want the Carrera GT........... :-)

If I'm just interested in "fun" perhaps the Mustang will be
my choice.

Er,no, you want the Mazda MX-5.......... :-)

If I want an incredibly fast car but also want to spend $75k
on a downpayment on a new house too.... then perhaps the Corvette is
best for my application.

Maybe in the flat, straight US, but an Audi S4 or BMW M3 will destroy
it on European roads.

But these are not commodity products.

Sure they are - walk into any showroom and place your order - well,
maybe not the Carrera GT, but you *did* specify the absolute fastest!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

See how interesting this quickly gets? But here we're discussing equipment this
is demonstrably DIFFERENT in performance and where performance may vary with
use conditions and/or individual drivers. And it can also be documented and
demonstrated and replicated.

Unlike amp/cable/bit sound where you get arguments like: your stopwatch has
insufficient resolution....you don't have the proper related equipment .....
you don't care enough about music .... and so on all without a single
replicable demonstration that any of the cited performance actually exists.

I have another analogy. It's like watching a drag race with the cars still in
the pits and argiung about which is faster even when they never actually race.
A good friend calls high-end amps Cafe Racers ....they look great sitting in
front of the coffee house but are never going to actually race.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:_ajac.141924$po.869425@attbi_s52...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 02:55:02 GMT, (Buster Mudd)
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:IaZ9c.125367$_w.1559954@attbi_s53...


It doesn't *sound* any better than several others, but it is able to
drive a *very* low impedance without flinching...[snip]...
BTW, I've tried my Denon PMA350II on the Apogees, and it sounds a
little rough at high levels, just before it gets hot and shuts down!

So the Krell doesn't sound any better than several others, but it
doesn't sound as rough as the Denon at high levels...ergo, it sounds
better than the Denon, yes? (And I'm sure it sounds better than the
Denon once the latter amp has shut down.)

Perhaps you didn't read what I said with sufficient impartiality? The
Denon is being forced into clipping, which is why it sounds a little
rough *at high levels*. The Denon also has significant HF IMD, which
is often audible IME. It's not that the Krell sounds 'better', it's
that the Denon sounds plain bad when asked to drive that abnormally
heavy load - not unreasonably, given the 84dB/W/m sensitivity and
3-ohm impedance of the Apogees.


Okay, so the the Krell *doesn't* sound better, but the Denon sounds
plain bad. What's the bleedin' point of "sufficient impartiality" if
I'm going to accept statements like that at face value?

Under a particular real-world condition (eg., driving your Apogees to
high levels) I'm sure you would agree that A) the Krell sounds better
than the Denon; and B) the two amps are most definitely not
indistinguishable, yes? I'm not asking about All The Time, averaged as
some absolute generalization; just those particular times when you've
had the apparently not-unusual experience of using the Denon amp with
the Apogee speakers & trying to move some significant SPL. Under those
particular conditions -- when you say the Denon is forced into
clipping -- surely you would opine that one amp sounds "better" than
the other, and that the two clearly do not sound alike. Right?

And then are you going to follow that by suggesting that the Denon,
which got forced into clipping by virtue of being connected to your
Apogees and driven to high levels (in an attempt no doubt to listen to
music in your place of residence) was "not operating under normal
conditions"?

Newsflash: it doesn't get any more "normal" than that. You plug an amp
into some speakers and crank some tunes, you really think there's a
manufacturer's caveat that must be attended to to ensure "normal
operating conditions"? (You did have the equipment connected
correctly, didn't you?

Stewart wrote:

No, reasonably neutral with a warmish bottom end, anything but
'bright'.

It could be that Mordaunt Short changed the design over the years (I
acquired the later Pearl variant a few weeks ago) but mine have a distinct
HF lift that makes them very difficult to listen to... confirmed by
measurement, by the way.

It shouldn't be too difficult to fix and it should be worth it... they do
have some rather nice qualities for a cheap second-hand buy.

Stephen

lcw999 wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:46:54 +0000, Nousaine wrote:

(S888Wheel) wrote:
or is it a better amp? If is better, why?

I have a dozen 2-channel power amplifiers which all sound exactly the
same. Some have asked why???

Whoa..whoa...perhaps, we need to be a little cautious using this
"EXACTLY the same" phrase. Most people don't have this kind of
hearing. Unless,one is looking at meters..and somehow interpret what
the meter is hinting at as an audio representation. Weird! Or, one
has
an agenda that they have committed to and must stick with it through
thick and thin! "All is the same"!

No sir; I've tested all of them myself, and occasionally with other
experienced
enthusiasts, using double blind listening tests and used many of them
in single
and multiple subject controlled listening tests.

None of them 'measures' exactly the same (even channel to channel) but
they all
have measured differences that fall below the expected threshold of
human
perception.

You've got a lot of old stuff represented below..some of it I am
familiar with. But, let me fill you with some "anecdotal" stuff..
please try to accept this.

