Never got an answer on this:

bob wrote:
snip



Of course not. I would never use a short-term quick-switching test to
"sense the superiority" of one component over another. It's the wrong
tool for the job. The short term quick-switching test is for
determining if there's any difference at all to be heard. So, were I
fanatical about such things (which I'm not), I'd first use the ABX test
to determine whether there's a difference. If and only if I detected
such a difference, then I'd use more leisurely listening to decide
which I preferred.

bob



bob, I find this very confusing indeed!



Let me see if I understand this correctly or not?

You proposed to first do a short-term quick switching test to determine
that there is objectively (by your own standards) *no difference(s)*
whatsoever? Is it not the case that all amplifiers of sufficiently low
distortion (practially all of them...) run unclipped have no discernable
differences?? Is this not what the "objectivists" have been claiming??
Isn't this what the Sensible Sound and similar publications have been
saying??

Then you propose that you would decide which one you prefer?? Say what?
This is where I get really really confused! How to decide on a leisurely
listening basis that you prefer one or the other?? Is not there no
audible difference between "properly designed amplifiers" (virtually all
of them)?

Would you not have on hand an "objectively" blameless amplifier standard
to compare to, and simply NOT consider using an amp where you could
detect *any* audible difference between it and the DUT in the initial
short/quick testing?? If not, why would you consider using an amp where
you *could* hear a difference between it and your standard??

And, if you heard a difference are you saying that you could *not*
decide which "difference" you preferred using a short/quick switch test?
But, you could decide which you preferred using long term listening?

What could you possibly determine using long term listening that you
could not in short term listening, given that your claim is that long
term listening is incapable of *determining* IF there are any
differences in the first place!?! Logically, it would seem that there
would therefore be *no audible* differences between the the two units -
(according to the published tests cited) ergo no audible basis for
making a *preference* based on long-term listening. If there is a basis
for making a decision/preference in long-term listening then what would
that be in specific?? Are you saying that you can hear something in long
term listening that you can not in short/quick tests??

Now I am truly puzzled.

_-_-bear


--

"BEAR" wrote in message
...
Never got an answer on this:

bob wrote:
snip



Of course not. I would never use a short-term quick-switching test to
"sense the superiority" of one component over another. It's the wrong
tool for the job. The short term quick-switching test is for
determining if there's any difference at all to be heard. So, were I
fanatical about such things (which I'm not), I'd first use the ABX test
to determine whether there's a difference. If and only if I detected
such a difference, then I'd use more leisurely listening to decide
which I preferred.

bob



bob, I find this very confusing indeed!



Let me see if I understand this correctly or not?

You proposed to first do a short-term quick switching test to determine
that there is objectively (by your own standards) *no difference(s)*
whatsoever?

To determine if there is or isn't a difference.

Is it not the case that all amplifiers of sufficiently low
distortion (practially all of them...) run unclipped have no discernable
differences?? Is this not what the "objectivists" have been claiming??
Isn't this what the Sensible Sound and similar publications have been
saying??

AFAIK it is not a claim, but something that seems to keep being demonstrated
in test after test of reasonably well made amps.

Then you propose that you would decide which one you prefer?? Say what?
This is where I get really really confused! How to decide on a leisurely
listening basis that you prefer one or the other?? Is not there no audible
difference between "properly designed amplifiers" (virtually all of them)?


I beleive you have it.
If there's no difference in sound there's no sound to prefer, yet there are
amps that sound different for whatever reason. I think it would be possible
for younger audiophiles to hear a difference between a Behringer A500 and
most other amps that don't roll of the high frequency the way the A500 does,
or between lots of Tubed gear and almost any SS amp.


Would you not have on hand an "objectively" blameless amplifier standard
to compare to, and simply NOT consider using an amp where you could detect
*any* audible difference between it and the DUT in the initial short/quick
testing?? If not, why would you consider using an amp where you *could*
hear a difference between it and your standard??


If it sounds different, it might sound better.

And, if you heard a difference are you saying that you could *not* decide
which "difference" you preferred using a short/quick switch test? But, you
could decide which you preferred using long term listening?

Makes sense to me. I would not want to rush into a prefernce decision after
just a few quick switch tests. I would not be able to find a difference
without one, unless the difference were very large.

What could you possibly determine using long term listening that you could
not in short term listening, given that your claim is that long term
listening is incapable of *determining* IF there are any differences in
the first place!?! Logically, it would seem that there would therefore be
*no audible* differences between the the two units - (according to the
published tests cited) ergo no audible basis for making a *preference*
based on long-term listening. If there is a basis for making a
decision/preference in long-term listening then what would that be in
specific?? Are you saying that you can hear something in long term
listening that you can not in short/quick tests??

Now I am truly puzzled.

