[Phronesis]

I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but just to remind you... you're posting in the sound science forum. Everyone has to accept unsubstantiated claims based on ignorance and bias in the other forums here on HeadFi, but this forum is different. We practice scientism. If it makes you uncomfortable. this might not be the place for you.

May want to read up on scientism before you proclaim that on behalf of the forum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Don't worry, my comment wasn't elicited by my feelings.

 

[bigshot]

Why are you posting anti-science stuff in a science forum? It seems to be a waste of time to me. Do you have a goal in mind here? I think your time would be better spent reading that first post.

 

[Phronesis]

Why are you posting anti-science stuff in a science forum? It seems to be a waste of time to me. Do you have a goal in mind here? I think your time would be better spent reading that first post.

Huh? You used the term scientism. Maybe you didn't know what it means?

Opposition to scientism isn't anti-science, it's anti misunderstanding and misuse of science. But perhaps those distinctions are too philosophical for you?

I did read the first post. Somewhat hodgepodge, and the results are what I expected: people often are likely wrong in what they're hearing, but sometimes some people may be right, for the people and equipment involved in these particular tests.

 

[amirm]

Unless something is designed remarkably poorly or defective in manufacture, an amp should be audibly transparent.

How would you know either prior to purchasing it?

 

[amirm]

I've had a lot of amps in the past 40 years, and the only one I had that wasn't audibly transparent was from the late 1960s/early 70s.

A search for "headphone amplifier" brings 5000 listings on Amazon alone. Let's discuss most of those as wrong categorization and say there are 1000 for sale. What percentage of those have you evaluated thusly?

 

[bigshot]

A search for "headphone amplifier" brings 5000 listings on Amazon alone. Let's discuss most of those as wrong categorization and say there are 1000 for sale. What percentage of those have you evaluated thusly?

You know my response by now... Please give me an example of an amp that is audibly different when playing recorded music in the home. I've been asking this for over six months and no one has cited one yet. I would REALLY like an example to point to. That would be a helpful service to people. "All amps sound the same... EXCEPT FOR... X, Y and Z." Then people would know to avoid those amps. We could make a FAQ listing all the non-transparent amps.

I'm Diogenes with my lamp searching the world for the last colored amp!

Maybe you didn't know what it means?

No. It's more that I really don't care. When you start considering my comments, I'll reciprocate. Until then, I'm not interested in participating in the circular argument. I'll just keep restating my question until I get an honest answer. You remember my question right?

 

[Phronesis]

You know my response by now... Please give me an example of an amp that is audibly different when playing recorded music in the home. I've been asking this for over six months and no one has cited one yet. I would REALLY like an example to point to. That would be a helpful service to people. All amps sound the same... EXCEPT FOR... X, Y and Z. Then people would know to avoid those amps.

He's not the one making the sweeping generalization, you are. That's not scientific, at best it's an assumption based on a theoretical (not empirical) argument. If you care to share, do you have any scientific background?

 

[bigshot]

I'll just keep restating my question until I get an honest answer. You remember my question right?

You responded so quickly you might not have seen this. I edit my posts as I draft them. So I'm giving you another chance.

 

[amirm]

IMO, we should make use of both measurements and listening, recognizing the strengths and limitations of each. Even when we do a good job of using both together, there will be uncertainty and we can get things wrong.

Correct. So we then add the third leg of the stool which is the science and engineering of audio. Then we have high confidence picture of a product's performance.

 

[bigshot]

Correct. So we then add the third leg of the stool which is the science and engineering of audio. Then we have high confidence picture of a product's performance.

Great way of stating that. I agree totally and click like on your comment. If all three say the same thing, you are on the right track.

 

[amirm]

Please give me an example of an amp that is audibly different when playing recorded music in the home.

I am reviewing one right now. And it does this at even low volumes. I will write it up in the next few days. Look for it in ASR Forum if I forget to post it here.

For now, you didn't answer my question even though I keep asking it. You have not listened to 0.01% of the amps out there if that. Correct?

So it is clear, I have not evaluated 0.01% of the amps out there either. As we correct this vacuum of knowledge more data will pop up.

For now, you have a very naive notion of the percentage of audio products that are designed well. Every person in the world seemingly is producing audio products given the feasibility of hardware design and manufacturing out there. We need to weed out the ones that shouldn't get our money. Your efforts to short-change the value of actual evaluation of audio product is a disservice to the audiophile hobby.

 

[bigshot]

I have done controlled comparisons of a few dozen amps. I've asked people on this forum to name audibly colored amps which expands the pool of potential amps exponentially. I look forward to finding the first amp that doesn't hold to the rule. That will give me a chance to figure out why someone would make an amp that isn't flat and clean sounding.

 

[amirm]

Great way of stating that. I agree totally and click like on your comment. If all three say the same thing, you are on the right track.

Good. Here is the reality of it. We hardly have any controlled listening tests comparing products. Even if we did, it would be valid for the ones tested. So you can safely assume that factor won't exist in your buying evaluation.

The measurements don't exist either but is one that I am determined to remedy. Both through my own work and by shaming manufacturers to do the same. Here is the latest ad from Schiit for example:

Good of them to say measurements matter (after saying so much they don't).

Do you know if they are telling the truth and why?

 

[amirm]

I look forward to finding the first amp that doesn't hold to the rule.

It is not the first. See this example: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ts-did-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different.23/

I could count the total number of such controlled tests on one hand. And many are very old. Way before all the crazy designs to appeal to latest fads in audiophile world.

 

[bigshot]

I can't read your scales. Too fuzzy and tiny. Do you have a clearer chart? Wiggly lines without a readable scale giving context don't communicate what you are trying to communicate.

It is not the first. See this example: https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ts-did-show-amplifiers-to-sound-different.23/

A turntable? Why if you are trying to isolate the amp as the problem would you use a noisy source? What is the date of that? I'm talking about modern solid state amps, particularly midrange consumer stuff.

Back in the late 70s I had a noisy amp. It hissed and popped. I haven't seen anything like that since then. When I replaced that amp in the early 80s, it was stone silent. And it was a Sanyo amp!

 

[amirm]

I can't read your scales. Too fuzzy and tiny. Do you have a clearer chart?

Look at the bottom of the ad. It gives you a url to the actual measurements.