Many years ago there was a Naval Acoustics Lab down at Pensacola
Florida...there was some interesting work going on there. One
research Scientist there had a "breadboard" type of amplifier
circuit where one could alter the amplifier sound by plugging in a
resistor or a capacitor with just a slight value change from what
was called for by the specs. It would alter
the sound. He also manipulated the sound by varying the power
supply..he altered the audio by altering the a series of relays
that had different material on the contact points*, etc. There
are
variables in amps caused by component aging, etc.

Later this group was phased into a Nasa operation.

And......was this stuff used at audio frequencies with music bandwidth
....????
And how was the 'sound' difference validated?

I would be a little "leery" of using "exactly" so frequently when
referring to some old equipment.

In practical terms not much of that is "so old" in power amplifier
technology
terms. But even so I've not heard better sounding newer power
amplifiers; and
yes I do have a few pass through.

Theoretical stuff tells us the
amp should be a neutral path..but in the real world..it just
ain't
that way! And some are designed to not be neutral.

If you mean the EQ inherent in my powered speakers I'd agree. My custom
subwoofer has 18-dB of + EQ at 12 Hz. So? But I'd expect a general
purpose
"power amplifier" to be neutral .... if it weren't I get my own
equalizer.

Reasons:

1) 1976 200-watt per channel built from a kit. My first
high-performance
amplifier and I still have it because it's still working.

I suspect this was a Hafler..I built some of them..as well as his
pre-amps. Upgrades to the pre-amps were very noticeable. Still in
my
closet!

Nope Heathkit AA-1640. Quarter century old; still boots; repaired 2
times in
that period.

Along with some old HeathKit Williamson circuit mono amps
from the '50s. Definately a breakthru in its time..the Williamson
circuit sounded better than most previous endeavors of that time.

2) 2 50-watt (@ 8-ohms and 100 X2 @ 4-ohms) serving as bench test
devices.

3) 2 50-watt amplifiers used for mobile applications because of small
size

4) 2 250 wpc Bryston 4B-NRB; purchased because of 20-year warranty
(they certainly need it) and to fend off complaints that I've "never
heard a high-end amp" and to fend off complaints about amplification
from high-end subjects in controlled listening test experiments.

Bryston has a reputation for being stable, sturdy and long
lasting. However, in some quarters all one has to do is attach
the
label "High-End" on a device and it "needs a 20 year warranty.
Implying it breaks a lot! Not so..in the regular world out here!
It
was an icon of durability and stability.

I'll disagree with vigor. Over the past quarter century I've had several
channel failures and one amplifier just quit. Counting all the outage
Bryston
4-Bs are the least reliable amplifier I've yet owned. The "dead" unit
was a
used-Parasound ($200) that lasted 6 years before crapping out. Both my
4-Bs
have been back for repair; one of them twice. Even one of my 2Bs now
has a
scratchy level control.

And, don't forget that 'repair' means sending one back to the repair
facility
at your own expense; and in the case when both of them were broken (I
saved
only one original carton) they threw away the alternative shipping
carton and
then charged me $30 for a new box.

5) 3 100-watt amplifers; 2 are in my bedroom system and the other is
available for loan to friends and to be available for channels when
experimentation requires channels.

6) 1 5000 watt (bridged 2-channel) Crown 5000 VZ for sub/woofer
testing.

Is this the amp that sounded "harsh" with an vengence? I'm
assuming some fusing along the way here.

What amp that sounded harsh with a vengance? I have never owned one of
those.
And I never plan to.


And what sub needs any
where close to a 5000w bridged amp?.

My custom subwoofer (to determine full output capabilities) and for the
multitude of car/home drivers that pass through my testing facility I
need an
amplifier stable into any load that has enough power to serve any known
driver.



What is gained by this
versus a 500 watt amp? Assuming one sub at a time and not
looking
at a 2 ohm load.
Does this Amp used in the full-range mode sound exactly like
the
Bryston? Curious!

Absolutely. And, in answer to an earlier question, yes a 250-watt per
channel
Bryston 4B-NRB has enough power to drive the 2 banks of four 15-inch
infinite
baffle subwoofers to levels that are loud enough to even statisfy my
basshead
car audio fans for daily use. But it won't drive the speaker system to
full
output.


7) 1 500 X 2 for speaker bench testing.

This doesn't count 3 amplifiers available for mobile car audio
applications. FWIW I generally use home/pro products for car system
design/measurement applications; not because they sound any better but
because it's easier to design/tune from outside the car with bench
electronics.

Yes they all sound exactly alike when used within their power
capabilities. I would get of any unit that did not.

A very admirable trait. They all sound exactly alike! We are
impressed! I can understand the desire to take that stand when
testing and writing about other components tied to these amps.
Who
would believe the test results if the amps had a character of
their
own? They must be neutral in this scenario.. Perhaps a wishful
thinking thingy...
..but in the real world? I think not!