_-_-bear


I don't see why. Use short term to determine if difference exists and long
term to decide how you like the differences.



--

BEAR wrote:
Is it not the case that all amplifiers of sufficiently low
distortion (practially all of them...) run unclipped have no discernable
differences?? Is this not what the "objectivists" have been claiming??
Isn't this what the Sensible Sound and similar publications have been
saying??

Then you propose that you would decide which one you prefer?? Say what?




Seems implicit to me (based not just on your summary of Bob's position
above, but also on my experience w a variety of power amplifiers) that
Bob has simply acknowledged that some amplifiers run into clipping
during normal usage.


--

wrote:

"BEAR" wrote in message
...

Never got an answer on this:

bob wrote:
snip


Of course not. I would never use a short-term quick-switching test to
"sense the superiority" of one component over another. It's the wrong
tool for the job. The short term quick-switching test is for
determining if there's any difference at all to be heard. So, were I
fanatical about such things (which I'm not), I'd first use the ABX test
to determine whether there's a difference. If and only if I detected
such a difference, then I'd use more leisurely listening to decide
which I preferred.

bob



bob, I find this very confusing indeed!



Let me see if I understand this correctly or not?

You proposed to first do a short-term quick switching test to determine
that there is objectively (by your own standards) *no difference(s)*
whatsoever?


To determine if there is or isn't a difference.

Is it not the case that all amplifiers of sufficiently low

distortion (practially all of them...) run unclipped have no discernable
differences?? Is this not what the "objectivists" have been claiming??
Isn't this what the Sensible Sound and similar publications have been
saying??


AFAIK it is not a claim, but something that seems to keep being demonstrated
in test after test of reasonably well made amps.

Then you propose that you would decide which one you prefer?? Say what?
This is where I get really really confused! How to decide on a leisurely
listening basis that you prefer one or the other?? Is not there no audible
difference between "properly designed amplifiers" (virtually all of them)?



I beleive you have it.
If there's no difference in sound there's no sound to prefer, yet there are
amps that sound different for whatever reason. I think it would be possible
for younger audiophiles to hear a difference between a Behringer A500 and
most other amps that don't roll of the high frequency the way the A500 does,
or between lots of Tubed gear and almost any SS amp.



Would you not have on hand an "objectively" blameless amplifier standard
to compare to, and simply NOT consider using an amp where you could detect
*any* audible difference between it and the DUT in the initial short/quick
testing?? If not, why would you consider using an amp where you *could*
hear a difference between it and your standard??



If it sounds different, it might sound better.


And, if you heard a difference are you saying that you could *not* decide
which "difference" you preferred using a short/quick switch test? But, you
could decide which you preferred using long term listening?


Makes sense to me. I would not want to rush into a prefernce decision after
just a few quick switch tests. I would not be able to find a difference
without one, unless the difference were very large.


What could you possibly determine using long term listening that you could
not in short term listening, given that your claim is that long term
listening is incapable of *determining* IF there are any differences in
the first place!?! Logically, it would seem that there would therefore be
*no audible* differences between the the two units - (according to the
published tests cited) ergo no audible basis for making a *preference*
based on long-term listening. If there is a basis for making a
decision/preference in long-term listening then what would that be in
specific?? Are you saying that you can hear something in long term
listening that you can not in short/quick tests??

Now I am truly puzzled.

_-_-bear



I don't see why. Use short term to determine if difference exists and long
term to decide how you like the differences.




Sorry still puzzled.

Are you saying that you might *prefer* to listen to an amp that you know
is actually inaccurate (determined by your testing vs. a known
"accurate" amp) over one that you know to be accurate?

If so, why bother with a "short/quick listening" test at all? What is
the purpose?

Are you also saying that (by this logical progression) that an
inaccurate amplifier *might* sound better to you?? How so? Why?

Why would you not trust the "short" test completely?

Would not the "accurate" amplifier *always* sound better/best??
If not, then how so and why?

Are you saying that you can discern something with a long term listening
test that you do not or can not discern with the short term listening
test? Or not?

Very puzzled. No, baffled.

_-_-bear


--

Buster Mudd wrote:

BEAR wrote:

Is it not the case that all amplifiers of sufficiently low
distortion (practially all of them...) run unclipped have no discernable
differences?? Is this not what the "objectivists" have been claiming??
Isn't this what the Sensible Sound and similar publications have been
saying??

Then you propose that you would decide which one you prefer?? Say what?





Seems implicit to me (based not just on your summary of Bob's position
above, but also on my experience w a variety of power amplifiers) that
Bob has simply acknowledged that some amplifiers run into clipping
during normal usage.



No, sorry - clipping is off the table as far as this discussion is
concerned. The prerequisite position agreed upon is that the amplifiers
under test & in question can not be driven into clipping for the
purposes of our discussion/investigation.

_-_-bear


--