Do solid state amplifiers sound the same ?

[medon]

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

Well, I didn't find hints of Paul pitching this burn-in as a added-value "feature" on either the website nor the manual of the M700s.

It's not like he is selling magical sound improving pyramids for 899 USD each (grab em, limited supplies...).

 

[MiffyRabbit]

@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.

I give respect to Rob Watts for sure then!

 

[bigshot]

Well, I didn't find hints of Paul pitching this burn-in as a added-value "feature" on either the website nor the manual of the M700s.

Didn’t you just post a video where he advertises that?

 

[medon]

Didn’t you just post a video where he advertises that?

Ha, indirectly -- yes!

But if I were in a market for an amp, maybe even specifically the M700, I wouldn't really find it if i tried.
But still -- of course, the whole ask-Paul series on YT is -- also -- marketing. True.

 

[gregorio]

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

And I hope you feel a little better for avoiding every single serious point/question put to you and posting this petulant response instead!

Yes.

Why is it not surprising that you’re not convinced by science/the facts and have been arguing against it for pages and yet “Yes” you are convinced by McGowan’s BS marketing even though you realise it’s marketing! That’s ridiculously funny to start with but posting it in a science discussion forum, priceless!

Perfectly said.

Why is it not surprising you would think that made-up BS presented as fact and strawman arguments from a hypocrite who apparently doesn’t even know what forum he’s posting in, all of which you actually quoted, is “Perfectly said”?!

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

Yes, it is truly ridiculous, so why are you doing it? The reason we get arrogance, ignorance and “truly Trumpian narcissism and idiocy” around here is because you keep posting it here! Why describe and complain about what you’re doing, instead of just stopping doing it?

It literally does not get more ignorant or “Truly Trumpian” than claiming that a charlatan who has contributed nothing to digital audio history (except marketing BS) is “one of the most celebrated digital audio designers in history” who has “made millions of people blissfully happy”! Neither of which is true and is pretty much exactly what a MAGA cultist deluded by Trump would say. So thanks for a near perfect example of “Trumpian narcissism and idiocy” but it is not wanted or even acceptable here and you need to stop doing it!!

G

 

[medon]

...

G

Would you mind sharing which personal experiences you have in ABX testing?
Which devices did you check?

 

[gregorio]

Would you mind sharing which personal experiences you have in ABX testing?
Which devices did you check?

I can’t share all of my personal experiences of ABX/DBT or objective measurement testing because there’s simply far too many over the years. But more importantly, how is that of any relevance whatsoever? Haven’t you worked out that this is the “Sound Science” forum, not the “What are my personal experiences” forum?

G

 

[medon]

I can’t share all of my personal experiences of ABX/DBT or objective measurement testing because there’s simply far too many over the years. But more importantly, how is that of any relevance whatsoever? Haven’t you worked out that this is the “Sound Science” forum, not the “What are my personal experiences” forum?

G

Just give us ONE example.
Otherwise I guess it's safe to assume that you did NONE.

 

[bigshot]

He is a professional sound engineer who has taught the subject. I think you’re barking up the wrong tree right now. If you’re planning on a “you’re not scientific enough” argument, you’ve picked the wrong person. You should be able to know that wouldn’t be the best line simply by looking at his posts. He walks the walk more than anyone else in this group.

 

[medon]

.... If you’re planning on a “you’re not scientific enough” argument, you’ve picked the wrong person....

Thanks for the hint, and no - I got the idea already that Giorgio is quite knowledgeable on the subject.
It was an honest question.

 

[gregorio]

Just give us ONE example.
Otherwise I guess it's safe to assume that you did NONE.

The first DBT I can most clearly recall doing would have been around 1993, between a Neumann U87, an AKG C414 and a Beyer MC740, which was particularly memorable because it was the first time I encountered a very unexpected result, although I did quite few other DBTs with other equipment around that time, I recall quite a few with near field monitors for example. Another particularly surprising one was around 1997, between 2 different external master clocks. I did numerous other DBTs between DACs, ADCs, amps and other gear and then around 1998 or 1999 I started doing ABX tests, initially with lossy codecs. The most recent ABX I did was just a few weeks ago, with a Zoom F8 and a Sound Devices MixPre 6. I’ve easily done a few hundred blind tests and far more ABX tests. In addition, I’ve done many hundreds, maybe even a couple of thousand Null tests over the years but even more commonly, measuring and comparing (at least once a day on average), different mic responses to the same signal probably being the most common. I can go on and on, some of the DBTs, ABXs and other tests I did with students were quite entertaining.

Again though, all this is completely irrelevant! Even if I had done NONE, what difference would that make? Again, this is the Sound Science forum not the “My experience” forum and anyway, an “Appeal to Authority” (my experience) would prove nothing except the ignorance of trying to use a fallacy as the basis for an argument!

G

 

[medon]

The first DBT I can most clearly recall doing would have been around 1993...
..
Again though, all this is completely irrelevant! Even if I had done NONE, what difference would that make? Again, this is the Sound Science forum not the “My experience” forum and anyway, an “Appeal to Authority” (my experience) would prove nothing except the ignorance of trying to use a fallacy as the basis for an argument!