But I'm suspecting that you haven't put that idea to the test; I've
listened to
these amplifiers with ABX bias controls installed. I've asked (and paid)
extreme enthusiasts to identify them under bias controlled conditions.

I'll hearby offer you $100 and your travel expenses IF you can tell one
from
another. If you can't then you have to pay your own way. Alternatively
I'll
allow you to bring any nominally competent amplifier of your own
(matching +/-
0.1 dB from 100-10,000 Hz measured at speaker terminals) for either a
follow-up
or just a 2nd test with the same terms.


Of these only 3 are regularly in-use in my two home audio systems
because my primary loudspeakers are active and come with their own
dedicated amp/eq for any given speaker channel application. I don't
consider a speaker with its own dedicated power as a separate
amplifier.
If I did I'd have to increase my amp count by 19.

__________________________________________________ ____

* Something to do with eddy currents on certain metal types
that would cause effects on the audio...guessing here, long time
ago...It was a test to check on the effects of various relays at
different points..to the best of my memory. There were elements
introduced detrimental to the audio.

Leonard...

So why not prove your own case for everybody here?

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:12:57 +0000, Nousaine wrote:

lcw999 wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:46:54 +0000, Nousaine wrote:

(S888Wheel) wrote:
or is it a better amp? If is better, why?

I have a dozen 2-channel power amplifiers which all sound exactly the
same. Some have asked why???

Whoa..whoa...perhaps, we need to be a little cautious using this
"EXACTLY the same" phrase. Most people don't have this kind of
hearing. Unless,one is looking at meters..and somehow interpret what
the meter is hinting at as an audio representation. Weird! Or, one
has
an agenda that they have committed to and must stick with it through
thick and thin! "All is the same"!

No sir; I've tested all of them myself, and occasionally with other
experienced
enthusiasts, using double blind listening tests and used many of them
in single
and multiple subject controlled listening tests.

None of them 'measures' exactly the same (even channel to channel) but
they all
have measured differences that fall below the expected threshold of
human
perception.

You've got a lot of old stuff represented below..some of it I am
familiar with. But, let me fill you with some "anecdotal" stuff..
please try to accept this.

Many years ago there was a Naval Acoustics Lab down at Pensacola
Florida...there was some interesting work going on there. One
research Scientist there had a "breadboard" type of amplifier
circuit where one could alter the amplifier sound by plugging in a
resistor or a capacitor with just a slight value change from what
was called for by the specs. It would alter
the sound. He also manipulated the sound by varying the power
supply..he altered the audio by altering the a series of relays
that had different material on the contact points*, etc. There
are
variables in amps caused by component aging, etc.

Later this group was phased into a Nasa operation.

And......was this stuff used at audio frequencies with music bandwidth
...????..I would think so!
And how was the 'sound' difference validated?
Who knows..I didn't feel the need to ask such a question.

Again, this was a rather casual meeting of several people
for a demo of some of the experiments going on there.
I took their word that there were differences.

I would be a little "leery" of using "exactly" so frequently when
referring to some old equipment.

In practical terms not much of that is "so old" in power amplifier
technology
terms. But even so I've not heard better sounding newer power
amplifiers; and
yes I do have a few pass through.

Theoretical stuff tells us the
amp should be a neutral path..but in the real world..it just
ain't
that way! And some are designed to not be neutral.

If you mean the EQ inherent in my powered speakers I'd agree. My custom
subwoofer has 18-dB of + EQ at 12 Hz. So? But I'd expect a general
purpose
"power amplifier" to be neutral .... if it weren't I get my own
equalizer.

Reasons:

1) 1976 200-watt per channel built from a kit. My first
high-performance
amplifier and I still have it because it's still working.

I suspect this was a Hafler..I built some of them..as well as his
pre-amps. Upgrades to the pre-amps were very noticeable. Still in
my
closet!

Nope Heathkit AA-1640. Quarter century old; still boots; repaired 2
times in
that period.

whup...missed my guess..good choice..excellent components
in some of those old HeathKit amps.

Along with some old HeathKit Williamson circuit mono amps
from the '50s. Definately a breakthru in its time..the Williamson
circuit sounded better than most previous endeavors of that time.

2) 2 50-watt (@ 8-ohms and 100 X2 @ 4-ohms) serving as bench test
devices.

3) 2 50-watt amplifiers used for mobile applications because of small
size

4) 2 250 wpc Bryston 4B-NRB; purchased because of 20-year warranty
(they certainly need it) and to fend off complaints that I've "never
heard a high-end amp" and to fend off complaints about amplification
from high-end subjects in controlled listening test experiments.

Bryston has a reputation for being stable, sturdy and long
lasting. However, in some quarters all one has to do is attach
the
label "High-End" on a device and it "needs a 20 year warranty.
Implying it breaks a lot! Not so..in the regular world out here!
It
was an icon of durability and stability.

