View Full Version : The Amplifier Challenge.
http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm
http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#goodamplifiers
http://sound.westhost.com/amp-sound.htm
http://www.stereophile.com/content/blind-leading-deaf-letter-why-amplifiers-sound-same
There are many more relevant articles on the net if you’re interested including some quite interesting stuff by amp designers. It’s interesting that Stereophile refused the challenge. Make your own mind up about whether their case for refusal was justified. What it does indicate to me at least that the challenge isn’t as easy as the marketing hype, enthusiastic forum product endorsements and general audiophile beliefs suggest.
I’m not the greatest fan of blind listening comparisons but like anything else that may help to discredit some of the more fanciful reports of Hi Fi performance I think it has its place.
What interests me isn’t so much whether there are differences, (I wouldn’t be sitting here with four different amplifiers if I didn’t think any differences existed) but why no one has completed the challenge successfully.
There really isn’t any point in commenting that you think that the differences between amp types and makes are obvious and you can hear them; the answer is simple, go take the challenge, win yourself £10000 and a place in audio history, then tell me. Until then you’ll forgive me if I raise one eyebrow and say “Oh arr, isatso” and remain healthily skeptical.
I think the articles above suggest people who make amplifiers know that all amps under the challenge conditions do in fact sound very similar. Naturally enough it’s not in the Hi Fi industries interests to state as much but if I wanted to sell an amplifier I designed, successfully completing the challenge, would certainly give my product a market advantage.
So, what could be going on when somebody replaces their old amp with the current flavor of the month and reports huge sonic improvements?
I’m not particularly knowledgeable about the workings of amplifiers but I can’t help wondering if a few crucial components on older amps were replaced and the amps were set up properly whether that recently purchased flavor of the month might not seem like such a good buy. I was shocked for example to find that replacing the power supply capacitors on my RC 25 made a noticeable difference and they were only 8 years old.
Altering the bias on the amplifiers we had which had potentiometer adjustment also seemed to make an audible difference when taken to extremes.
I've read about this in the past. Although I like the idea that there is no difference between my old Linn LK100 and a $20,000 Krell or Audio Research, I'm not sure it is the truth and I cannot accept it prima face. I would agree that the main differences we hear between amplifiers is due to the efficacy of the interface with the loudspeakers although I accept this may be down to power output alone - which is in keeping with the Richard Clark theory( as I understand it).
bobbasrah
29-10-2011, 15:41
Wow, thanks John, that was a bunch of links and a helluva lot of reading... fascinating stuff though, some repreats, polarising, facecious, just what i needed on this cold evening... The brick on the McIntosh item was a priceless piss-take but deservedly so. Now had that been done under a full moon, would he have been so dismissive?
jandl100
29-10-2011, 16:32
I’m not the greatest fan of blind listening comparisons but like anything else that may help to discredit some of the more fanciful reports of Hi Fi performance I think it has its place.
You are Serge Auckland and I claim my £5. :)
I cant help wondering if you've read any of the links or understood the challenge Dave ;)
sq225917
29-10-2011, 17:40
Most ABX testing is flawed in application, no doubt about that, it takes no account for the maximum period of aural memory. I'd suggest any AB test that involves more than 30 seconds between samples is going to be pretty useless at resolving the finest nuance of differences between components- yet no one has apparently researched to see the effect of 'duration of gap' on aural memory in these type of tests. Seems like putting the cart before the horse. I'm all for ABX tests, just correctly implemented ones.
Reid Malenfant
29-10-2011, 17:45
<snip> Most ABX testing is flawed in application, no doubt about that
That's also ignoring all the extra connections involved that you'd need to switch between two amplifiers on one set of speakers & one input via a single switch :rolleyes:
So What? (this is my response to the OP)
Reid Malenfant
29-10-2011, 17:53
So What? (this is my response to the OP)
If that was directed at what i said previously then why don't you go & introduce at least 16 new connections that do nothing in your system (per channel) as well as a minimum of 4 relay contacts per channel... Having thought about it it'd be even worse than what i just mentioned, there would be the introduction of connections due to extra cabling as well, i was simply thinking of relay controlled switch boxes for input & speakers...
I don't know anyone that would even consider it as i feel sure they'd expect the sound quality to suffer :eyebrows:
Ooops, sorry Rob, i was too quick & jumped the gun :doh:
Ali Tait
29-10-2011, 18:03
I haven't read the links John, but I have to say I think Dave has a good point there. Amps may indeed sound very similar, but it's how they interact with the speakers they are connected to that may make most of the differences we hear.
Reid Malenfant
29-10-2011, 18:12
As for super amps, I remember playing a Krell FPB300 (pre CAST and their middle big stereo amp) into some £80 Denon/Mission speakers. The extra "stature" these babies acquired thus driven was amazing to me and no other amp in the shop made them sound so good and utterly unflappable. used with "normal" amps, these speakers just sounded a bit ragged and not very "self assured," but with their heart in the right place, if you understand my verbal description.
I understand you totally Dave :)
I remember testing a prototype class A amplifier I designed (100W RMS 8 ohm with a flat frequency response 1Hz - 50KHz) on a Castle Trent loudspeaker. The speaker had no right to be producing the bass it was doing, the amplifier gave the speaker some gravitas or in your words stature ;)
I know where you are coming from fella :)
You really need to read and understand the challenge or you risk making comments that are totally irrelevant ;)
ABX testing may well be flawed, but so I expect could any other test devised including “this is what I hear and you can’t argue with it”.
That is really not what this challenge is about.
The challenge (and the majority of the articles you can find on this subject) isn’t saying that there are no differences between amplifiers. What they are saying is under these conditions you are very unlikely be able to pick one from another. I’m good with that, particularly when people like Roger Russell and many others who know their subject and have years of experience in building and listening to amplifiers seem to agree.
One might expect from the tone and content of many reviews and forum posts that there are considerable and obvious differences between amplifiers even when swapped in and out of otherwise unaltered systems. If this is in fact true the challenge should be a push over. You can even take along the amp of your choice.
People do and have nit picked at really very small perceived problems with the challenge.
If you believe that the switching method, or listening time, or stress, for examples, has that much influence on the outcome between say a £10000 and £1000 amp in the challenge then I can’t help wondering exactly the performance improvement you expect for your money if something so trivial makes the improvement inaudible.
Reid Malenfant
29-10-2011, 18:25
John, i'm not disputing the findings in any way ;) What i have done is give a reasoned reply to why they probably all sound the same.
As you mention, ABX testing may well be flawed :eyebrows: My arguement is that all the damn connections needed to do it with a single switch is probably the culprit that messes things up :cool:
I don't know a single solitary person that would deliberately introduce lots of connections into a system that frankly do nothing & expect the sound to still be as good as the minimum connections required ;)
John, i'm not disputing the findings in any way ;) What i have done is give a reasoned reply to why they probably all sound the same.
As you mention, ABX testing may well be flawed :eyebrows: My arguement is that all the damn connections needed to do it with a single switch is probably the culprit that messes things up :cool:
I don't know a single solitary person that would deliberately introduce lots of connections into a system that frankly do nothing & expect the sound to still be as good as the minimum connections required ;)
But the amps under comparison will both be connected to the switching so the playing field is level is it not?
I’m not certain Mark but I believe you can elect to have a manual change over, ie no ABX switch box if that’s your preference.
Reid Malenfant
29-10-2011, 18:34
But the amps under comparison will both be connected to the switching so the playing field is level is it not?
Yes, but what i'm attempting to get at is all the extra soldered connections, cables & relay contacts that would be needed to connect up this ABX test so it could be switched from one amp to another by a single switch may well be masking what each amp is doing & producing a more homogenous sound of a sh*t load of connections rather than show the differences between the amps ;)
Then thinking about it, what cables are they using (line level & speaker), what relays are they using (line level & speaker) etc....
Reid Malenfant
29-10-2011, 18:36
I’m not certain Mark but I believe you can elect to have a manual change over, ie no ABX switch box if that’s your preference.
