Do solid state amplifiers sound the same ?

[Ryokan]

Don't take it so seriously.
Live is full of serious issues and problems. Let's not make this hobby another reason for people to fight.

Have a nice day

Cheers.

Just goes to show you shouldn't always judge people by their avatar

 

[bigshot]

You think he did? I thought it was rhetorical, like "the difference is so obvious my wife could hear it blindfolded while solving a Rubik's cube underwater near the airport".

He said clearly that he recently did a blind, level matched listening test. He could be just grabbing at straws and telling us what he knows we’ll demand. Or maybe he did do a test. If he’s interested enough to expend the effort to try to do a test, I’ll support that. If he’s lying about doing a controlled test, his explanation of his procedures will reveal that.

Of course if you want to weed out time wasters as soon as they reveal their stripes, I’ll certainly support that. I still think we keep dealing with the same handful of trolls using burner accounts over and over. You could look at it as fun, like whack a mole.

 

[Ryokan]

Does it make a difference if a listening test is between class A / Class B or Class D amps?

 

[gregorio]

Sorry @gregorio and @Vamp898, it is just not a discussion I can take seriously. All amps sound the same?

It’s not a discussion anyone can take seriously because you just made-up a false lie and then questioned if it’s false. Duh, what do you think, you’re the one who made it up?! How many more times are you going to keep making-up BS assertions and presenting them as fact in response to being called out for doing that?

If I hear a difference that means the amp is faulty or poorly made?

As it was possible to make audibly transparent amps at modest cost 40 or so years ago, then a modern amp that costs more and according to you, fails to achieve audible transparency is what, not faulty and is brilliantly made?

To me it is just utter BS and simply ridiculous.

Agreed, so the alternative is that modern more expensive amps do indeed achieve what even 40 year old modestly priced amps did (audible transparency) and therefore; the “according to you” is wrong and the response to “if I hear a difference” is that you don’t! So, you are contradicting yourself, which is it: The “just utter BS and simply ridiculous” all modern amps are effectively faulty or that in fact you do not hear a difference??

Your combative and unkind, almost hostile attitude also doesn't help too much.

You come to a science discussion forum, make-up false assertions and present them as fact, which is pretty much the most rude, combative and hostile thing you can do in a science discussion forum and then you have the nerve to claim that our “attitude doesn’t help too much”?

If you can't hear that difference or consider it to be a fault, you are probably in the wrong hobby.

And you think you’re in the right hobby if you can hear differences that are inaudible or don’t even exist? What about if you consider an amplifier or a DAC to not “be a fault” for not transparently achieving its sole purpose of amplifying or converting from digital to analogue, which were achievable transparently decades ago?

We simply live in two different realities.

Of course we don’t, unless you’re claiming to live in a parallel universe with different physical laws? We live in the same reality but you will not/cannot accept the proven facts/science and instead have made-up BS ones which you falsely present as facts and which you unbelievably somehow don’t realise you’ve just made-up. Or maybe you do realise but are just effectively trolling, making up more BS to laughably try to defend your previous BS?

Let me put it differently then: those who can't hear a difference between amplifiers have a smaller field to discover in this hobby.

Isn’t “this hobby” listening to music recordings? If so, then how does not hearing a difference where there is no audible difference reduce the number of music recordings (cause “a smaller field to discover”)? Are you admitting that your “hobby” is not in fact being an “audiophile” (lover of high fidelity audio/music recordings) but instead, just listening to/“discovering” a bigger “field” of audio equipment (and experiencing differences that are inaudible)?

Live and let live is the phrase that comes to mind.

You’re joking, do you really not even know what science is, or why it was invented? That it was invented to separate superstitions, myths and BS from the actual facts and therefore obviously we cannot let your BS “live”!

Anything wrong with my interpretation of the significance between the two amps?
Don't generalize, stick with the statistics that concern these two amps.

I’ve already told you what’s (very) wrong with your fallacious interpretation of the statistics concerning these two amps and so did the article you cited, in even more detail! The fact that you don’t know what’s wrong with your interpretation and have to ask (even though it’s already been explained twice), seems to have answered my question, albeit indirectly!

Here's Paul's take on the subject...

Another classic; citing one of the most famous (infamous) audiophile marketing bullsh*tters in the history of audiophile marketing BS and doing so in an actual Sound Science discussion forum, what a beauty! Are you really so incapable of identifying obvious BS or are you just trolling?
@MiffyRabbit the cited guy is arguably even worse than Rob Watts, as at least Watts appears very well informed and tells the truth about some areas of audio. Paul McGowan on the other hand does not appear well informed about anything (besides BS) and I don’t recall any instances of him telling the truth about any area of audio in the several videos of his I’ve had the displeasure to view. However, I’m not entirely sure if he actually claims to be an engineer and therefore whether he is an engineer/Marketer or only a Marketer.

G

 

[betula]

It’s not a discussion anyone can take seriously because you just made-up a false lie and then questioned if it’s false. Duh, what do you think, you’re the one who made it up?! How many more times are you going to keep making-up BS assertions and presenting them as fact in response to being called out for doing that?