I'll disagree with vigor. Over the past quarter century I've had several
channel failures and one amplifier just quit. Counting all the outage
Bryston
4-Bs are the least reliable amplifier I've yet owned. The "dead" unit
was a
used-Parasound ($200) that lasted 6 years before crapping out. Both my
4-Bs
have been back for repair; one of them twice. Even one of my 2Bs now
has a
scratchy level control.

And, don't forget that 'repair' means sending one back to the repair
facility
at your own expense; and in the case when both of them were broken (I
saved
only one original carton) they threw away the alternative shipping
carton and
then charged me $30 for a new box.

Drat! you have had a mess there with the Bryston..I'm thinking this
was not a typical scenario with the Brystons. You know how this
type of thing goes. Sometime you just get lemons..in spite of
everything. Generally, Brystons were noted for Stability, long
life, etc. Good thing you had the warranty.

5) 3 100-watt amplifers; 2 are in my bedroom system and the other is
available for loan to friends and to be available for channels when
experimentation requires channels.

6) 1 5000 watt (bridged 2-channel) Crown 5000 VZ for sub/woofer
testing.

Is this the amp that sounded "harsh" with an vengence? I'm
assuming some fusing along the way here.

What amp that sounded harsh with a vengance? I have never owned one of
those.

The Crown..I've heard some that would not be acceptable
in a long term situation. Massive ear fatigue.

And I never plan to.
And what sub needs any
where close to a 5000w bridged amp?.

My custom subwoofer (to determine full output capabilities) and for the
multitude of car/home drivers that pass through my testing facility I
need an
amplifier stable into any load that has enough power to serve any known
driver.

Granted..nice to have a true "power" amp in this scenario.


What is gained by this
versus a 500 watt amp? Assuming one sub at a time and not
looking
at a 2 ohm load.
Does this Amp used in the full-range mode sound exactly like
the
Bryston? Curious!

Absolutely. And, in answer to an earlier question, yes a 250-watt per
channel
Bryston 4B-NRB has enough power to drive the 2 banks of four 15-inch
infinite
baffle subwoofers to levels that are loud enough to even statisfy my
basshead
car audio fans for daily use. But it won't drive the speaker system to
full
output.


7) 1 500 X 2 for speaker bench testing.

This doesn't count 3 amplifiers available for mobile car audio
applications. FWIW I generally use home/pro products for car system
design/measurement applications; not because they sound any better but
because it's easier to design/tune from outside the car with bench
electronics.

Yes they all sound exactly alike when used within their power
capabilities. I would get of any unit that did not.

A very admirable trait. They all sound exactly alike! We are
impressed! I can understand the desire to take that stand when
testing and writing about other components tied to these amps.
Who
would believe the test results if the amps had a character of
their
own? They must be neutral in this scenario.. Perhaps a wishful
thinking thingy...
..but in the real world? I think not!


But I'm suspecting that you haven't put that idea to the test; I've
listened to
these amplifiers with ABX bias controls installed. I've asked (and paid)
extreme enthusiasts to identify them under bias controlled conditions.

Whups..a moderator let you slide by with an ABz reference..
Three lashes with a wet noodle behind the left ear for you!

I suspect that I could not detect any notable differences in
your group of amps. Maybe the Crown..I have heard one
in the past that was "harsh" from the word go!

I'll hearby offer you $100 and your travel expenses IF you can tell one
from
another. If you can't then you have to pay your own way. Alternatively
I'll
allow you to bring any nominally competent amplifier of your own
(matching +/-
0.1 dB from 100-10,000 Hz measured at speaker terminals) for either a
follow-up
or just a 2nd test with the same terms.

Mercy..mercy..keeping in mind that this is just a hobby,
and I have heard some amplifiers that had a special
character to them..I have heard groups of amplifiers
that I could not hear any notable difference..keeping
all this in mind..I do sense a tendency to get a bit
"uptight" about this "hobby". (I understand part of
this due to the occupational thing).

Thanks for the offer...seemingly, a response to something
that was repulsive to some "egos". I have "over these many
years" went through many tests of many types. I have
been able to detect differences between some amps..
others seemed identical. I think the harsh reality is that
one can differentiate between some amps..period.
Others, no! So the reality of all this runs somewhere
in the middle! The same applies to cables...in some
amp-speaker combo..some cables sound notably
different..others remarkably alike! I can't pick out
cables and name the manufacturer in any audio
domain..I can spot differences at times..and decide
whether I prefer its characteristics or not.

I am fairly well versed on the purpose of the
"basic amp" and the theory...and the so-called
"straight-wire with gain" goals to shoot for. But,
in this day and age..some are not designed to
this ole standard.

Anyway, all this is beliefs and experience
which is not acceptable in many mindsets on
this forum...but, so be it.