That would take a bit of time no? By then on music you may well not know very well & on a system you certainly will not know very well at all, someone is expected to hear the most subtle nuances between amplifiers :scratch:
:lolsign:
Well that is exactly the point Mark, it’s a matter of subtle differences if any exist.
I get the impression and I believe others do to that the differences reported in the Hi Fi press and by the industry in general are easily noticeable, night and day etc etc.
Plenty of example on this forum mate ;)
Reid Malenfant
29-10-2011, 18:46
John... Just ask yourself why you are hankering after a NAD M2 having heard one in your system ;) I seem to remember you waxing lyrical about the one you borrowed for a time :)
Now you put forward a thread that attempts to say that all amps sound the same :scratch: If they did we'd all be using Amstrad amps as these used under the test criteria also produce low enough distortion & should sound the same as an Exposure, Krell, etc..
You are not attempting to debunk your hearing & brain now are you :cool:
John..
You are not attempting to debunk your hearing & brain now are you :cool:
:lolsign: I'm afraid i am mate :doh:
I haven't actually heard the M2 in my system so whatever i thought about it must take that into consideration.
I did say in my OP that I believe i can hear a difference between amps but then again having had a rather amateurish go at this challenge at a mates, i'm not at all confident that i could pick a NAD 3020 from my mates Bryston for example; in fact i couldn't :(
The horrible truth is mate it seems I'm as human and fallible as the next guy and just as prone to a bit of eye candy and prestige :eyebrows:
Reid Malenfant
29-10-2011, 19:11
Sorry bud, i thought you'd heard the M2 in your setup.
Like i say though, there are subtle differences between amplifiers, some more subtle than others. I know you want to believe & i'm sure you actually do :eyebrows:
Like i say, go buy yourself an Amstrad amp, they did make seperate integrateds with about 40 - 50W RMS per channel. Give it a spin & come back & report on a comparison between it & your Exposure ;) The Amstrad will give more than low enough distortion figures (as it's a high feedback class B) in it's linear range.
I know what you'll be saying.....
StanleyB
29-10-2011, 19:13
I did say in my OP that I believe i can hear a difference between amps but then again having had a rather amateurish go at this challenge at a mates, i'm not at all confident that i could pick a NAD 3020 from my mates Bryston for example; in fact i couldn't :(
The horrible truth is mate it seems I'm as human and fallible as the next guy and just as prone to a bit of eye candy and prestige :eyebrows:
It's a bit rich of you to make such a demeaning statement towards others, don't you think? One's own inabilities should not be assumed to be a universal shortcoming inherent in everyone else.
Ali Tait
29-10-2011, 19:17
I'd certainly agree the differences are subtle in the scheme of things, but they tend to reveal themselves more over extended listening, so would be outside the scope of an ABX test. Having said that, I have heard two or three amps that were so obviously superior to anything else I've heard before that I'm fairly sure I'd be able to pick them out. All were DIY valve jobbies though.
It's a bit rich of you to make such a demeaning statement towards others, don't you think? One's own inabilities should not be assumed to be a universal shortcoming inherent in everyone else.
Possibly Stan possibly. However as I'm sure you're aware, it wasn't intended as an insult, just an observation on human nature.
Ali, you can listen for as long as you want the rules say.
The simple answer is, if anyone believes they can do this then the opportunity is there and a chance to win £10000.
It is interesting that no-one has won the prize yet. Quite a few people must have had a go over the years.
Jon Atkinson and Stereophile are well known to be against double-blind listening tests and have published their reasons why. I'm with them on this, you need time, a familiar environment and known music in order to be able to critique components. Being stressed in a group expecting to hear differences is not the way to evaluate audio equipment.
Most ABX testing is flawed in application, no doubt about that, it takes no account for the maximum period of aural memory. I'd suggest any AB test that involves more than 30 seconds between samples is going to be pretty useless at resolving the finest nuance of differences between components- yet no one has apparently researched to see the effect of 'duration of gap' on aural memory in these type of tests. Seems like putting the cart before the horse. I'm all for ABX tests, just correctly implemented ones.
Aural memory is certainly a problem, but it exists for both ABX and conventional sighted listening tests. Usually far worse with the latter, since you'll often see people use a product for days or weeks before swapping and trying an alternative. Gets even worse when someone says the new product sounds better/worse than something they heard years ago!
At least with ABX we are usually talking minutes.
ABX isn't perfect, just far better than the alternative IMO.
It simply eliminates a number of known, powerful potential influences.
Jon Atkinson and Stereophile are well known to be against double-blind listening tests and have published their reasons why. I'm with them on this, you need time, a familiar environment and known music in order to be able to critique components. Being stressed in a group expecting to hear differences is not the way to evaluate audio equipment.
Atkinson famously failed a blind test many years ago, then backtracked on the result.
Stereophile along with every other publication would go bust and become history very quickly with wholesale adoption of blind testing.
Just about the only publication that championed ABX and a measurements based approach to reviewing was (is) The Audio Critic. Peter Aczel, now in his 80s ran it for the best part of 40 years but it never had mass circulation and never made any money.
Every review of a 'competent' amplifier or other box of electronics concluded with a one liner in the listening result section - 'it sounds transparent and therefore like other <insert kit> and no further comment is necessary' - or words to that effect :)
Most audiophiles don't want to read such reviews, because they want differences to exist regardless of the reality for a range of reasons, from simply having something to talk about right the way through to making money. They all seem to have difficulty passing ABX tests though.
Jon Atkinson and Stereophile are well known to be against double-blind listening tests and have published their reasons why. I'm with them on this, you need time, a familiar environment and known music in order to be able to critique components. Being stressed in a group expecting to hear differences is not the way to evaluate audio equipment.
I agree, but this is not about all components it is just amplifiers. At the moment I have 4 CD players hooked up for evaluation. They all sound different and there is no doubt in my mind which one I prefer. What this is about is taking a competent power amplifier that cost say £200 and one that costs £20K and saying (with the proviso of power matching) that they sound the same. If the £20K amp requires you to be relaxed and in a familiar environment for you to hear that the £20K amp is superior then the difference between the two, if any, must be very subtle i.e not £19800 worth of difference.
Bear in mind the test allows you to choose the amps you compare and the speakers of your choice. For example you could take along your Chord SPM1200e (about £7K new) and a Behringer A500 (about £80 new) and your speakers. Now even given the caveat of the ABX stress situation you would surely hear the £6920 difference between the two amps every time and pick up the $10K with ease....or would you?
I normally stay out of these arguments, but I do love the way people say that the stress of the test will stop them from hearing the differences.
I was under the impression that stress releases Adrenaline, amongst other chemicals in the body and these are sometimes called the fight or flight hormones.
One of the effects is an increase in your senses when this happens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation.
There has been a long standing offer from the James Randi foundation of 1 million dollars to anyone who can prove the paranormal. He has accepted that the sort of things audio people discuss at length is 'paranormal' so open to his challenge.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi_Challenge#The_One_Million_Dollar_Paran ormal_Challenge
Every review of a 'competent' amplifier or other box of electronics concluded with a one liner in the listening result section - 'it sounds transparent and therefore like other <insert kit> and no further comment is necessary' - or words to that effect :)
This is the way Which? magazine reviewed hi-fi equipment; "they all sound the same so pick the one with the most knobs and lights". They really should stick to white goods. Their reviews of cars are equally pants.
I think this subject is fascinating and there's a big part of me that wants the whole subjectivist reviewing model to come crashing down and for all amps to sound the same when used within their power envelope.
But, as some might remember when my Tact power amp was replaced by Roksan monoblocs the change wrecked my system: it sounded horrible and took substantial tuning to improve things so go figure... It would certainly be hard to accept that I've imagined the whole thing.
I think one needs to bear in mind that the challenge bears little relevance to what happens in “real systems”.
Getting the right mix of components can and does make an audible difference.
I also still believe that there are subtle differences between amplifiers that ABX testing is unlikely to show. Over long term listening in my system I have come to prefer a particular amplifier over others I have tried but I’m also quite certain I couldn’t pick this amp under the challenge conditions.
