[bigshot]

I love how I posted the results from a VERY careful and controlled test conducted by Stereo Review suddenly becomes "casual" and "flawed" when you don't like what it says. I was asked for evidence. I gave it. It's not my fault if "clear and convincing" isn't good enough for you! Read it and weep.
 
Anything that is likely to cause problems with small headphones is probably going to cause much more trouble big with speakers.
 
Just about all solid state amps with sufficient power and performing to specs sound the same.

 

[mikeaj]

I was referring to most hobbyist trials as casual, both with results supporting and going against the null hypothesis, not some better-controlled (but of course nothing is perfect) testing like the Stereo Review published.  Sorry for the confusion.  
 
Though for the record, I think it would be good for every test resulting in a null result to run some kind of trial to gauge the responsiveness of the setup and the listeners.  For example, if they also slipped in a comparison with a slight fraction of a dB tweak in EQ (or some other controlled change), and people could tell that from all of the amps that they couldn't tell apart, then that would be a stronger result.  That's just an example; in practice it would have to be more than a slight fraction of a dB change, I'd think.
 
My feeling is that some people find small angles of attack against reasonably well-done studies and then point to personal anecdotes, which are riddled with far more holes.  If you're going to keep very stringent standards—which I think is a fine idea—then I don't think I've heard of any listening test with results against the null hypothesis, that come close to clearing those.

 

[bigshot]

My feeling is that some people find small angles of attack against reasonably well-done studies and then point to personal anecdotes, which are riddled with far more holes.

Add "and then throw up a smoke screen of highly technical theoretical trivia" and you will have covered just about all the bases in one sentence!

 

[firev1]

Quote:

 
That works too, KGSSHV can't keep up.  If you read closer you can see I was comparing the B22 to the O2, which 'should sound the same'. 

    
 
Yes the T2 is a hybrid, it's probably got more transistors than my first PC.  

Quite a bunch of listening was done where a few diyaudio people acknowledge that there was no difference between the 2 amplifiers. Whether acknowledging that as real or the guy having a problem with his ears, that is up to you. 
 
I think voldemort did a complex load test on his blog once to show the advantages of a 0 ohm amplifier.

 

[tmars78]

I wish I had the money to buy high end things and then do some blind tests. Just for my own satisfaction and enjoyment. I also wish that people who post things like, "I can clearly hear the difference" would actually put those words they say to the test. I am in the camp of if they are the same spec, and not flawed, amps and cd players should sound the same. Of course I have never tested this, but I've read enough from both sides, to know which side I fall on. 
 
Maybe I will blind test the DVD/CD players I have in my computer. One is like a $20 Lite-on and the other is a $200 LG Blu-ray player/burner. Many may say my equipment isn't good enough to hear the differences, and that might be the case, I don't know. I do know that it is good enough to hear the difference in codecs a good deal of the time. So if the difference is bigger than those slight differences, I should be able to hear it. Just have to figure out a good way of going about it. Maybe I could rip tracks from each, and use Foobar's ABX thing. 
 
ETA: Actually, that wouldn't really matter. They have no sound, they are only transports. I dunno what I was thinking. Can transports be different? 

 

[qusp]

Quote:

the Stax T2 is most definitely a Hybrid - just uses input diff pair tubes, one output tube/stator drive cascode MOSFET buffered, MOSFET diff pair gain stage, SS parts used in level shifting, buffers, output ccs - ~ 2x more SS parts than a complete KGSS amp

 
OK perhaps i'll ask Tom what he meant, obviously its not ALL tubes in the whole thing and is supported by SS, not least the batteries (not the normal kind), but I gather its signal path is more tube than BHSE, He flipped his KGSS before I got to hear it, he built all 3 (Nattonrice). i'm not really into tubes so I didnt ask much about it. its a slippery slope i'm trying to avoid thinking about until after i've finished building my speakers.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

I was asked for evidence. I gave it. It's not my fault if "clear and convincing" isn't good enough for you! Read it and weep.

 
No you didn't.  You gave nothing that supports all your claims about all receivers, all cd players, all amps, all whatever absolutes you keep spouting off about.  Test results are limited to the scope of the tests.  Rather than focus on the definition of 'null hypothesis' some of you would be better to understand what a 'hypothesis' or 'claim' is first.
 
And  no they are NOT good enough for me and they shouldn't be for you or anyone else with an inkling of critical analysis.  But there you go.  Everything is apparently good enough for you unless it's disagreeable.  The fact that some here can only read these 'studies' and links through a single prism speaks volumes about how they extrapolate their conclusions to religious absolutes.

 

[mikeaj]

Quote:

I wish I had the money to buy high end things and then do some blind tests. Just for my own satisfaction and enjoyment. I also wish that people who post things like, "I can clearly hear the difference" would actually put those words they say to the test. I am in the camp of if they are the same spec, and not flawed, amps and cd players should sound the same. Of course I have never tested this, but I've read enough from both sides, to know which side I fall on. 
 
