GC and mids

[peranders]

Why?

Allways interesting when a couple of people give opinions on the same object. It's a difference when you know what you are listning at, don't deny that.

 

[Peter Daniel]

Of course there is a difference, and I'm not even trying to argue that. Here's my opinion on blind testing.

I spent last two years training myself in critical listening with full awarness of all senses (mostly vision and hearing) as well a knowledge of what I'm listening to. I acquired pretty good experience in doing that, and I can usually discribe any small differences if they exist (or I imagine they exist, it doesn't really matter to me).

Now, if I start using blind testing in my evaluations, it will be a totally new experience and I would have to train myself again to acquire necessary skills for blind tests to have any usefu results for me. It may even take another two years. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to wait this long, that's why I don't even bother to try blind testing. It simply doesn't make any sense to me

 

[peranders]

I think also it's enough if you like what you hear not knowing if an another solution would sound different/better.

 

[Peter Daniel]

For me it's not enough. If there is a possibility that something else can sound better, I usually try it as well. Some things don't make much sense to me, like regulated PS in a GC for instance, that's why I would probably never try them. Some things didn't make sense, but many other people tried them and commented positively, that's why eventually I tried them too, but I had mixed impressions in the end anyway, like LPF for instance

 

[sardonx]

I agree with ir. It kind of ticks me off that everyone calls them 'gainclones'. They are not gainclones, other companies were using chip amps before 47 labs. I used to own a Cambridge Audio int. amp that was using Philips 1514 chips and to this day I still haven't heard a more organic sound (and i don't call them camclones!). Just because some japanese company made one with a 1000% price markup doesn't mean all chip amps are now 'gainclones'. I think people should stop using that silly name.

But that just my opionion!

 

[mozfet]

Lecson too!

Lecson, the second coming not the orig classy looking stuff, used the LM1875, but what 47 Labs did with the very low capacitance and the short feedback path was new, price is OTT but there again what serious equipment isn't?

Mozfet

 

[mozfet]

Listening

I forgot to add this, in my experience there is no need to train yourself to listen, just forget the equipment and enjoy the music, then all the things you 'S'train yourself to hear will be laid bare. I think Ivor Tiefenbrun used to preach this method before he discovered Tunes (and other decongestant sweeties). It certainly works for me, the harder you try to listen seriously and analyse something the less you actually hear.

Mozfet

 

[Ropie]

I suppose critically assessing the sound of an amp and just listening for pleasure is the difference between someone who builds them 'full time' and someone who builds a one-off every once in a while. All credit to the innovators but you could say that is their 'job', so we expect them to do it well or else we wouldn't be inspired

As for the Gainclone name, best leave it alone - it is an intruiging name and although it doesn't always fit technically, it is now basically a trade name that has been adopted generically (cf: Hoover, IBM, etc)

 

[S.C]

I have a question about the blind test/ all the other A/B testing. Did you guys make a room to isolate noise and reflected sound ? Will a studio room setting will be a bouns to A/B testing.