It’s hardly surprising Stereophile turned down the challenge. It’s not a challenge they could afford to fail at if they were to retain their credibility. One has to assume that if anyone stands a chance of successfully completing it would be experienced listeners who should be able to discern differences most easily due to the enormous amount of equipment they have auditioned over the years.
Audio Critic got mentioned by Rob and I used to read it from time to time. While it’s great that a reviewing magazine includes thorough measurements of equipment in their reviews they don’t make for interesting reading and it’s not hard to see why many audiophiles prefer the completely subjective review, with all its problems.
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/
and a sample review
http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=18&blogId=1
I also think it’s interesting that usually it’s not the amplifier designers/manufacturers that apply the hype to the product, its certain reviewers and the Hi Fi Trade. Again easy enough to understand why this happens.
There is quite a lot of comment on the net from respected amplifier designers from Peter Walker from Quad, who is happy to tell us he doesn’t listen to his amps because he knows how they will sound from the measurements to Roger Russell, John Farlow, Rod Elliott who have all at some time confirmed that when correctly set up and used within their capabilities and not driven to clipping you will be hard pressed to tell one amp from another.
Who would you choose to believe, amplifier designers or a Hi Fi salesman and/or Hi Fi journalist? Of course you should listen and decide for yourself and funnily enough that is exactly what this challenge offers.
The strangest thing of all is none of this would make me buy an Amstrad for example in preference to say my Exposure kit despite the possibility the performance increase, if any, is small. Like many audio enthusiasts I guess, the truth regarding audible performance is just one of the factors that in deciding what I buy.
However, after 30 something years of Hi Fi media bullshit, know all salesmen, hysterical forum reports and being told I’m deaf and getting treated as stupid into the bargain I’m getting a bit reactionary.
Rather than go over and over the ABX debate I’m more interested in why what I have to assume are rational people say they can hear major differences between amplifiers in their systems.
It was only after Mark Reid here on AoS happened to mention that perhaps the bias in my Exposure kit had drifted; that I tested the four other amps I have here atm.
While some may not fancy twiddling with trim pots or replacing components one very simple test of the fitness of your amplifier is to measure its DC offset.
This is the simplest explanation I’ve found of how to do this.
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/bias_e.html
Another factor must be the clipping characteristics of your amp. I don’t know of any way of measuring this without an Oscilloscope. What was surprising when we tested the amplifiers we played with was how early some clipped.
As I mentioned earlier I was also a bit miffed at the capacitor performance after only 8 years in my 25 RC. If caps can go off that quickly then this could be another factor.
I think a lot of people when they buy new kit just plug it in and don’t make direct comparisons with the old kit. There must be a degree of “its new, well reviewed, I’ve got it now and therefore better” given the possibility that many hours of forum and Hi Fi press browsing may have preceded the purchase. Comparison is tedious frankly; all that fiddling behind the rest of the kit swapping cables about, then sitting down for a listen, forgetting the sound of the previous, etc etc. I’m quite keen on this process and I still find it a pain in the arse.
Hi John,
The challenge (and the majority of the articles you can find on this subject) isn’t saying that there are no differences between amplifiers. What they are saying is under these conditions you are very unlikely be able to pick one from another.
Sure, that may indeed be the case, but what's the point when the majority of people won't be listening to their amplifier(s) of choice under those conditions? What is it that you're trying to prove?
Most audio enthusiasts and music lovers are only interested in what they hear with kit in their own systems, or those they are familiar with, not in what happens in some artificial and controlled alien environment.
In that scenario, what real relevance are the findings of the test to your average hi-fi enthusiast and music lover, especially those who populate specialist audio forums, such as AoS??
That's the problem I have with people who treat audio equipment like test gear, simply as a vehicle to produce some soulless graphs and measurements, instead of as a tool to reproduce recorded music to the highest possible standard, where experienced and discerning ears are mandatory in order for that goal to become a reality.
If someone brought a selection of amps to my place, both solid-state and valve, put them in my system, and to my ears they all sounded exactly the same, then (apart from being shocked and stunned!), I'd have learned something genuinely useful.
However, if some 'egghead' in a lab carries out the same test, whose ears I have no reason to trust, in an alien system I can't relate to in any way (I don't give a flying fuck what was measured), and reports the results, then like Puffin, I'd simply shrug my shoulders and think "SO WHAT"??? :scratch:
Oh, and anyone who tries to tell me that, say, a 4-watt single-ended valve amp and a 350W Krell, sound the same, under any bloody conditions, then I'll simply offer them one of these :mental: followed by one of these :finger:
Marco.
Reid Malenfant
30-10-2011, 19:15
Oh, and anyone who tries to tell me that, say, a 4-watt single-ended valve amp and a 350W Krell, sound the same, under any bloody conditions, then I'll simply offer them one of these :mental: followed by one of these :finger:
:lolsign: Very succinctly put Marco :eyebrows:
The relevance is, I can’t see anything in the conditions that don’t represent what I think most audiophiles would aim for in their own systems. :eyebrows:
But, most audiophiles I know aren't of the opinion that all amplifiers sound the same, in the only conditions which are of relevance or that matter to them, i.e. when listening to kit in their own system!
Marco.
Reid Malenfant
30-10-2011, 19:47
In all honesty i think this could go round in circles :eyebrows:
If all amplifiers sound the same then in theory all CD players should & even more so as they generally have far less distortion than an amplifier ;)
So who wants to stand up & shout that all CD players sound the same :mental:
:lolsign:
I would agree with you, but if the challenge conditions are indeed what most audiophiles would aim for then the possibility must exist that a great many people wouldn’t be able to tell one amp from another in their own systems when correctly set up (read challenge conditions) and while it may not be a popular viewpoint here it doesn’t make this possibility any less true.
If it is true then what I’m trying to shed some light on is why people report hearing major differences between amplifiers in their systems.
Anything that improves the chances of accurate representation of the source must be of interest to an audiophile mustn’t it and therefore to AoS (?) :scratch:
You’re probably right Mark. This is just going to end in tears ;)
A shame really because it is an interesting subject and does revolve around subjective evaluation albeit in an unfamiliar environment.
Reid Malenfant
30-10-2011, 20:16
It needn't John, as long as at some point we can accept that listening to a completely new system in an environment we aren't used to will result in confusion ;)
Personally I'd love to know how the tests were carried out, like I mentioned, if some box was used to switch things then there are a shed load of connections to take into account (which isn't good). If it was someone doing cable swapping then yes it should be a better guage as to things.
We still don't know what CD player/transport was used or the speakers for that matter when comparing the amps. I can think of a good few speakers that would mask what an amplifier is capable of & reduce things to the lowest common denominator :rolleyes:
I would agree with you, but if the challenge conditions are indeed what most audiophiles would aim for
Ok, could you précis the challenge conditions you're referring to, as unfortunately I'm one of those lazy buggers who can't be arsed reading reams of text at the end of links people post..... ;)
Speaking for myself, the only "challenge conditions" I'm interested in or aim for are those which have been tried and tested very successfully by me over the last 29 years I've been involved with high-end hi-fi.
I couldn't give a monkey's bollocks what 'boffins' in white coats get up to in their labs, unless they were people I knew and respected, and in order for that to be the case, they would need to have very good ears, above all else.
Marco.
There you go Marco you lazy bugger :)
Well, in order to keep this amplifier comparison test fair, there are a few other parameters that must be considered. I'll list them all in the following section.
Amplifier Comparison Test Conditions
1. Amplifier gain controls - of both channels - are matched to within +- .05 dB.
2. Speaker wires on both amps are properly wired with respect to polarity. (+ and -)
3. That neither amp has signal phase inversion. If so correction will be made in #2 above.
4. That neither amp is loaded beyond its rated impedance.
5. That all amplifiers with signal processors have those features turned off. This includes bass boost circuits, filters, etc. If frequency tailoring circuits cannot be completely bypassed an equalizer will be inserted in the signal path of one of the amps (only one and the listener can decide which) to compensate for the difference. Compensation will also be made for input and output loading that affects frequency response. Since we are only listening for differences in the sonic signature of circuit topology, the addition of an EQ in only one amps signal path should make the test even easier.