As it was possible to make audibly transparent amps at modest cost 40 or so years ago, then a modern amp that costs more and according to you, fails to achieve audible transparency is what, not faulty and is brilliantly made?

Agreed, so the alternative is that modern more expensive amps do indeed achieve what even 40 year old modestly priced amps did (audible transparency) and therefore; the “according to you” is wrong and the response to “if I hear a difference” is that you don’t! So, you are contradicting yourself, which is it: The “just utter BS and simply ridiculous” all modern amps are effectively faulty or that in fact you do not hear a difference??

You come to a science discussion forum, make-up false assertions and present them as fact, which is pretty much the most rude, combative and hostile thing you can do in a science discussion forum and then you have the nerve to claim that our “attitude doesn’t help too much”?

And you think you’re in the right hobby if you can hear differences that are inaudible or don’t even exist? What about if you consider an amplifier or a DAC to not “be a fault” for not transparently achieving its sole purpose of amplifying or converting from digital to analogue, which were achievable transparently decades ago?

Of course we don’t, unless you’re claiming to live in a parallel universe with different physical laws? We live in the same reality but you will not/cannot accept the proven facts/science and instead have made-up BS ones which you falsely present as facts and which you unbelievably somehow don’t realise you’ve just made-up. Or maybe you do realise but are just effectively trolling, making up more BS to laughably try to defend your previous BS?

Isn’t “this hobby” listening to music recordings? If so, then how does not hearing a difference where there is no audible difference reduce the number of music recordings (cause “a smaller field to discover”)? Are you admitting that your “hobby” is not in fact being an “audiophile” (lover of high fidelity audio/music recordings) but instead, just listening to/“discovering” a bigger “field” of audio equipment (and experiencing differences that are inaudible)?

You’re joking, do you really not even know what science is, or why it was invented? That it was invented to separate superstitions, myths and BS from the actual facts and therefore obviously we cannot let your BS “live”!

I’ve already told you what’s (very) wrong with your fallacious interpretation of the statistics concerning these two amps and so did the article you cited, in even more detail! The fact that you don’t know what’s wrong with your interpretation and have to ask (even though it’s already been explained twice), seems to have answered my question, albeit indirectly!

Another classic; citing one of the most famous (infamous) audiophile marketing bullsh*tters in the history of audiophile marketing BS and doing so in an actual Sound Science discussion forum, what a beauty! Are you really so incapable of identifying obvious BS or are you just trolling?
@MiffyRabbit the cited guy is arguably even worse than Rob Watts, as at least Watts appears very well informed and tells the truth about some areas of audio. Paul McGowan on the other hand does not appear well informed about anything (besides BS) and I don’t recall any instances of him telling the truth about any area of audio in the several videos of his I’ve had the displeasure to view. However, I’m not entirely sure if he actually claims to be an engineer and therefore whether he is an engineer/Marketer or only a Marketer.

G

I hope, you feel a little better after this essay.

 

[castleofargh]

Here's Paul's take on the subject...

That's convincing to you? Zero information about the testing method, and from further comments it seems fair to assume it's not done blind. All he's saying is what he thinks happens, and then comes up with rationals like the changes in caps over time to try and justify casual impressions. No measurement showing the amplitude of change, no evidence that those are audible. Just good old cognitive ease, an intuitive explanation that looks credible enough to not bother looking any further.
Of course, caps change over time, and I guess with the aluminium capacitor plague of early 2000, it's easy to develop a lasting capacitor paranoia.

He enters the room and knows if the DAC is new. Oh well, that's it then, now we know. That surely is conclusive about burn in...
Think about all the times he could enter the room with a new DAC and not notice. Those events wouldn't register in his mind because he's not made aware of them. What if half the time he thinks it's a new DAC, it's not, but his brain rapidly forgets the unpleasant cases where he got it wrong, so over time he remembers mostly getting it right? What if when he asks people around him if it's a new DAC, they don't know or tell him yes, so he's happy and leaves them alone? What if he noticed activity in that room earlier in the day and that's what makes his brain predict a change instead of sound? Or maybe different placement of the gear or even a different model of DAC in the rack, or the wiring layout is visibly changed and while he doesn't actively notice(or maybe he does), perhaps his brain uses that knowledge of change for sound?
Perhaps he's right. But as only one possibility among many, the truth is, we don't know. That is the correct conclusion, given how little information we got from that anecdote, and I'll extend that to the entire video.

And a capacitor is 2 sheets of conductors that sandwich an insulating material to balance positive and negative charges. His paper demo only has one. Not important, but it shows the rigor of content and amount of efforts put in those videos.

 

[medon]

That's convincing to you? ...

Yes.

Here's the point that convinces me:
Paul puts HIS money into an additional manufacturing process for (at least) the M700s: additional break-in after the product is assembled.
He states he does this in order to minimize the number of returns during the 30-days period in which customers could send back the product, b/c in his very own opinion the M700s leave something to be desired when assembled from brand-new parts without any prior use.

