Do all amps sound the same.
Feb 19, 2009 at 4:13 AM Post #76 of 112
Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Let me rephrase:

I would like to base my opinions on some sort of scientific data.

So, do you believe in science? This is a critical question that must be answered so I will know how to respond.

If you do not believe in science, what do you base your belief system on?



I'm not sure how to answer the question: Do I believe in science? It's a question that is a little ambiguous and overbroad. But I would say that I believe that science, including the scientific method, can reveal, and has revealed, many truths about the world we live in. It is also prone to error, since it is a system or a body of knowledge that involves humans, which are prone to error and other imperfections. And there are many, many instances of science pronouncing something as a fact, that turned out not to be a fact. Like any discipline, science has its strengths and weaknesses. I'm not sure if that helps, but I don't know how to be more specific at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It is very difficult, for instance, to counter the proposition that "the world is flat", if the people you are discussing it with base their belief systems on personal perceptions?



You use the word "perceptions" but one could also use the word "observations." Those are part of the scientific method also. If someone traveled around the world and ended up where they started, I would think that particular "observation" would be rather probative of the world being round.
o2smile.gif


Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Regarding your friends cold: I submit to you that it is the nasal sound from a stuffed nose that tells you someone has a cold.


No, his voice wasn't nasal at all. It was deeper. But either way, the point is that the tonal quality of his voice was different, and my memory of his voice was good enough that I could hear it right away, even though I had not spoken to him for two weeks.
 
Feb 19, 2009 at 4:46 AM Post #77 of 112
Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Yes, you're right. But that's an inadequate analogy. In your example you are convinced to have an effective drug in your body -- you can't test it yourself. Whereas you can compare your two power amps any time -- and will do if you're curious about the differences. And if the differences are consistent, you don't have to worry about the placebo effect.


Sad, but true. It's just that cable- and amp-sound believers effectively don't base their certainties on belief (contrary to the designation), but on own experience. At best they believe in their own senses (instead of data) -- if you want to call this belief.


I have done my best to explain my reservation against DBT in my previous post.


I'm not sure what exactly you mean with «baseless prevailing opinion». My way of evaluating gear has proven to be of value. I base my decision mostly on positive reviews. To really get to know the amp or cable I'm interested in, I have to try it in my system. And if I'm not satisfied (which doesn't happen too often, luckily), I have to sell it with some loss. What you seem to have in mind -- DBT cables and amps and speakers -- is simply not practicable.


A while ago I've seen a report (I think it was from a link on Head-Fi) of a test. A band was playing on a stage, recorded with studio equipment and played back through a high-quality speaker system, alternating with the live play -- behind a curtain. The public couldn't identify which was the band and which was the reproduction.

I expect one of the next threads to be something like this: «All decently designed speakers sound like a live concert.»
icon10.gif

.



JaZZ I did not bring up DBT but since you brought it up, check this out:

From a paper delivered at the October 1991 AES Convention by David Clark

Ten years of A/B/X Testing

"Experience from many years of double-blind listening tests of audio equipment is summarized. The results are generally consistent with threshold estimates from psychoacoustic literature, that is, listeners often fail to prove they can hear a difference after non-controlled listening suggested that there was one. However, the fantasy of audible differences continues despite the fact of audibility thresholds."

Against this there are manufacturer claims, snake oil, and placebo effects but no hard data. Just good people who believe they can hear differences as long as they can see the amps they are listening to.

USG
 
Feb 19, 2009 at 4:58 AM Post #78 of 112
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm not sure how to answer the question: Do I believe in science? It's a question that is a little ambiguous and overbroad. But I would say that I believe that science, including the scientific method, can reveal, and has revealed, many truths about the world we live in. It is also prone to error, since it is a system or a body of knowledge that involves humans, which are prone to error and other imperfections. And there are many, many instances of science pronouncing something as a fact, that turned out not to be a fact. Like any discipline, science has its strengths and weaknesses. I'm not sure if that helps, but I don't know how to be more specific at this point.