6. That neither amp exhibits excessive noise (including RFI).
7. That each amp can be properly driven by the test setup. Not normally a problem but it is theoretically a problem.
8. That the L and R channels are not reversed in one amp.
9. That neither amp has excessive physical noise or other indicators that can be observed by the listener.
10. That neither amp has DC OFFSET that causes audible pops when its output is switched.
11. That the channel separation of all amps in the test is at least 30 dB from 20Hz to 20kHz.
In addition to these requirements the test will be conducted according to the following rules.
Amplifier Test Comparison Rules
1. To make things easy we would prefer to use high quality home type loudspeakers for the test. If our speakers are not acceptable, the listener can provide any commercially available speaker system as long as it uses dynamic drivers. The actual measured impedance cannot exceed the rated load impedance of the amplifiers tested. If, however, the tester would like to perform the test in a car, we will use a car, however, it will have to be provided by the test subject. For practicality we will have to limit the number of amplifier channels to four or less.
2. Amplifiers will be powered from the same power supply at a nominal 14 volts DC. (any voltage is OK as long as it is the same for both amps). See NOTE 1 below.
3. The test can be conducted at any volume desired; however, the amps will not be allowed to clip. In other words, listening volume can not exceed the power capacity of the smallest amp of the pair being tested. (power capacity will be defined as clipping or 2% THD 20Hz to 10kHz, whichever is less)
4. No test signals can be used - only commercially available music.
5. The test will be conducted "double blind". The listener will control the switcher and can switch between amps as often and at whatever speed he desires. The listener can compare the amps for as long as desired. The listener can repeat any sequence as many times as desired. The listener can review his selections as many times as desired before ending the test. For practical reasons we would like to keep this at least no more than a few hours. A test session will consist of 12 A/B sequences. Passing the test will require a positive identification of each amp for all 12 sequences. Remember, guessing will get you about 6 out of 12. If the differences are so great, and a subject can really hear the difference, then he/she should be able to do so for all 12 sequences.
6. To win the $10,000.00, the listener must pass two complete sessions of 12 comparisons. Passing the test means 24 correct responses.* The amp of choice can be compared to the same or a different amp in each session - challengers choice. We have many amplifiers in our demo inventory such as, but not limited to, Alpine, Rockford, Kicker, Phoenix Gold, Precision Power, MTX, Adcom, Kenwood, Pioneer, Sony, etc. You can pick any of them or bring your own.
7. All amps must be brand name, standard production, linear voltage amplifiers. This does not exclude high current amps. Amps can not be modified and must meet factory specs. They must be "car audio amplifiers designed to be powered from a car's electrical system.". See NOTE 1 below.
8. Failure of an amp (this includes thermal shutdown) during the test will require that the test be repeated after repair or replacement or cooling of the amp. This means that the entire test session will have to be repeated.
9. The amps will not be overloaded during the session from either a voltage or current requirement.
10. To save time the listener will have to pass a quick 8 trial session to qualify for the extended 2 session test for the money prize. Any 2 amps can be used for this test. Passing this qualifying test will require at least 6 out of 8 correct answers.
11. The amplifier power up and/or power down sequence will not be acceptable for comparison. (The turn on/off noises of some amplifiers would give it away.)
12. Cost to take the test is $200.00. $500.00 for people representing companies. Payable in advance, scheduled appointments only. Done correctly the test takes several hours and I don't have the time if you aren't serious.
* Twelve correct responses in a row is certainly a lot of correct listening but $10,000 is also a lot of money for a few hours of easy listening. The way people describe the differences is that they are like night and day. I would certainly not have any trouble choosing between an apple and an orange 12 times in a row. When compared fairly I believe the differences in amps are much too small to audibly detect and certainly too small to pay large sums of extra money for. If I am wrong someone should be able to carefully take this test and win my money. Even if I am right, if enough people take the test eventually someone will take my money due to random chance. This is the reason for the large sample requirement. If you feel that you can easily pass this test but 12 sequences will give you "listening fatigue" I am willing to modify the requirements. Since the way it is being offered is a challenge and only my money is at risk I am willing to let a confident challenger "put his money where his ears are". If we are willing to make this a bet instead of a challenge, I am willing to drop 1 sequence for every thousand dollars put up by the challenger against my money. This would mean:
My Your Trials required to win
$10,000 $0 12 Tries
$9,000 $1,000 11 Tries
$8,000 $2,000 10 Tries
$7,000 $3,000 9 Tries
$6,000 $4,000 8 Tries
$5,000 $5,000 7 Tries
$4,000 $6,000 6 Tries
I will not do the test with less than 6 trials. It would be statistically meaningless and reduce the challenge to mere gambling.
NOTE 1 (from conditions 2 & 7) This test mentions 12v and "car" amps only. The test originally began with home/studio type amps and was revised in 1994 for the car audio industry. This version dated 2005 is again expanded to include 120 Volt home/studio/commercial type amps.
Let's not be put off debating these things. It is a VERY interesting subject.
I remember vividly having a dealer demo of a NAD 3120 ( which I owned at the time) and a mission Cyrus 2 - I was young enough (18!) to praise the well reviewed Cyrus..... But the truth was: I could hear any difference beyond being played much louder by the salesman......
Later I bought a Musical Fidelity A100 because I was in love with the whole class A thing and couldn't afford Krell.....
Side by side with my NAD there was again little if any difference.
But years later I swapped the A100 for a Croft linestage and a Conrad Johnson Power amp: woa momma!
Hi John,
There you go Marco you lazy bugger :)
Well, in order to keep this amplifier comparison test fair, there are a few other parameters that must be considered. I'll list them all in the following section.
Amplifier Comparison Test Conditions
1. Amplifier gain controls - of both channels - are matched to within +- .05 dB.
2. Speaker wires on both amps are properly wired with respect to polarity. (+ and -)
3. That neither amp has signal phase inversion. If so correction will be made in #2 above.
4. That neither amp is loaded beyond its rated impedance.
5. That all amplifiers with signal processors have those features turned off. This includes bass boost circuits, filters, etc. If frequency tailoring circuits cannot be completely bypassed an equalizer will be inserted in the signal path of one of the amps (only one and the listener can decide which) to compensate for the difference. Compensation will also be made for input and output loading that affects frequency response. Since we are only listening for differences in the sonic signature of circuit topology, the addition of an EQ in only one amps signal path should make the test even easier.
6. That neither amp exhibits excessive noise (including RFI).
7. That each amp can be properly driven by the test setup. Not normally a problem but it is theoretically a problem.
8. That the L and R channels are not reversed in one amp.
9. That neither amp has excessive physical noise or other indicators that can be observed by the listener.
10. That neither amp has DC OFFSET that causes audible pops when its output is switched.
11. That the channel separation of all amps in the test is at least 30 dB from 20Hz to 20kHz.
In addition to these requirements the test will be conducted according to the following rules.
Amplifier Test Comparison Rules
1. To make things easy we would prefer to use high quality home type loudspeakers for the test. If our speakers are not acceptable, the listener can provide any commercially available speaker system as long as it uses dynamic drivers. The actual measured impedance cannot exceed the rated load impedance of the amplifiers tested. If, however, the tester would like to perform the test in a car, we will use a car, however, it will have to be provided by the test subject. For practicality we will have to limit the number of amplifier channels to four or less.
2. Amplifiers will be powered from the same power supply at a nominal 14 volts DC. (any voltage is OK as long as it is the same for both amps). See NOTE 1 below.
3. The test can be conducted at any volume desired; however, the amps will not be allowed to clip. In other words, listening volume can not exceed the power capacity of the smallest amp of the pair being tested. (power capacity will be defined as clipping or 2% THD 20Hz to 10kHz, whichever is less)
4. No test signals can be used - only commercially available music.
5. The test will be conducted "double blind". The listener will control the switcher and can switch between amps as often and at whatever speed he desires. The listener can compare the amps for as long as desired. The listener can repeat any sequence as many times as desired. The listener can review his selections as many times as desired before ending the test. For practical reasons we would like to keep this at least no more than a few hours. A test session will consist of 12 A/B sequences. Passing the test will require a positive identification of each amp for all 12 sequences. Remember, guessing will get you about 6 out of 12. If the differences are so great, and a subject can really hear the difference, then he/she should be able to do so for all 12 sequences.