Well, thanks for sharing! I hope I could already communicate that I do not pretend to have done any scientific tests, and I also follow the logic that this is the sound science forum. No intent from my side to question the reason and validity of proper testing.
If all goes well I'll have a quite stark contrast to my A-S3200 solid state amp by tomorrow night in the house -- still solid state, but low-powered class A instead of medium-powered A/B.
I will NOT bother anyone here with my findings. BUT if anyone's interested (more for fun) I can take some recordings of both amps and provide recorded WAVs.
Won't be scientific though.
Cheers!

 

[bigshot]

It isn’t hard to start doing controlled tests. The more you do the easier it is and the better you get at it.

Share your testing procedure and we’ll help you get it right. You want to eliminate variables and reduce error.

 

[Luckyleo]

Firstly, once upon a time Audio Engineers of all types used to contribute regularly to the audiophile world, because of course pretty much every audio engineer is an “audiophile” in the literal sense. However, the number willing to engage with the audiophile community has gradually reduced to almost zero, as they were systematically forced out by marketers with an opposite agenda to the science/facts and those zealots entirely suckered by it. For several decades now, engineers have viewed the audiophile community as just a bunch of deluded nutters who get upset and aggressive when presented with actual facts, so they just avoid it. With very few exceptions, the only engineers who do engage with the audiophile community, typically do so in the role of marketer (rather than engineer) and therefore need to perpetuate at least some of the audiophile myths. So audiophiles cannot now demand engineers to contribute when they’ve spent decades deliberately discrediting and flaming them!!

Secondly, why keep repeating the same falsehood over and over, even after it’s not only been refuted but clearly and obviously refuted? The very previous post to yours demonstrated that a hardware difference did not “make a difference” and blind testing was not even mentioned let alone repeated ad nauseam. However and YET AGAIN, if you wish to prove/demonstrate something is audible, then obviously a reliable/accurate (scientific) test of audibility is required, rather than an unreliable/inaccurate and unscientific test. And in a Sound Science discussion forum it does not require even average education or intelligence to figure out which is acceptable and which isn’t!

Engineering is the application of science and science is not a “viewpoint”, how many times? An engineer cannot be an engineer if they do not accept scientific theories!

But that is simply not true, they did NOT “found out” these components can have a big impact on sound quality! Not measuring (or measuring without understanding magnitude) and just using sighted impressions instead is NOT “finding out” because that does not rule out numerous other possibilities (such as perceptual biases, etc.) and therefore is pretty much the opposite of “finding out”!

Then don’t make untrue/false statements such as your previous sentence!

No, it’s not! Or more precisely, it is quite deep but was COMPREHENSIVELY figured out by the 1880’s, because audio technology relies on classical physics. You could potentially argue the (effective) law of thermal noise or principles or digital audio (which is applied mathematics rather than pure physics) which were calculated in the first half of the 1900’s but even so, it’s still a rabbit hole figured out over 70 years ago. The real rabbit hole is the magical, irrational nonsense cooked up by the audiophile community!

You’re just repeating the same fallacious argument, even after it’s been addressed more than once already! No one disputes there is a difference, indeed quite the opposite, as this is a science discussion forum and the scientific laws of physics demands that there must be a difference. The laws of thermodynamics require that random noise must be created in an analogue circuit and by definition of being “random” there will always be a difference, even with the exact same equipment, test signals and all other variables. So AGAIN, that is not the question/s and the actual questions have already been stated/explained, along with an example of how/when different components could not possibly make a different to what we hear.

You hope we are beyond the actual facts/science? Apart from myths, lies or delusions, what is beyond the facts/science?

How do you think sound is produced by your speakers/HPs if it is not measured?

Oh dear, that’s priceless! Is it really possible that an engineer (as you’ve claimed) does not understand the basics of statistics? What about when it’s explicitly explained in the very next paragraph after the data you quoted?!

The probability of that result of “Counterpoint vs NAD” occurring by pure chance was 5.6% (roughly 1 in 20), however that is ONLY if you fallaciously take that result in isolation. If you take it in the context of the whole test, then a single result of 1 in 20 being due to complete chance is not only plausible but actually probable! So “No!”, they did not “seemed pretty different” at all!

Furthermore, not only did you fail to understand that particular result you cited but you seemed to have focused on that one point and missed the rest of it, the whole point of the test! Namely, that not only vastly different price points but even topologies that are pretty much as different as is possible in the world of audio amps were not audible. So what rational conclusion are we left with other than you’re either: Not an engineer as you claimed but just a zealot “arguing from ignorance”, or that you actually are an engineer but are deliberately misrepresenting the facts and attempting to deceive others?

G

Having read this thread from start to finish, I must say you are an extremely rude person. I've been on Head-fi since 2009 and you take the cake by far. Not close. Frankly, I will never be back here to hear you "scream" at me that I'm ignorant and a patsy for listening to my music and making determinations about what's right for me. If you were serious about this, and genuinely wanted to help those heathens like me, you would at least try to be calm and friendly. (Maybe this is you being calm and friendly, I do not know). Is it required to be rude in order to contribute to this forum?

Anyway, enjoy your false sense of superiority.

See ya!!

 

[bigshot]

You can believe whatever you want, but if you want to believe things that aren’t true, You shouldn’t get mad when people point that out. He never insulted you personally. You could learn things from other people if you set aside your ego and engaged on point.

When I go into an Internet forum it’s to learn from people who know things I don’t know and to share things with others. I try not to talk about things I don’t have knowledge of. I let better informed people handle those topics. You might want to consider that.