As to the offer..been there, done that...no thanks, btw
are you aware the there are Engineers out there
that can fix certain amps to give a slight "fizz"
on certain high frequency instruments and can
be altered to do so...still falling within the specs
of a "..nominally competent, etc" standards and
look right on "waterfalls" , scopes..but one will
not detect the special circuit. Difficult to spot
it on the circuit boards also. Can be tuned to
a given trumpet sound with a particular background
playing, that creates a certain harmonic pattern!
Tuning to a specific high freq CD passage if need be!
An experimental thingy..long since forgotten! Related
to amp distortions and pleasant distortions studies. I
read the interplay on another Newsgroup about this
company research in this area...'95-98 era?



Of these only 3 are regularly in-use in my two home audio systems
because my primary loudspeakers are active and come with their own
dedicated amp/eq for any given speaker channel application. I don't
consider a speaker with its own dedicated power as a separate
amplifier.
If I did I'd have to increase my amp count by 19.

__________________________________________________ ____

* Something to do with eddy currents on certain metal types
that would cause effects on the audio...guessing here, long time
ago...It was a test to check on the effects of various relays at
different points..to the best of my memory. There were elements
introduced detrimental to the audio.

Leonard...

So why not prove your own case for everybody here?
_____________________________________________

Most people that come to a forum of this type to merely
relate previous happenings and experiences and
questions. These incessant demands for "proof" and
evidence when anyone states something that
tends to differ with ones concept of the audio universe
are getting somewhat redundant. Quite frankly, not
relevant to this forum. Perhaps one should move
to the email domain for this type of interplay.

I don't remember any "case" type issue here.
Somehow, one must clear their mind that this
is a forum where someone is in contention
with another. There is a incessant "combatant"
type mindset in this type of "..show me proof".

There is a "I hear you..I don't accept what you
say.." mentality here...therefore, in their minds,
they will provide the imagined "case" summation
which is "...prove your case...give me proof"!

Do grasp that the forum allows for the horrible
"anecdotal" information to flow. Sorry! There is
no case here! None! Nada! No court..trial..contest!

Rejection of anything stated here is perfectly O.K.
Just don't expect anyone to get all tied up in
a paperwork jungle. Not logical! You will
receive no proof. Horrible! Take the "anecdotal"
pill each night and rest!

Leonard...

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
4) 2 250 wpc Bryston 4B-NRB; purchased because of 20-year warranty
(they certainly need it) and to fend off complaints that I've "never
heard a high-end amp" and to fend off complaints about amplification
from high-end subjects in controlled listening test experiments.

Bryston has a reputation for being stable, sturdy and long
lasting. However, in some quarters all one has to do is attach
the
label "High-End" on a device and it "needs a 20 year warranty.
Implying it breaks a lot! Not so..in the regular world out here!
It
was an icon of durability and stability.

I'll disagree with vigor. Over the past quarter century I've had several
channel failures and one amplifier just quit. Counting all the outage
Bryston
4-Bs are the least reliable amplifier I've yet owned. The "dead" unit
was a
used-Parasound ($200) that lasted 6 years before crapping out. Both my
4-Bs
have been back for repair; one of them twice. Even one of my 2Bs now
has a
scratchy level control.

And, don't forget that 'repair' means sending one back to the repair
facility
at your own expense; and in the case when both of them were broken (I
saved
only one original carton) they threw away the alternative shipping
carton and
then charged me $30 for a new box.


Were you the first and only owner of these 4-Bs? (I inquire simply to rule
out some previous unknown history.) I have a 7 plus year old pair of 7B-STs
having no any problems at all. They have been driven hard and long enough to
blow both mid-range and tweeter fuses out of a set of Magneplanar Tympani
IVa's many times. If anyone needs to experience "unreliable", look into a
later GAS product, e.g., Ampzilla II.

"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
news:EPDac.146956$1p.1868266@attbi_s54...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
news:_ajac.141924$po.869425@attbi_s52...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 02:55:02 GMT, (Buster Mudd)
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
news:IaZ9c.125367$_w.1559954@attbi_s53...


It doesn't *sound* any better than several others, but it is able to
drive a *very* low impedance without flinching...[snip]...
BTW, I've tried my Denon PMA350II on the Apogees, and it sounds a
little rough at high levels, just before it gets hot and shuts down!

So the Krell doesn't sound any better than several others, but it
doesn't sound as rough as the Denon at high levels...ergo, it sounds
better than the Denon, yes? (And I'm sure it sounds better than the
Denon once the latter amp has shut down.)

Perhaps you didn't read what I said with sufficient impartiality? The
Denon is being forced into clipping, which is why it sounds a little
rough *at high levels*. The Denon also has significant HF IMD, which
is often audible IME. It's not that the Krell sounds 'better', it's
that the Denon sounds plain bad when asked to drive that abnormally
heavy load - not unreasonably, given the 84dB/W/m sensitivity and
3-ohm impedance of the Apogees.