6. To win the $10,000.00, the listener must pass two complete sessions of 12 comparisons. Passing the test means 24 correct responses.* The amp of choice can be compared to the same or a different amp in each session - challengers choice. We have many amplifiers in our demo inventory such as, but not limited to, Alpine, Rockford, Kicker, Phoenix Gold, Precision Power, MTX, Adcom, Kenwood, Pioneer, Sony, etc. You can pick any of them or bring your own.
7. All amps must be brand name, standard production, linear voltage amplifiers. This does not exclude high current amps. Amps can not be modified and must meet factory specs. They must be "car audio amplifiers designed to be powered from a car's electrical system.". See NOTE 1 below.
8. Failure of an amp (this includes thermal shutdown) during the test will require that the test be repeated after repair or replacement or cooling of the amp. This means that the entire test session will have to be repeated.
9. The amps will not be overloaded during the session from either a voltage or current requirement.
10. To save time the listener will have to pass a quick 8 trial session to qualify for the extended 2 session test for the money prize. Any 2 amps can be used for this test. Passing this qualifying test will require at least 6 out of 8 correct answers.
11. The amplifier power up and/or power down sequence will not be acceptable for comparison. (The turn on/off noises of some amplifiers would give it away.)
12. Cost to take the test is $200.00. $500.00 for people representing companies. Payable in advance, scheduled appointments only. Done correctly the test takes several hours and I don't have the time if you aren't serious.
* Twelve correct responses in a row is certainly a lot of correct listening but $10,000 is also a lot of money for a few hours of easy listening. The way people describe the differences is that they are like night and day. I would certainly not have any trouble choosing between an apple and an orange 12 times in a row. When compared fairly I believe the differences in amps are much too small to audibly detect and certainly too small to pay large sums of extra money for. If I am wrong someone should be able to carefully take this test and win my money. Even if I am right, if enough people take the test eventually someone will take my money due to random chance. This is the reason for the large sample requirement. If you feel that you can easily pass this test but 12 sequences will give you "listening fatigue" I am willing to modify the requirements. Since the way it is being offered is a challenge and only my money is at risk I am willing to let a confident challenger "put his money where his ears are". If we are willing to make this a bet instead of a challenge, I am willing to drop 1 sequence for every thousand dollars put up by the challenger against my money. This would mean:
My Your Trials required to win
$10,000 $0 12 Tries
$9,000 $1,000 11 Tries
$8,000 $2,000 10 Tries
$7,000 $3,000 9 Tries
$6,000 $4,000 8 Tries
$5,000 $5,000 7 Tries
$4,000 $6,000 6 Tries
I will not do the test with less than 6 trials. It would be statistically meaningless and reduce the challenge to mere gambling.
NOTE 1 (from conditions 2 & 7) This test mentions 12v and "car" amps only. The test originally began with home/studio type amps and was revised in 1994 for the car audio industry. This version dated 2005 is again expanded to include 120 Volt home/studio/commercial type amps.
Thanks for doing that :)
Well, No 7 in the test comparison rules list would exclude everyone's kit on this forum! ;)
Oh, and I'm afraid when I see the words "double blind testing", and such like, my eyes glaze over and I completely lose interest in the subject at hand...........
I guess, however, that some people (often those who worship absolutism and have a deluded notion of 'certainty') will always need some form of 'empirical scientific proof' in order to believe what they hear in audio.
Thank God I will never be one of them.
Marco.
This number 7
7. That each amp can be properly driven by the test setup. Not normally a problem but it is theoretically a problem.
Or this one?
7. All amps must be brand name, standard production, linear voltage amplifiers. This does not exclude high current amps. Amps can not be modified and must meet factory specs. They must be "car audio amplifiers designed to be powered from a car's electrical system.". See NOTE 1 below.
NOTE 1 (from conditions 2 & 7) This test mentions 12v and "car" amps only. The test originally began with home/studio type amps and was revised in 1994 for the car audio industry. This version dated 2005 is again expanded to include 120 Volt home/studio/commercial type amps.
Apparently he will still do non car audio amps but got bored with nobody winning.
Anyway, time to watch Aliona dance, :drool: bbl :)
The one I highlighted, dude ;)
Marco.
I think we should club together and send over our best man. Flight to the States and a couple of nights in a Howard Johnson, bit of walking around money - say a grand tops in sterling. 10 investors at £100 a pop and $1000 back each. That's an 800% ROI...:eyebrows:
K, see i'm blind as well as deaf :lol:
I think I'm getting fed up of all this HiFi malarky :(
Reid Malenfant
30-10-2011, 20:55
I think I'm getting fed up of all this HiFi malarky :(
No don't be Dave, just listen to the music m8 ;) You don't need anyone to tell you what you are hearing now do you :)
Ooooh, time for another CD :cool:
Ali Tait
30-10-2011, 21:05
I think the test would have more validity if it were carried out in the person's own system and room, as we are all used to how our system sounds in our own listening rooms.
You don't need anyone to tell you what you are hearing now do you :)
Unfortunately some folk do, as they don't have faith in the senses that they were born with :rolleyes:
"Oh but your senses can fool you", I hear them say... "Yes indeed", I reply, "But not all of the time, and I'm happy to occasionally make mistakes, in order to learn from the process, as it allows me to function as a well-adjusted human being, and not like a logic-obsessed robot!", is my response.
For me if you can't trust your senses and are forever seeking 'measurable proof' to confirm what you experience in audio, and in life in general, then you're not functioning properly as a human being. A continual fear of being fooled and striving to achieve some distorted notion of 'certainty' or 'accuracy' isn't a healthy state of mind to occupy, IMO. The complexity of the brain's thought processes and powers of analysis, in certain circumstances, isn't as 'black and white' as some folk would like to think...
So you might imagine things sometimes and make a few mistakes, so what? It's all part of the learning process of life and being human. Embrace it and accept it.
What always amazes me about folk who claim not to trust their senses is that they somehow manage to do precisely that when making countless judgements and ordinary everyday decisions in their lives, yet it's seemingly only when analysing sonic effects in audio that the pseudo-scientists on forums feel it necessary to pull out the test equipment, in order to cocoon themselves in the comfort zone of their belief system, and achieve some distorted notion of 'certainity'......... :scratch:
For example, did they need 'measurable proof', I wonder, to *know* that the steak they ate for dinner tonight tasted of beef? No, I suspect not..... So why can't they trust their ears as much as their taste buds??
I could cite plenty other valid examples of where the senses of those who claim not to trust them appear plenty good enough to fulfil their purpose, yet when it comes to judging sonic effects in audio, all of a sudden those perfectly good senses are deemed as deficient and unreliable, and replaced in favour of some, supposedly superior, man-made test apparatus.....
What's going on there, then?? :confused:
You can't just trust your senses when it suits. You either trust them (ALL of them), whilst accepting their fallibility, or you don't, and thus resign yourself to a life fretful about the fear of being fooled....... For me, that is not a normal existence.
Marco.
I think the test would have more validity if it were carried out in the person's own system and room, as we are all used to how our system sounds in our own listening rooms.
I agree, a comparison in your home environment is preferable.
However, how different is this challenge from going to a Hi Fi dealers and making comparisons between components?
Most here I think would agree that it is far better to trial components at home but I wonder how many people actually do this.
Even in home trials how many people actually make a comparison? I think many just plug the new equipment in and leave it at that.
I’m all for listening and trusting in what you hear, we are supposed to make choices by comparing one option with another i believe.
Musicians make choices about their instruments by playing one and then another and listening to how they sound.
This isn’t about measurement and it is completely about trusting in what you hear. You either can or you cant hear a difference.
This forum is full off posts of people making comparisons between one component and another, at Hi Fi dealers, in their own homes, at friends and at other enthusiasts’; swapping cartridges, leads, amps, etc etc.