You use the word "perceptions" but one could also use the word "observations." Those are part of the scientific method also. If someone traveled around the world and ended up where they started, I would think that particular "observation" would be rather probative of the world being round.
o2smile.gif


No, his voice wasn't nasal at all. It was deeper. But either way, the point is that the tonal quality of his voice was different, and my memory of his voice was good enough that I could hear it right away, even though I had not spoken to him for two weeks.



LOL, just when I delete all my posts and swear I'll have nothing more to do with this, I get dragged back in........

Let's talk about science for a minute. You say it "has revealed, many truths about the world we live in."

I'm curious what truths you feel it has not revealed?

USG
 
Feb 19, 2009 at 5:16 AM Post #79 of 112
Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Let's talk about science for a minute. You say it "has revealed, many truths about the world we live in."

I'm curious what truths you feel it has not revealed?



I don't know how to answer that -- because it's so broad, nor I am sure how it helps. Here's one. It hasn't revealed precisely what causes many types of cancer yet and how to cure them. There are probably an almost infinite number of other things it hasn't revealed yet either. I'm not sure a discussion of the intricacies of science is really material, however.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe all amps sound the same, i.e. that all SS amps sound the same as all tube amps, which sound the same as all other tube amps? Or do you believe only certain amps sound the same, such as all SS amps? I see you've deleted your previous posts, so I'm not even sure what precisely we disagree about at this point -- relative to the topic of the thread.
 
Feb 19, 2009 at 5:57 AM Post #80 of 112
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I don't know how to answer that -- because it's so broad, nor I am sure how it helps. Here's one. It hasn't revealed precisely what causes many types of cancer yet and how to cure them. There are probably an almost infinite number of other things it hasn't revealed yet either. I'm not sure a discussion of the intricacies of science is really material, however.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe all amps sound the same, i.e. that all SS amps sound the same as all tube amps, which sound the same as all other tube amps? Or do you believe only certain amps sound the same, such as all SS amps? I see you've deleted your previous posts, so I'm not even sure what precisely we disagree about at this point -- relative to the topic of the thread.



Re the "Truths": what I meant was something that might have been revealed that was not due to science.....
atsmile.gif


Re Do all amps sound the same: Well, the data certainly points to it. It's been 18 years since the above paper was presented and its title was "10 years of testing".... so we're talking 28 years of testing with the same results. That's a long time. (But remember, this doesn't include preamps.)
smile.gif


USG
 
Feb 19, 2009 at 6:31 AM Post #81 of 112
Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Re the "Truths": what I meant was something that might have been revealed that was not due to science.....


Oh. Well, there are a lot of things, including one really important one, but we're getting off track. And we're going to have lots of definitional issues and semantic issues if we go down that road.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Do all amps sound the same: Well, the data certainly points to it. It's been 18 years since the above paper was presented and its title was "10 years of testing".... so we're talking 28 years of testing with the same results. That's a long time.


I haven't read that paper, and the summary you provided doesn't provide any specifics, but have you listened to any tube amps? Do you really think that all tubes sound the same? Do you think that if someone wanted to make an amp that sounded different from another amp, they could not do it? I mean, I've heard people say all SS amps sound that same as long as they are of a certain configuration and are not driven to clipping, but it's pretty rare that someone will actually contend that all amps -- tube or SS -- sound the same.
 
Feb 19, 2009 at 12:05 PM Post #82 of 112
Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Re the "Truths": what I meant was something that might have been revealed that was not due to science.....
atsmile.gif



*cough* *choke* *gag* *death*
 
Feb 19, 2009 at 12:36 PM Post #83 of 112
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm saying two things, at least for now.