Maybe I will blind test the DVD/CD players I have in my computer. One is like a $20 Lite-on and the other is a $200 LG Blu-ray player/burner. Many may say my equipment isn't good enough to hear the differences, and that might be the case, I don't know. I do know that it is good enough to hear the difference in codecs a good deal of the time. So if the difference is bigger than those slight differences, I should be able to hear it. Just have to figure out a good way of going about it. Maybe I could rip tracks from each, and use Foobar's ABX thing. 
 
ETA: Actually, that wouldn't really matter. They have no sound, they are only transports. I dunno what I was thinking. Can transports be different? 

 
Some people say that transports make a difference, but there are fewer taking that position.
 
 
 
 

 
No you didn't.  You gave nothing that supports all your claims about all receivers, all cd players, all amps, all whatever absolutes you keep spouting off about.  Test results are limited to the scope of the tests.  Rather than focus on the definition of 'null hypothesis' some of you would be better to understand what a 'hypothesis' or 'claim' is first.
 
And  no they are NOT good enough for me and they shouldn't be for you or anyone else with an inkling of critical analysis.  But there you go.  Everything is apparently good enough for you unless it's disagreeable.  The fact that some here can only read these 'studies' and links through a single prism speaks volumes about how they extrapolate their conclusions to religious absolutes.

 
 
Okay, let's be real... these are the findings:
 
25 listeners could not reliably distinguish between the amps tested in blind A-B testing (probably, no raw data given) in the listening tests performed.  Sounds used, speakers and other audio components, listening volume, and exact testing protocol are unknown.  Actually, listening volume is probably not earth-shattering, since all amps were not driven into clipping (or maybe just sensitive speakers used).  Maybe differences are easier to tell at a higher volume, for instance.  Listeners were given experience with the amplifiers in a sighted session prior to being tested.  In the sighted session, people thought they could distinguish the amps, even some of those participants that were not expecting to hear differences.
 
So what would you want different?  More trials?  More listeners?  More amps?  A more sensitive test (how? in what way?) or otherwise a different testing protocol?  
 
Are you saying that the test has big problems (what are they?), or just that it can't be used to extrapolate to (most) all amps / all situations with absolute certainty?

 

[wuwhere]

My version of a blind test is inserting an equipment in my system, my listening room, my music. So the only variable is the new equipment.

 

[bigshot]

No you didn't.

Yes I did. Thanks for playing! We have some lovely parting gifts for you. Buh bye!

 

[bigshot]

My version of a blind test is inserting an equipment in my system, my listening room, my music. So the only variable is the new equipment.

All of us are on our way over to your house. You better have pizza!

 

[xnor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anaxilus /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Rather than focus on the definition of 'null hypothesis' some of you would be better to understand what a 'hypothesis' or 'claim' is first.

Really? That is coming from you? Btw, I'm still waiting for answers for my previous questions.
 
More questions waiting for answers:
Quote:

And  no they are NOT good enough for me and they shouldn't be for you or anyone else with an inkling of critical analysis.

Then what IS good enough for you? What kind of tests do you need? Why don't you do them (repeatable tests) to support your claims?

 

[dvw]

Quote:

 
Some people say that transports make a difference, but there are fewer taking that position.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Okay, let's be real... these are the findings:
 
25 listeners could not reliably distinguish between the amps tested in blind A-B testing (probably, no raw data given) in the listening tests performed.  Sounds used, speakers and other audio components, listening volume, and exact testing protocol are unknown.  Actually, listening volume is probably not earth-shattering, since all amps were not driven into clipping (or maybe just sensitive speakers used).  Maybe differences are easier to tell at a higher volume, for instance.  Listeners were given experience with the amplifiers in a sighted session prior to being tested.  In the sighted session, people thought they could distinguish the amps, even some of those participants that were not expecting to hear differences.
 
So what would you want different?  More trials?  More listeners?  More amps?  A more sensitive test (how? in what way?) or otherwise a different testing protocol?  
 
Are you saying that the test has big problems (what are they?), or just that it can't be used to extrapolate to (most) all amps / all situations with absolute certainty?

you should know better by now.
 
1. You need trained profeesionals. You need to borrow 25 guys that QA cables for a living.
2. You need to provide for a non-stress enviroment. Nice comfy sofa, relaxing music. Oh, scratch that. Maybe a hot tub with hot chicks and wine instead.
3. The equipment need to be high resolving. A CD player with 44.1KHz just won't do. You need to get a turntable and make sure the LP are demagnetized before you play it.

 

[eugenius]

This thread jumped the shark. Unsubscribe.

 

[bigshot]

I think what happened here is that the question was answered. It doesn't happen often on internet forums. It's a cause for celebration.