What is it about this completely subjective comparison that seems to elicit such strong opinions?
I suggest it’s that the result isn’t what many want to hear. That unfortunately can’t be helped.
That doesn’t make the comparison invalid though, just not what some people are prepared to accept.
The Grand Wazoo
31-10-2011, 01:10
I find all this stuff a little tiresome, but if this is true..........
I think one needs to bear in mind that the challenge bears little relevance to what happens in “real systems”.
........then what's the point of all of it? The fact is that we all own real systems, do we not?
jandl100
31-10-2011, 08:14
If all amplifiers sound the same then in theory all CD players should & even more so as they generally have far less distortion than an amplifier ;)
I once did a gen-u-ine single blind test on a pair of CD players.
It was at O'Briens Hifi (next to the Absolute Sounds office in N. London) ... Lordy it must be 20 years or more ago now.
I was auditioning an Audio Analogue Maestro CDP against my own Audio Alchemy setup with a view to upgrading.
Level matched - even used the same make cable (Transparent).
The demo guy sat behind me with the remote and switched between them when I asked. The kit was covered. I had no idea which was playing.
I spent 10 minutes to familiarise myself with the system playing my various CDs. (The system was, errr ... Martin Logan stat hybrids, iirc, I can't recall the amp).
To his amazement - and mine !! - I successfully identified the CDP playing 11 times out of 11. I'd done 10 and was getting up to go (I preferred my own setup!) and the demo-er said "Go on, one more try, which one is this?" ... talk about pressure! - for 20 seconds I was in a panic "SHIT I can't tell :(", then it suddenly crystalised - "Maestro" I said - it had a grainy scrim over the sound. "Yup" he said, in astonishment.
I find all this stuff a little tiresome, but if this is true..........
........then what's the point of all of it? The fact is that we all own real systems, do we not?
Indeed, and that's exactly the point I made earlier to John. In our world (that of real systems) it's all bollocks!
Marco.
I think I'm getting fed up of all this HiFi malarky :(
Drugs are cheaper, plus you get to talk to God.
I once did a gen-u-ine single blind test on a pair of CD players.
It was at O'Briens Hifi (next to the Absolute Sounds office in N. London) ... Lordy it must be 20 years or more ago now.
I was auditioning an Audio Analogue Maestro CDP against my own Audio Alchemy setup with a view to upgrading.
Level matched - even used the same make cable (Transparent).
The demo guy sat behind me with the remote and switched between them when I asked. The kit was covered. I had no idea which was playing.
I spent 10 minutes to familiarise myself with the system playing my various CDs. (The system was, errr ... Martin Logan stat hybrids, iirc, I can't recall the amp).
To his amazement - and mine !! - I successfully identified the CDP playing 11 times out of 11. I'd done 10 and was getting up to go (I preferred my own setup!) and the demo-er said "Go on, one more try, which one is this?" ... talk about pressure! - for 20 seconds I was in a panic "SHIT I can't tell :(", then it suddenly crystalised - "Maestro" I said - it had a grainy scrim over the sound. "Yup" he said, in astonishment.
Lol........ So what did you learn of use from that experience which you wouldn't have done had the test been sighted?
Did it make you want to adopt the process in future as part of your normal equipment assessment procedure?
Or, more likely, did it give you the satisfaction of knowing that your ears are plenty good enough to serve their necessary purpose, and leave the blind listening bollocks (single, double, triple, or blindfolded and tied-up and whipped by a pantyhose-clad rent boy, whilst dancing to the Pet Shop Boys), to the poor sods who need 'certainty' and 'objective proof' in their lives, before they'll get up out of bed in the morning? ;)
Marco.
jandl100
31-10-2011, 09:41
Lol........ So what did you learn of use from that experience which you wouldn't have done had the test been sighted?
Did it make you want to adopt the process in future as part of your normal equipment assessment procedure?
Nope.
Or, more likely, did you simply leave with the satisfaction of knowing that your ears are plenty good enough to serve their necessary purpose
Yup.
, and leave the blind listening bollocks (single, double, triple, or blindfolded and tied-up and whipped by a pantyhose-clad rent boy ... ;)
Marco.
... but that does sound quite interesting! :eek: :eyebrows:
Well, I must confess, tiresome or not, I find this challenge, but even more so, people’s reaction to it, fascinating :)
I’m not going to pursue it any further though. Not much point in further reinforcing my lefty, objectivist infiltrator reputation and thankfully, some may think, I’m away again for another few days :eyebrows:
That reminds me; I must find myself a lighter rucksack and see someone about my obsession with Aliona Vilani.........:stalks:
bobbasrah
31-10-2011, 11:23
A fascinating thread, but I keep coming back to the whole nagging clinical question of the challenge and why nobody has yet won it. Those who tried and failed were not cloth-eared.
The "professional" reviewers' take on the challenge I did not find so much a surprise, but perhaps that is because I suspect a lot of them talking bollox for a living. Hifi's version of your modern "honest" politician.
Some of the observations on the original links I had to re-read to see if I was mistaken, swapping electrical component makes being one in particular that jarred with experience to the contrary. I am convinced that much of the subtle nuances that make up differences are down to effects not yet fully quantified and scientifically reproducable. It is not mystic, it is part psychological in that is how we interpret sound, and someday someone may be able to explain it scientifically.
Ah well back to the water divining rods then.....
I am convinced that much of the subtle nuances that make up differences are down to effects not yet fully quantified and scientifically reproducable. It is not mystic, it is part psychological in that is how we interpret sound, and someday someone may be able to explain it scientifically.
Me too, Robert - hear, hear!! :clapclapclap:
It's simply wishful thinking, on the part of pseudo-scientists (a.k.a some so-called 'engineers' with a blinkered and closed-minded approach to audio), to believe otherwise.
Marco.
I am convinced that much of the subtle nuances that make up differences are down to effects not yet fully quantified and scientifically reproducable. It is not mystic, it is part psychological in that is how we interpret sound, and someday someone may be able to explain it scientifically.
Ah well back to the water divining rods then.....
But only when you cannot see the item in question. when its a sighted test people seem to be able to distinguish these "subtle nuances"
Human hearing is very well understood. So is Human psycology.
Read the works of Prof Dianna Deutch of University of California.
Human hearing is very well understood. So is Human psycology.
Indeed, Jonty, but unfortunately, the complex manner of how the human ear and brain processes recorded music signals, via a hi-fi system, doesn't appear to be; hence why many of us can genuinely hear effects in audio which as yet cannot be measured.
Marco.
why many of us can genuinely hear effects in audio which as yet cannot be measured.
Marco.
I bet they can :lol:
Ok then, daftee, how do you measure for what others and I can clearly hear in significant and easily discernable sonic differences between amplifiers, despite when comparisons are made, all the technical criteria being met, as outlined in the test conditions that John linked to?
How and what do you use to measure why Furutech IEC plugs significantly improve the sonic performance of my power leads, and hence my system?
Why do identical valves of the same make and type, despite measuring the same on a professional valve tester, sound sonically different when used in my system?
What do you use to measure that?
Why do audio cables sound markedly different in my system, despite their LCR characteristics being identical?
What do you use to measure that?
I could go on..... Those are all examples of sonic effects I can genuinely hear, but (as far as I'm aware) cannot currently be proven by scientific measurement.
Marco.
With respect marco, I don't think it's as entirely cut and dried as in your post above. cables don't all have the same LCR characteristics, especially at rf frquencies, and Paul Miller spent ages some years ago trying to equate reflections at these frequencies down into audio - my favourite coax cables seem increasingly to be those that do well at mega-Hz frequencies - I don't think Mark Grant has any published figures for the HD cables and as for differences in plugs, many different phono plugs seem to have widely differing capacitance levels and I'm sure this has an effect of sorts.