First, people often vaguely refer to studies that they claim show aural memory to be very short, and they claim that people cannot remember the sound of something they heard as little as 10 minutes ago, and that this shows that A/B switching has to be fast. The studies that have actually been referred to, however, involve short test tones and the subject is required to state whether the test tone he or she is hearing now is similar or different to the test tone they heard earlier. This is not comparable to listening to the sound of a complex musical passage. Nobody has ever been able to refer me to a study that involves listening to a musical passage. That doesn't mean they don't exist; it's just nobody ever refers me to one.



1 minute and not even 10 minutes. Where does it state the ABX testing was done with test tones only? I just read a .pdf article I downloaded with top 10 lies in audio. The article says people who discount ABX testing by making up red herrings are idiophiles and not audiophiles. They said it and not me so don't shoot the messenger.
evil_smiley.gif
 
Feb 19, 2009 at 12:44 PM Post #84 of 112
Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I base my decision mostly on positive reviews.
.



But someone in this thread told me to not to give 'What HiFi' reviews any credibility even though they have been around for many years and are a credible stereo review magazine. Who am I to believe?
 
Feb 19, 2009 at 12:47 PM Post #85 of 112
Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif

I expect one of the next threads to be something like this: «All decently designed speakers sound like a live concert.»
icon10.gif

.



No, I think it is unanimous that different speakers do sound different. We are discussing amps so keep to the subject, please.
 
Feb 19, 2009 at 12:52 PM Post #86 of 112
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif
No, his voice wasn't nasal at all. It was deeper. But either way, the point is that the tonal quality of his voice was different, and my memory of his voice was good enough that I could hear it right away, even though I had not spoken to him for two weeks.


That's because it was a night and day difference. We are discussing amps though and amps don't get colds. Even most that claim they do sound different admit they only account for about 5% difference in sound quality. Room acoustics have a far greater effect on sound quality than amp does.
 
Feb 19, 2009 at 6:08 PM Post #87 of 112
Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif
1 minute and not even 10 minutes. Where does it state the ABX testing was done with test tones only? I just read a .pdf article I downloaded with top 10 lies in audio. The article says people who discount ABX testing by making up red herrings are idiophiles and not audiophiles. They said it and not me so don't shoot the messenger.


If you read my posts, you'll see I'm not talking about ABX testing. I'm talking about studies that have been referenced that supposedly show that aural memory is short. The studies that have been referenced have always involved short test tones. I realized short test tones are not used in the ABX testing of audio equipment we are talking about. I am talking about something entirely different.

I know the article about the 10 biggest lies in audio. It's a well-know article. Lie nuumber 11 is that the guy that wrote it has a brain.
 
Feb 19, 2009 at 6:14 PM Post #88 of 112
Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif
That's because it was a night and day difference. We are discussing amps though and amps don't get colds. Even most that claim they do sound different admit they only account for about 5% difference in sound quality. Room acoustics have a far greater effect on sound quality than amp does.


Can you give me any support for your statement that people who believe in amp differences believe they only account for a "5% difference in sound quality"? I've never seen such a study or reference. Also, can you point me to a study showing that room acoustics have a far greater effect on sound quality than an amp does? I would be interested in seeing such a study, particularly to see how they dealt with the fact that there are many different types of amps and rooms.

On the other hand, if you statements are just ipse dixits, just say so.

As to the "night and day" difference because my friend had a cold, how do you know? You don't even know the guy.
 
Feb 19, 2009 at 6:18 PM Post #89 of 112
Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif
No, I think it is unanimous that different speakers do sound different.


Who cares? It's not a majority vote, right? Isn't the only issue whether there is a DBT showing that speakers sound different? I assume there are some, I don't know. But more important, don't you need a DBT on the particular speakers you are considering that shows they sound different than what you have before you upgrade? Otherwise, you're just basing your decision on your ears, which is not appropriate, right?
 
Feb 19, 2009 at 7:06 PM Post #90 of 112
I've had a bunch of amps and they all sound similar, but not the same. The varistions are what were into, to seek out the best. I use my ears, and if it sounds good to me, then i'm happy. And i can tell the difference if my hd650s are plugged into my onkyo 805 or my DV332!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top