Okay, so the the Krell *doesn't* sound better, but the Denon sounds
plain bad. What's the bleedin' point of "sufficient impartiality" if
I'm going to accept statements like that at face value?

Under a particular real-world condition (eg., driving your Apogees to
high levels) I'm sure you would agree that A) the Krell sounds better
than the Denon; and B) the two amps are most definitely not
indistinguishable, yes? I'm not asking about All The Time, averaged as
some absolute generalization; just those particular times when you've
had the apparently not-unusual experience of using the Denon amp with
the Apogee speakers & trying to move some significant SPL. Under those
particular conditions -- when you say the Denon is forced into
clipping -- surely you would opine that one amp sounds "better" than
the other, and that the two clearly do not sound alike. Right?

And then are you going to follow that by suggesting that the Denon,
which got forced into clipping by virtue of being connected to your
Apogees and driven to high levels (in an attempt no doubt to listen to
music in your place of residence) was "not operating under normal
conditions"?

No...The suggestion would be that the Denon was not operating within it's
power limits. The point is that with a less demanding load (is there a more
demanding load than the Apogees?), while the Krell might be technically
"better", it is audibly indistinguishable from the Denon.

Newsflash: it doesn't get any more "normal" than that. You plug an amp
into some speakers and crank some tunes, you really think there's a
manufacturer's caveat that must be attended to to ensure "normal
operating conditions"? (You did have the equipment connected
correctly, didn't you?

Nobody has ever used the phrase "normal operating conditions." Regarding
caveats, all manufacturers give caveats as to the operating parameters of
their equipment. Krell rates its FBP300 as 300 watts into 8 ohms and 1200
watts into 2 ohms. Other manufacturers don't rate their amps into a 2 ohm
load as their equipment can't drive such a load. Is the Krell "better" as a
result? Technically, yes, but audibly? Only if you need to drive a 2 ohm
load. Would a Krell FBP300 sound any better driving my Paradigm Studio/100s
to real world volume than my Plinius 8200P? (Hint: The Krell is a $9,000
amp vs. the Plinius at $2k) Answer...Nope.

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:09:47 GMT, "Stephen McLuckie"
wrote:

Stewart wrote:

No, reasonably neutral with a warmish bottom end, anything but
'bright'.

It could be that Mordaunt Short changed the design over the years (I
acquired the later Pearl variant a few weeks ago) but mine have a distinct
HF lift that makes them very difficult to listen to... confirmed by
measurement, by the way.

There were indeed at least four variants of the MS20, mine are the
original Robin Marshall designed models, which were noticeably warmer
than the classic MS10 which started off this speaker's popularity.

It shouldn't be too difficult to fix and it should be worth it... they do
have some rather nice qualities for a cheap second-hand buy.

They had some rather nice qualities at the original £180, too....
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:09:40 GMT, (Buster Mudd)
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:_ajac.141924$po.869425@attbi_s52...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 02:55:02 GMT, (Buster Mudd)
wrote:

Perhaps you didn't read what I said with sufficient impartiality? The
Denon is being forced into clipping, which is why it sounds a little
rough *at high levels*. The Denon also has significant HF IMD, which
is often audible IME. It's not that the Krell sounds 'better', it's
that the Denon sounds plain bad when asked to drive that abnormally
heavy load - not unreasonably, given the 84dB/W/m sensitivity and
3-ohm impedance of the Apogees.

Okay, so the the Krell *doesn't* sound better, but the Denon sounds
plain bad. What's the bleedin' point of "sufficient impartiality" if
I'm going to accept statements like that at face value?

Nobody asked you to. I'm offering my experience, you are more than
welcome to contribute your own.

Under a particular real-world condition (eg., driving your Apogees to
high levels) I'm sure you would agree that A) the Krell sounds better
than the Denon; and B) the two amps are most definitely not
indistinguishable, yes?

Yes, but that's a pointless comparison, since the Denon is tangibly
not competent to drive those speakers.

Under the particular *real* conditions of use of the Denon, driving
the MS20s, I can substitute the Krell or the Audiolab 8000P and not
hear any difference. That of course is why I use the Duettas and not
the MS20s for amplifier comparisons! :-)

Of course, if you are using only easy speaker loads, then you have
much more freedom of choice in your amplifier.

I'm not asking about All The Time, averaged as
some absolute generalization; just those particular times when you've
had the apparently not-unusual experience of using the Denon amp with
the Apogee speakers & trying to move some significant SPL. Under those
particular conditions -- when you say the Denon is forced into
clipping -- surely you would opine that one amp sounds "better" than
the other, and that the two clearly do not sound alike. Right?