I don't know the Furutech IEC plugs and suspect i'd find it hard put to reliably tell any difference in all honesty. I have started soldering my mains cables into the plugs I do use though, as exposed copper has a nasty habit of oxidising and IMO this DOES make a negative difference over the years. Again, some people are plagued with nasty mains, which is heavily poluted and any attempt to help the gear to do its job properly is vitally important I think, although much stuff out there doesn't seem to regard mains quality as an important issue, where others seem to have an instinct for it and their products don't seem to suffer - I was going to say my vintage AVI stuff, but Glenn's products don't seem overly affected either.
I'm caught here Marco, as I think I have a fair handle on where you're coming from, but on the other hand, there really are some ridiculous claims made from some manufacturers, where the difference is almost certainly psychological. It's getting the balance right that the true "art of sound" comes in and, if you remember the whole thing about classic amp designers not really "listening" to their products (extensively-musically anyway), it was all about accepting that an amp may take something away, and/or add something and jiggling the compromises around to make the product as universal and stable as possible..
I'm not explaining myself very well again, am I?
Hi Dave,
You're doing just fine! :)
With respect marco, I don't think it's as entirely cut and dried as in your post above. cables don't all have the same LCR characteristics, especially at rf frquencies, and Paul Miller spent ages some years ago trying to equate reflections at these frequencies down into audio...
Trying to, yes, but did he succeed enough in order to be able to say that it was scientifically a proven fact?
That's what I'm on about here. The sonic effects I quoted earlier I *know* exist and can genuinely hear, as extensive experience and experimenting over many years has proven it (to me) beyond any reasonable doubt.
There is no test equipment I'm aware of currently that can conclusively prove all of which I can genuinely hear with audio.
I don't know the Furutech IEC plugs and suspect i'd find it hard put to reliably tell any difference in all honesty.
Trust me, in my system (and those of a similar uber-revealing and transparent nature), you wouldn't! ;)
Again, some people are plagued with nasty mains, which is heavily poluted and any attempt to help the gear to do its job properly is vitally important I think, although much stuff out there doesn't seem to regard mains quality as an important issue, where others seem to have an instinct for it and their products don't seem to suffer - I was going to say my vintage AVI stuff, but Glenn's products don't seem overly affected either.
I know what you mean, and yet my Croft preamp never fails to respond positively to improvements in terms of how it receives power from the mains supply.... My 'Ultimate' power cables, fitted with Furutech IEC and 13A plugs, are a case in point. Without them, when using bog-standard kettle leads or inferior quality 'audiophile' power cables, in comparison, the Croft sounds distinctly lacklustre.
I'm caught here Marco, as I think I have a fair handle on where you're coming from, but on the other hand, there really are some ridiculaous claims made from some manufacturers, where the difference is almost certainly psychological. It's getting the balance right that the true "art of sound" comes in...
Damn right, dude. The fact is, there is as much art as there is science in the designing and building of truly musically accurate audio equipment and systems, and the pseudo-scientists, reductionists, and technical jobsworths out there need to start accepting it!!
Marco.
bobbasrah
31-10-2011, 16:57
Sorry if I did not make it clearer Jonty or Marco, it was the end of this sentence that was was the main point.
"I am convinced that much of the subtle nuances that make up differences are down to effects not yet fully quantified and scientifically reproducable"
I ended with my comment on divining rods for a distinct reason and that is with regard to quantification and scientific reproduction.
The divining phenomenon exists, but can not yet be reproduced, explained and understood by science such that everybody can do it, so it is an unproven phenomenon, or myth.
The as yet unknown interactions between electrical components and assemblies and their environments, once fully understood and quantified, will perhaps make the challenge of the thread proven, but until then it will be heresy to some, and proof positive to others....
Unfortunately some folk do, as they don't have faith in the senses that they were born with :rolleyes:
Hi Marco,
Faith in the senses to the degree you imply can easily be misplaced IME.
A couple of examples if I may:
I've played Naim power supplies to a group (Hicap v Flatcap) where the Hicap actually contained a 24v cheap Maplin PSU. All listeners heard a difference and all preferred the Hicap over the (real) Flatcap.
I've held cable bake-offs where i've pretended to swap interconnects and have shown those cable to the listeners before the dem. The listeners heard a difference and the commentary generally matched the typical views expressed for the cable - in this case a Deltec cable.
No cable change actually took place and the listeners were listening to the same cable at all times.
I've had people claiming to hate digital audio listen to vinyl and comment very favourably - when the vinyl has in fact been passing through an ADC/DAC 16 bit loop.
Unlike some of my objectivist brothers I don't say that sighted listening test are useless. Far from it. But if the result appears to fly in the face of the science and common sense, AB and ABX testing is a very good way to check and verify the results.
In the face of such experiences (an several others) I simply would not have your unshakable faith.
Reid Malenfant
31-10-2011, 22:46
<snip> I've played Naim power supplies to a group (Hicap v Flatcap) where the Hicap actually contained a 24v cheap Maplin PSU. All listeners heard a difference and all preferred the Hicap over the (real) Flatcap.
A cheap regulated PSU may well present a lower impedance than any bunch of capacitors, so if it was used at any reasonable level I'd expect even a cheap regulated PSU to beat a shed load of capacitance ;)
Just so I don't get the wrong idea though I'd love you tell me what a Naim Flatcap consists of :)
:D Honestly Marco, you crack me up. Only you could dismiss the likes of
Roger Russell (Chief designer of McIntosh amplifiers)
Peter Walker (Designer of Quad amplifiers)
John Farlow (Exposure Electronics)
Richard Clark (Car audio amplifier designer)
Not to mention all the other well respected audio critics who hold similar views as;
“pseudo-scientists, reductionists, and technical jobsworths”
It is a shame that more who have commented don’t seem to have even read let alone considered the information in the links with something akin to an open mind :rolleyes:
Hi John,
I don't dismiss them; I'm sure that they all possess discerning ears, to some degree.
However, at the end of the day, the only people whose ears I trust (other than my own) are those whom I know from direct experience enjoy music presented by a hi-fi system the same way as I do, i.e. we have similar standards in the quality of audio reproduction we demand from our systems.
In effect, I need to know that the ears of other people 'tune into' the same things as mine, when listening to recorded music, before I will rate their opinions on what is considered as 'good sound'. Therefore, for me, it matters not a jot how 'famous' or 'well respected' people are as audio critics, if they haven't yet passed MY judgement criteria on their respective abilities, or otherwise.
Michelin-starred chefs are often revered for their culinary prowess, but like 'well respected' audio critics and hi-fi, the reputation of those chefs would mean nothing to me if I hadn't tasted their food... ;)
Off to bed now, chaps. I'll get to the other recent posts here later :cool:
Marco.
Ok then, daftee, how do you measure for what others and I can clearly hear in significant and easily discernable sonic differences between amplifiers, despite when comparisons are made, all the technical criteria being met, as outlined in the test conditions that John linked to?
How and what do you use to measure why Furutech IEC plugs significantly improve the sonic performance of my power leads, and hence my system?
Why do identical valves of the same make and type, despite measuring the same on a professional valve tester, sound sonically different when used in my system?
What do you use to measure that?
Why do audio cables sound markedly different in my system, despite their LCR characteristics being identical?
What do you use to measure that?
I could go on..... Those are all examples of sonic effects I can genuinely hear, but (as far as I'm aware) cannot currently be proven by scientific measurement.
Marco.
Of course you can go on, but unless these have been confirmed in bias controlled environments they are just conjecture.
I have pointed people to the works of Prof Dianna Deutch, but it appears no one has even bothered looking
Hi Rob,
Hi Marco,
Faith in the senses to the degree you imply can easily be misplaced IME.
Indeed; much depends on the discerning nature of the individual concerned. Also, I'm not saying that my senses always get things right - far from it - but I place faith in them when experience dictates that it's likely to provide the best outcome, and I simply accept it as a learning curve when they don't. I then use the information gained to my advantage in future. That, for me, is normal human behaviour and forms the fundamental core of our learning process.
Also, there is no way I could live continually requiring 'scientific proof' for everything that I experienced in life, not just hi-fi, before I was able to believe and accept it. That would do my head in. Apart from anything else, and no disrespect intended, but I find such behaviour rather odd and not normal in the world I live in.