Paul also states that in his experience different amp designs tend to exhibit different degrees of improvements during/after break-in.
He mentions the Stellar M700 mono's to improve more noticable after break-in, as compared to the BHK series.
These are two completely different amp designs which probably share nothing in common (technically) except for the PS Audio badge on the casing.
Maybe it's not a lot of money per piece, but still it means more handling, more possible mishaps during handling... whatever.

Coming back to the M700 break-in:
No sane business man would invest more Dollars into his production processes if not needed/useful.
Now please don't tell me that Paul doesn't know how to run a business, or has no idea about HiFi.

His brand and company seem pretty down-to-earth and far from esoteric to me, but that's just my opinion.

Forget aboud "sound science", this is business.

 

[castleofargh]

Yes.

Here's the point that convinces me:
Paul puts HIS money into an additional manufacturing process for (at least) the M700s: additional break-in after the product is assembled.
He states he does this in order to minimize the number of returns during the 30-days period in which customers could send back the product, b/c in his very own opinion the M700s leave something to be desired when assembled from brand-new parts without any prior use.

Paul also states that in his experience different amp designs tend to exhibit different degrees of improvements during/after break-in.
He mentions the Stellar M700 mono's to improve more noticable after break-in, as compared to the BHK series.
These are two completely different amp designs which probably share nothing in common (technically) except for the PS Audio badge on the casing.
Maybe it's not a lot of money per piece, but still it means more handling, more possible mishaps during handling... whatever.

Coming back to the M700 break-in:
No sane business man would invest more Dollars into his production processes if not needed/useful.
Now please don't tell me that Paul doesn't know how to run a business, or has no idea about HiFi.

His brand and company seem pretty down-to-earth and far from esoteric to me, but that's just my opinion.

Forget aboud "sound science", this is business.

But none of that demonstrates audibility, qualifies or quantifies change. It's a plausible rational you make. I can make others.
He could be wrong, but thanks to poor testing, be convinced of the merits of burn in. Or he could do it because his clients believe it matters, and it makes the amps special in some way which is surely billable. And of course they could simply test run those amps because they found out that like most products, Some issue tends to happen early on if at all, and it's cheaper to power them a bunch of hours and remove the lemons, than to deal with unhappy customers and the cost of delivery after repair/replacement. Perhaps the other amp doesn't have this because it has a much lower failure rate in the first days of operation?
See how creative I can be with somewhat plausible ideas. All that is speculation.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Sorry @gregorio and @Vamp898, it is just not a discussion I can take seriously. All amps sound the same? If I hear a difference that means the amp is faulty or poorly made? If I find an amp boring, that in fact means the headphones are boring (which are probably the most exciting sounding headphones I have ever heard). To me it is just utter BS and simply ridiculous. Like arguing with a blind man about the shade of blue you see on the sky. Or saying every violin sound the same because they have 4 strings.
I thought I am just leaving a random post in a random thread, haven't realised I am in the science section. (Almost as bad as ASR.) Put my hand in the wrong beehive, I guess. Your combative and unkind, almost hostile attitude also doesn't help too much. We simply live in two different realities. To me amps make the second biggest difference in the audio chain after headphones. If you can't hear that difference or consider it to be a fault, you are probably in the wrong hobby.

Perfectly said.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Watts appears very well informed and tells the truth about some areas of audio.

@betula

Don't take it personally. Notice, gregorio just said that arguably one of the most celebrated digital audio designers in history, who's personally designed products that sound incredible and which have for decades made millions of people around the world blissfully happy listening to music "appears very well informed and tells the truth about some areas of audio."

That's the level of arrogance and ignorance you get around here. Truly Trumpian narcissism and idiocy.

 

[1oad3r]

Also notice how Betula was called out for posting an “unsubstantiated claim”. This thread is 18 pages long full of them, devoid of much if any scientific evidence or references, just the usual dogma and “audio science stopped in 1980”. Shame, could have been an interesting discussion.

 

[medon]

We're both doing some speculations here, true!

But none of that demonstrates audibility, qualifies or quantifies change. It's a plausible rational you make. I can make others.

Fair enough.

...Or he could do it because his clients believe it matters, and it makes the amps special in some way which is surely billable.

Could be, although a brief scan through the website and manual of the M700 did not reveal that Paul actually markets the burn-in. I may have overlooked something, though.

And of course they could simply test run those amps because they found out that like most products, Some issue tends to happen early on if at all, and it's cheaper to power them a bunch of hours and remove the lemons, than to deal with unhappy customers and the cost of delivery after repair/replacement
Perhaps the other amp doesn't have this because it has a much lower failure rate in the first days of operation?
See how creative I can be with somewhat plausible ideas. All that is speculation.

Absolutely plausible possibility, I don't want to disagree.

Cheers!

 

[Ryokan]

Bob Carver.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge

 

[bigshot]

Here's the point that convinces me:
Paul puts HIS money into an additional manufacturing process for (at least) the M700s: additional break-in after the product is assembled.

High end audio is full of solutions to problems that don’t exist. These serve as selling points to ignorant people with slippery logic.

 

[Whazzzup]