It's a precondition of the classic amplifier DBT that neither amp is
driven into clipping. At such lower levels, the Denon sounds the same
as the Krell. It's pointless to claim that one amplifier is 'better'
than another just because it has more power. While that is a
pre-condition of acceptable performance with any given speaker, it is
*never* a factor in claims of 'sound quality' made by so-called 'high
end' lovers, who often use flea-power tube amps.

And then are you going to follow that by suggesting that the Denon,
which got forced into clipping by virtue of being connected to your
Apogees and driven to high levels (in an attempt no doubt to listen to
music in your place of residence) was "not operating under normal
conditions"?

Well, of course it wasn't! No one in their right mind would use that
amp with those speakers, any more than you'd use a Krell FPB 600 with
Lowthers.

Newsflash: it doesn't get any more "normal" than that. You plug an amp
into some speakers and crank some tunes, you really think there's a
manufacturer's caveat that must be attended to to ensure "normal
operating conditions"? (You did have the equipment connected
correctly, didn't you?

If you're going to do that, then you should start off with a *system*
which is capable of giving you what you want. If you don't, then I
guarantee that your tweeters won't last very long! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Norman Schwartz" wrote:


"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
4) 2 250 wpc Bryston 4B-NRB; purchased because of 20-year warranty
(they certainly need it) and to fend off complaints that I've "never
heard a high-end amp" and to fend off complaints about amplification
from high-end subjects in controlled listening test experiments.

Bryston has a reputation for being stable, sturdy and long
lasting. However, in some quarters all one has to do is attach
the
label "High-End" on a device and it "needs a 20 year warranty.
Implying it breaks a lot! Not so..in the regular world out here!
It
was an icon of durability and stability.

I'll disagree with vigor. Over the past quarter century I've had several
channel failures and one amplifier just quit. Counting all the outage
Bryston
4-Bs are the least reliable amplifier I've yet owned. The "dead" unit
was a
used-Parasound ($200) that lasted 6 years before crapping out. Both my
4-Bs
have been back for repair; one of them twice. Even one of my 2Bs now
has a
scratchy level control.

And, don't forget that 'repair' means sending one back to the repair
facility
at your own expense; and in the case when both of them were broken (I
saved
only one original carton) they threw away the alternative shipping
carton and
then charged me $30 for a new box.


Were you the first and only owner of these 4-Bs? (I inquire simply to rule
out some previous unknown history.) I have a 7 plus year old pair of 7B-STs
having no any problems at all. They have been driven hard and long enough to
blow both mid-range and tweeter fuses out of a set of Magneplanar Tympani
IVa's many times. If anyone needs to experience "unreliable", look into a
later GAS product, e.g., Ampzilla II.

All four ( 2 2Bs and 2 4B-NRBs) were purchased new at the same time.

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:28:29 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 18:45:13 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

Nousaine wrote:

It must be nice to be within an occupation that allows one to use a
tool that wants to nullify your bias. I could pick and choose using
this kind of tool and convince one that "up" is down...and experience
is misleading.. ..ad infinitum! Its got to be neat!! Thankfully,
most people think this is all non-logical stuff!

If you're ever in an aircraft flying through cloud, you'd better pray
that your pilot is using his instruments, and is *not* relying on his
personal sense of 'up and down', which comes apart in these
circumstances.................pretty much like listening to hi-fi.

Granted on the instrument flying...but, the listening to hi-fi
scenario is a bit of a stretch. Listening to hi-fi and drawing
a parallel to a pilot on instruments. Logic went away here.
You've got to depend on old shaky ears and all that
implies.

I understand the desire to revert everything to a
metered, instrument, precise, exactly...ad infinitum.
oh hum world ...but at this point in time we've got to live with
ye ole emotions, logic, sensory world. Sorry, but
that is the harsh reality of it all, at this point in time.



That makes it much easier to make resource deployment decisions that can
positively affect my overall enjoyment quotient in the most effective
manner. If I absolutely need the absolutely fastest car than I have to
buy the 911.

Er, no, you want the Carrera GT........... :-)

The string you were answering was a bit disjointed...however,
I agree, perhaps the Carrera GT is proper here. (Leonard...)

If I'm just interested in "fun" perhaps the Mustang will be
my choice.

Er,no, you want the Mazda MX-5.......... :-)

Agreed..MX-5, if it is the latter version of the old rotary
sports car by Mazda....Haven't kept up with Mazda last few
months. Just for fun!


If I want an incredibly fast car but also want to spend $75k
on a downpayment on a new house too.... then perhaps the Corvette is
best for my application.

Maybe in the flat, straight US, but an Audi S4 or BMW M3 will destroy
it on European roads.

Again..right on! The BMW M3 is a mean beast...just looking at its
tires one gets the feeling this is a bear! It does a lot of
things well! Drove one a few months ago..with all that rubber
on the ground it will still get away from you.


But these are not commodity products.

Sure they are - walk into any showroom and place your order - well,
maybe not the Carrera GT, but you *did* specify the absolute fastest!

