[frenchbat]

Someone please give this man/woman a cookie ?
 
We need more of this, and less flaming.
 
Quote:

One way to start working together is for both sides to each come up with a list of conditions that if met, would cause them to change their position. In other words, if my own position is not falsifiable, then I should not expect others to accept it. This may not necessarily provide any new information about either side, but I think when it is framed in a "this is how you can prove me wrong" manner, egos are less likely to get in the way.
 

 

 

[upstateguy]

I know I'm coming in late, but what's the consensus? 
 
Is it possible for an opamp to have a sound signature?

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

One way to start working together is for both sides to each come up with a list of conditions that if met, would cause them to change their position. In other words, if my own position is not falsifiable, then I should not expect others to accept it. This may not necessarily provide any new information about either side, but I think when it is framed in a "this is how you can prove me wrong" manner, egos are less likely to get in the way.
 

I have in post 94. I am sure it is a similar position for most objectivists. This is where Maverickronins intial request to Kwkarth comes in. What more can the objectivist side do? We have both conceded that we may be wrong.
 
Yet we are faced with the digs that Anaxilus continually comes out with. We get a lecture on causality, yet the subjectivist side rely on one massive non sequitur. Cables are different, I hear a difference, the difference is caused by the cable. You can substitute cable for opamp, hard drive, lossless codec and a host of other things for which there is no corroboration that they do work to change sound quality.
 
Furthermore, I have yet to see any of the main subjectivists who post here in Sound Science conceed that they may be wrong and placebo is the cause.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

This is where Maverickronins intial request to Kwkarth comes in. What more can the objectivist side do? We have both conceded that we may be wrong.

Pretty sure it was me that asked that (post 80), but the only answer we got was work together.  :|
 

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

I know I'm coming in late, but what's the consensus? 
 
Is it possible for an opamp to have a sound signature?

Never mind, I read the thread and see what happened.
 

 

[caracara08]

so many threads... all the same. 

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

That still doesn't answer the question.  Surely working together is a part, but doing what?  What test, what method, etc.?  The objective side requires some evidence beyond anecdotal no matter what.  If such evidence is provided we'll examine it closer, and if it holds up to scrutiny we'd happily change our beliefs.

You guys have to work together to decide what to test and how to test it.  I would suggest that each side apply themselves to working on the other side's behalf.  In other words, if you, for example are in the camp that all things sound the same, then apply yourself to proving why they sound differently.  If you're in the camp that hears a difference, then apply yourself to finding out why all things sound the same.  If you work assiduously to prove your opponent's case, you might actually help add more knowledge and understanding to your own case.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

Pretty sure it was me that asked that (post 80), but the only answer we got was work together.  :|
 

Sorry, posting on too many threads at the same time.
 
The key to finding an answer is a link from difference in how an opamps is made and measures to audibility of that difference. So if each side is going to adopt the others testing then the subjective side could start by measuring opamps to see if there is any difference and then ABX test them.
 
I can already say that I am affected by placebo and will listen to different opamps and will possibly hear a difference between them. I don't know though what that proves.

 

[Willakan]

The problem with the "debate" is really quite simple. A debate needs two sides to it.
 
Over smug and sarcastic? Yup. Generally true? Regrettably.
 
The amount of science, common sense and other miscellaneous accumulated human knowledge you would have to discard for the "everything makes an audible difference" side to sound vaguely plausible quite possibly explains the dwindling numbers engaged in this hobby.
 
 

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

You guys have to work together to decide what to test and how to test it.  I would suggest that each side apply themselves to working on the other side's behalf.  In other words, if you, for example are in the camp that all things sound the same, then apply yourself to proving why they sound differently.  If you're in the camp that hears a difference, then apply yourself to finding out why all things sound the same.  If you work assiduously to prove your opponent's case, you might actually help add more knowledge and understanding to your own case.

 
I am in another camp, which says I hear a difference sometimes and not others. I also have a very good idea as to why that it based on the evidence as presented by all sides.
 
My opponents cases are 'you cannot hear a difference', which becuase I have heard differences and so many credible people say they have heard differences is a nonsense. Also, 'there is a measurable/physical difference, I can hear a difference, therefore the difference is caused by the component' which is a non sequitur. The evidence of the audibility of what has been measured and blind/ABX testing and the influence of placebo suggests very strongly otherwise.
 
Do any opamp companies claim audible sound quality differences between different opamps? Do they behave like audiophile cable companies?
 
 

 

[anetode]

Is there some implication that opamps by their very nature are flawed? A variety of flaws would be the only sensible way to achieve audible differences and I've seen the tweako camp deride opamps in general as inferior to discrete solutions. That leads to an interesting question, what exactly is the technical weak link in opamps? From my limited knowledge of electronics they appear to be highly optimized ICs that can maintain their performance way beyond the demands of audio reproduction.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

This to me reads like a cable company's claims to audibility, suggested but not proven with any testing
 
http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LME49710.html#Overview
 
It would appear opamp makers are like cable amkers in that nothing is subject to peer review or other tests such as blind or ABX. There also appears to be no correleation between measurement and sound difference. Again, like cables all opamps aimed at the audiophile market produce the best sound, no matter how they are made.
 
 

 

[Albedo]

Maybe the difference in op-amps boils down to open loop amplification and which has the lowest, those discrete op-amps excel in that area and are very fast.

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Maybe the difference in op-amps boils down to open loop amplification and which has the lowest, those discrete op-amps excel in that area and are very fast.

 
Why? On the one hand, they are usually operated in a closed loop setup and on the other hand, an ideal op-amp has infinite open-loop gain.
 
 

 

[Albedo]

Why not..
 
Maybe discrete are better due to parasitic capacitance -> http://focus.ti.com/lit/an/sloa013a/sloa013a.pdf