For me, there has to be a point, after reasonable doubt has been removed, by whatever process one considers as thorough, even if conclusive objective proof still doesn't exist, that one simply trusts one's ears (and senses) and 'goes with the flow', as it were, when assessing the sonic effects of audio equipment.
To do otherwise and be continually requiring objective evidence to confirm that what one is hearing is real, fretting over the fear of being fooled by one's senses and seeking comfort from 'certainty', for me, is not a healthy existence, not to mention that in my experience, it usually results in missing the bigger picture, as far as the aspects of audio which often require a degree of lateral thinking and genuine open-mindedness to unearth.
A couple of examples if I may:
I've played Naim power supplies to a group (Hicap v Flatcap) where the Hicap actually contained a 24v cheap Maplin PSU. All listeners heard a difference and all preferred the Hicap over the (real) Flatcap.
I've held cable bake-offs where i've pretended to swap interconnects and have shown those cable to the listeners before the dem. The listeners heard a difference and the commentary generally matched the typical views expressed for the cable - in this case a Deltec cable.
No cable change actually took place and the listeners were listening to the same cable at all times.
I've had people claiming to hate digital audio listen to vinyl and comment very favourably - when the vinyl has in fact been passing through an ADC/DAC 16 bit loop.
Sounds interesting and I'd love to take part in similar tests myself. I've no idea how I'd get on, though! Like I said before, by trusting one's senses one can be fooled, as you have described, but when that happens I simply accept it as part of the learning curve of life!
Certainly, that attitude doesn't seem to have done any harm in terms of my ability, over the years, to put together superb sounding hi-fi systems. I'm a great believer in sifting through the froth written on forums and finding out who really knows what they're doing by judging the sonic results people have achieved with their systems, and the Scalford bake-off show is an excellent benchmark for this.
For me, visiting the rooms and listening to the results achieved by the various systems being demonstrated, which in reality represent the culmination of the exhibitor's system building methodology, really sorts the wheat out from the chaff. As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the listening....
In that respect, let's just say that I've yet to hear a system belonging to a staunch objectivist which I'd give house room, so I've not yet experienced the claimed benefits by objectivists of measuring the crap out of everything. Perhaps one day I will? In the meantime, though, why attempt to fix something which patently isn't broken?
Unlike some of my objectivist brothers I don't say that sighted listening test are useless. Far from it. But if the result appears to fly in the face of the science and common sense, AB and ABX testing is a very good way to check and verify the results.
Sure, providing you believe that when applied to audio such tests are infallible. Many others and I don't, so in that respect nothing is 'verified'.
In the face of such experiences (an several others) I simply would not have your unshakable faith.
I don't have unshakable faith. It's simply that I don't believe that science currently has all the answers, in terms of being able to accurately assess how we as human beings process the experience of listening to recorded music. I use extensive subjective testing, based on my established judgement criteria, to confirm my experiences in audio. You’ve no idea how fussy or thorough I am in that respect. I never simply, through faith, 'automatically believe' anything!
The problem is, if I consider that current science in this area is fallible, how can I use it as the benchmark from which to confirm what I hear in audio? I'm not like you - I don't consider all scientific proof currently in audio as being conclusive.
In reality, it comes down to choosing the level of 'proof' that you're happy with. In that respect, I'd be just as well using the ears which have served me very well indeed over the last 29 years of my life as an audio enthusiast, and be done with it, safe in the knowledge that I'm not always going to be fretting about being fooled, because that will happen naturally sometimes anyway! ;)
Marco.
Of course you can go on, but unless these have been confirmed in bias controlled environments they are just conjecture.
Perhaps to you they are, but for me, they represent my genuine experiences.
Also, in my experience, there is no such thing as a genuinely "bias controlled environment". It's but a pipedream in order to appease the sensibilities of objectivists who seek the psychological crutch of 'certainty'.
There is likely always to exist some unconsidered variable that skews the true lack of bias and accuracy of the results achieved with ANY form of testing. To believe otherwise, smacks of grossly simplistic thinking. This is the danger of absolutism - it removes the crucial shades of grey, so all one sees is an unnatural 'black & white' world. I certainly don't believe that, when applied to audio, blind ABX testing (if that's your idea of a "bias controlled environment") is infallible.
I have pointed people to the works of Prof Dianna Deutch, but it appears no one has even bothered looking
Thanks, but I'm not sure how relevant it will be in terms of my staunchly subjective approach to audio. Perhaps though, she does a few tricks for the boys? ;)
Marco.
Ojbective vs Subjective. I suppose people differ. Imagine 2 cars, 1 is faster but the other has more connection with road and feels the faster car. Objectivists would prefer the car that's proved to be faster. Subjectivists will go with the car that feels faster. Head vs heart.
Then of course we start to look at whether the parameters used to determine which car is faster are relevant.
Goes back to my comment about Which? magazine. They review cars as if they were functional transport to get from A to B only, with no other decision criteria. The reality is that many of us enjoy the driving experience, the connection with the road, the handling, the engineering feel of it etc., none of which they even understand let alone rate.
The objective approach to hi-fi I find to be similarly soulless. It's about music, after all!
Ojbective vs Subjective. I suppose people differ. Imagine 2 cars, 1 is faster but the other has more connection with road and feels the faster car. Objectivists would prefer the car that's proved to be faster. Subjectivists will go with the car that feels faster. Head vs heart.
Indeed, Clive - and I'll always be someone driven by my heart more than anything else!
I do find the 'art vs. science' dichotomy in audio, though, rather fascinating :)
Marco.
Goes back to my comment about Which? magazine. They review cars as if they were functional transport to get from A to B only, with no other decision criteria. The reality is that many of us enjoy the driving experience, the connection with the road, the handling, the engineering feel of it etc., none of which they even understand let alone rate.
The objective approach to hi-fi I find to be similarly soulless. It's about music, after all!
+1! :)
Marco.
There is nothing wrong with blind testing, which is biased controlled, it's one of several ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL, requisite things that must be done in any listening test that can have any credibility whatsoever, beyond the "this amplifier amplifies" i.e. "it functions at all" range. That's a fact, and will continue to be so even though certain people within the audio hobby world refuse to accept the results of years of psychological and psychoacoustic research that show blind testing to be an indisputable requirement.
Dianna Deutch and her contemparies have done years of research in this area yet audio hobby-ists have no interest in that type of work as it goes against there ingrained belief systems.
I'm afraid that those are your facts, not my facts. And you think that YOU don't have an "ingrained belief system" of your own? Get real! :lol:
With respect, Jonty, I think you're on the wrong forum. Have you read our ethos and what AoS stands for? Or are you here simply to troll and argue fruitlessly with those of a different mindset?
Marco.
So are you saying. Agree with me and that the facts or truth are some sort of democracy or leave?
No I'm saying that, after examining your contributions here to date, it seems that, your Welcome thread aside, your presence here is about nothing more than instigating tedious objectivist vs. subjectivist circular arguments that have been done to death in the past, and which never achieve anything but causing ill feeling amongst the participants.
We simply no longer allow the existence of such tedious and circular arguments.
So if you wish to remain here and be a part of our community, I suggest that you change the record and show us what else you have to offer to the many other discussions taking place on the forum - ta!
Marco.
P.S One would also hope that before joining a forum that one would read what the forum was about first and decide if one was likely to fit in or not.
Gordon Steadman
01-11-2011, 13:32
Interesting thread.
I've been listening to Hi-Fi now for well over 40 years. In that time, my system has changed very little. Fashions come and go and I read all the specifications, measurements and opinions and they make not one iota of difference.
They told me that CD was better because of 'measurements'. Not to my ears.
They told me all sorts of stuff that my ears disagreed with. They can use their objectivity to make/engineer the goods but how come they all sound different?
I am a guitar maker. My music system (I prefer that expression) sounds the same to MY ears as the instruments I make. I get an emotional experience from listening to music. The Quad 57 / Leak Stereo 20 combo sounds great but then I also enjoy Quad 50D's driving the little KEF101's. Those little speakers are obviously seriously limited but they are just gloriously musical. They set my feet tapping and I can't sit still.
Who cares how they measure?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.