Well, going on that "fastest" premise...maybe the recently upgraded
Ford GT from LeMans fame is in the run here. Granted it is not a
"commodity" item.

BTW..this might well lead to a string into the best audio system
heard in a fine automobile. Not necessarily super-bass but
just fine sounding..good stuff! I recently heard a Monsoon
based speaker system that was really a cut above.

Leonard...

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 3/30/2004 10:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 7bjac.136835$1p.1788550@attbi_s54

On 29 Mar 2004 16:46:54 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

I have a dozen 2-channel power amplifiers which all sound exactly the same.
Some have asked why???

Reasons:

snip

4) 2 250 wpc Bryston 4B-NRB; purchased because of 20-year warranty (they
certainly need it) and to fend off complaints that I've "never heard a
high-end
amp" and to fend off complaints about amplification from high-end subjects
in
controlled listening test experiments.

To be fair, that is certainly one reason why I have always kept that
Krell, the Apogee speakers and the Gyrodec - they fend off the tired
old 'you've never heard decent gear' strawman.
--


Really? Seems like a major investment in an argument. Wouldn't it simply be
wiser to buy less expensive equipment if you think it doesn't make any
difference in sound quality? One doesn't have to own highend equipment to hear
it and have an opinion on it. The arguments have gone on for many years. I
would never invest money in equipment so I could agrue about it with people who
have already made up thier minds about things.

lcw999 wrote:

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:28:29 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Nousaine wrote:


....lots of snips....

If I want an incredibly fast car but also want to spend $75k
on a downpayment on a new house too.... then perhaps the Corvette is
best for my application.

Maybe in the flat, straight US, but an Audi S4 or BMW M3 will destroy
it on European roads.

Again..right on! The BMW M3 is a mean beast...just looking at its
tires one gets the feeling this is a bear! It does a lot of
things well! Drove one a few months ago..with all that rubber
on the ground it will still get away from you.

It is true that America does have real roads and not just paved cow trails
(although New Jersey has some of those too) but we use Jeeps for those.

Sean Fulop wrote in message news:1nK8c.8786$gA5.120693@attbi_s03...
Except that it isn't just "my methodology." It's a methodology that's
been tested and validated as a means of determining audible
differences, by people who are competent to do so (and challenged by
people who are not so competent). That's why it's not circular.
It is frequently impossible to validate an index (i.e. a measurable
quantity), that is, to prove beyond a doubt that it in fact serves as an
index of what you would like it to. This is a basic tenet of all
science, unfortunately. It is impossible to validate, independently and
in a scientific manner, something as simple as the "fact" that the
temperature of something (a measurable quantity) serves as an index of
our perception of "how hot it is." It is simply our repeated experience
that leads us to accept this notion without debate.

The crux of the subjectivist position, as it could be made in a
scientific setting, is that discrimination tests under controlled
conditions have not (yet?) successfully replicated or accounted for all
factors in music perception that might allow reliable discrimination.
So in simpler terms, proving that I can't "name that tune in one note"
doesn't prove I don't really know the song. That's because recognizing
a song by its first note is not a good index for measuring whether or
not I know the song. The subjectivist claim is, or rather should be
since this is the only rational version of it, that the current state of
psychoacoustic testing has not found all the suitable indices that would
measure human reaction to music or ability to discriminate different
presentations of music. And the funniest thing is, it is impossible to
prove this position incorrect, just as it would be impossible to
disprove the claim that "sometimes, when nobody is around, people
actually feel cold things to be hot and vice versa."

-Sean

I wonder if the 'objectivists' really listen to high-end systems.
There is something to the notion that one has to 'learn' how to spot
differences in sound. Taking just speakers for example, as I grew
familiar with the various sets of speakers I have owned over the
years, their flaws became more and more obvious as time went on. Thus,
the upgrade bug gets hold of you. My first speakers were cheap two-way
Electro-Voice models I bought in 1972. A few years later, I bought
Yamaha NS690's, because the EV's just did not satisfy me anymore after
4 years. After a few years, the shortcomings of the Yamahas became
increasingly apparent, even though I had upgraded the power and
quality of amplification along the way. Thus, after an audition, I
purchased Rogers Studio 1 speakers in 1981, which seemed to be almost
flawless at the time...

They were, in fact, quite good, and I kept them for 20 years, until I
ran across a pair of used Yamaha NS-1000M's, which I brought home to
compare to the Rogers. The big Yamahas made the Studio 1's flaws even
more apparent.

I have also visited audio salons on a regular basis for the past 30
years, and occasionally I would bring home equipment to audition.
Having thus acquired a practiced 'ear', I now can listen critically to
high-end equipment of all kinds and hear nuances that I would never
have noticed in 1972.

It takes time and practice to be able to hear the differences between
products like cables. The quality of source and amplification, not to
mention the transducers, also matters