Bill,
That would depend on the amplifier's internal topology. If the audio power amplifier takes discrete time and level inputs and the uses that data to create a signal that drives linear stages, then a higher quality converter may indeed make an improvement.
The idea of a digital input driving a switching stage without ever going to analog would seem to be an optimal solution if both discrete level and discrete time were equal. My guess would be it is the time issue that provides improvement.
What could happen when you connect the huge power of the brain to the ultra high sensitivity of the ear - ??
View attachment human hearing.pdf
THx-RNMarsh
View attachment human hearing.pdf
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Our perception is hugely processing dependant - and our senses are very interlinked.
And while the human ear, like the eye, is very sensitive it operates with a lot of "agc" - it takes of the order of 30 minutes of dark to get to ultra light sensitivity, and similarly it takes a while of silence to get to the lowest sensitivity of the ear.
Your process will produce a system that sounds best to you, and people with similar acoustic wetware processing, taste, etc. That's great, you have a way to get your ideal sound, but it doesn't mean it's better or "more accurate" for everyone.
And while the human ear, like the eye, is very sensitive it operates with a lot of "agc" - it takes of the order of 30 minutes of dark to get to ultra light sensitivity, and similarly it takes a while of silence to get to the lowest sensitivity of the ear.
Your process will produce a system that sounds best to you, and people with similar acoustic wetware processing, taste, etc. That's great, you have a way to get your ideal sound, but it doesn't mean it's better or "more accurate" for everyone.
How does this compare to LIGO displacements ?.
Tesla claimed to hear thunder storms hundreds of miles away.
Dan.
Last edited:
Dear friends,
If I understand this paper, all amplifiers sound the same.
I just want to ask a question. If some of us agree, what the hell are they doing here ?
If not, according to our own experience, it just calls into question the accuracy of ABX tests.
Tryphon Tournesol.
As I have posted a few times, I helped Richard set up and conduct these tests until I got sick of them. I learned a LOT setting up, conducting and observing these tests, as well as the ABX tests we did at AES shows. I'll keep this post short (you are welcome) and enumerate my observations:
1) Below clipping and with levels set to +/- 0.1dB midband there are vanishingly small differences between two quality amps, and I listened to many. The listening environment was of the challenger's choice as well, and many were done at their homes where they should have normalized to the setup. I will say that does not apply to several SET amps we tested, which needed significant equalization to show flat frequency response due to high output impedance. Even then, I heard a looseness in the low end with these popular SETs.
2) One can convince themselves of just about anything, especially sensory related, and it is extremely difficult to dispossess them of the belief.
3) When confronted by a well done ABX and when the preconceptions are challenged many people become very agitated and confused. Once emotional it is difficult to be objective, stress hormones have wide ranging effects to the brain and body. Many of these people ended up blaming the test setup. Expectations are the enemy of objectivity.
4) Conversely, if one listens to a particular setup over time, very small differences become normalized to, an aspect of learned listening. When any aspect of the setup is changed, differences may be heard.
5) Evolution has made vision the primary sense due to bandwidth and resolution. The brain correlates visual and auditory stimulus as a normal function, so vision's effect on hearing is profound. Once must listen carefully with your eyes closed or in a darkened room to truly be able to hear JUST the equipment. We saw different results with intentionally dialed in level differences when we asked people to close their eyes.
As a result of my experiences, I personally do not believe in the validity of short-term ABX testing. There are far too many variables other than any sonic differences which affect the outcome. Long-term ABX, with the participants relaxing and becoming accustomed to the environment show more valid results. Others on this forum understand the science behind testing better than I.
Howie
LIGO must detect a change in arm length of about 10-19 m (10,000 times smaller than a proton). To comment on an earlier post since strain is dimensionless a good guess on the gain of LIGO would be the ratio of 10-11 to the length of an auditory follicle to the ratio of 10-19 and the 4 km arm length.
Last edited:
"The sole purpose of my amplifier challenge is to determine if the differences in amplifiers are audible."
"Reports are that thousands of people have taken the test, and none has passed the test. Nobody has been able to show an audible difference between two amps under the test rules."
Please, could-you show-me where is my misunderstanding ?
Best regards,
Tryphon Tournesol
Perhaps it is a language thing, but if you read the constraints of the test, you will understand the difference between then two concepts:
1) The statement "all amplifiers sound the same."
and
2) The claim "as long as a modern audio amplifier is operated within its linear range the differences between amps are inaudible to the human ear." And the test required that:
a) Amplifiers frequency response +/- .5 dB between 20 Hz and 20 KHz, which is why the SETs needed eq.
b) Levels are matched within 0.1 dB.
c) Amps must be operated below clipping, defined as 2% THD 20Hz to 10kHz, whichever is less. This means that if one amplifier has more power (Watts) than the other, the amplifiers will be judged within the power range of the least powerful amplifier.
d) Channel separation of the amps must be at least 30 dB from 20Hz to 20kHz.
1) and 2) are two different concepts. The first is undefined and non-delimited. The second provides some guidelines for comparison.
Without belaboring the point, and for the record, Richard never said amplifiers sound the same, exactly because the conditions under which they are usually auditioned where differences are heard have variables (see above as well as many others) which affect the outcome. This was precisely his point, but most who participated seemed oblivious to the difference...and after a while the whole thing was boring due to this fact. We had hoped we would find some amps which really did sound different, use our equipment to find out why and learn in the process, but this seldom occurred. My personal feeling is behavior in clipping is one of the most important characteristics defining an amp. Sure, everyone wants to think they operate their amps below clipping, but especially with high dynamic range sources the difference can be amazing. Remind me sometime to tell you about another test I thought up that Richard and I did which proved this idea...
Cheers!
Howie
And a final note from me on this "Richard Clark's Challenge" thing: I have heard differences between amps I have owned after taking a long time to become familiar with their operation with different source material but no, I have not recently taken the time to pull out test equipment and try to define the difference...though I used to 25 years ago.
These days I rely on the geniuses in this forum to enlighten me as to the characteristics of different topologies and other issues which are entertaining. I just keep the best sounding equipment I hear and enjoy listening to it. I would have liked to have kept the Benchmark amp I auditioned, it just seemed to have unlimited linear headroom like the JC Parasound amps I have heard, but I canna afford any of those boxes.
Cheers
Howie
These days I rely on the geniuses in this forum to enlighten me as to the characteristics of different topologies and other issues which are entertaining. I just keep the best sounding equipment I hear and enjoy listening to it. I would have liked to have kept the Benchmark amp I auditioned, it just seemed to have unlimited linear headroom like the JC Parasound amps I have heard, but I canna afford any of those boxes.
Cheers
Howie
I know everyone is getting sick of my posts, so this will be brief:
In one challenge the owner of a REALLY expensive tube amp company took issue with us equing his amp to get flat response. So we just put a series RC shelf paralleled with an R at the output of our crappy SS Crown
to match the tube amp's output Z and then got the same result: no perceived difference...and the owner then stated with all seriousness that maybe our inferior SS amp should have that network in it permanently so it sounded better like the tube amp did. He had become used to the sound of that tube amp with his speakers so of course anything else would sound wrong.
Just one of the fun events to be had in ABX land...
Howie
In one challenge the owner of a REALLY expensive tube amp company took issue with us equing his amp to get flat response. So we just put a series RC shelf paralleled with an R at the output of our crappy SS Crown
to match the tube amp's output Z and then got the same result: no perceived difference...and the owner then stated with all seriousness that maybe our inferior SS amp should have that network in it permanently so it sounded better like the tube amp did. He had become used to the sound of that tube amp with his speakers so of course anything else would sound wrong.Just one of the fun events to be had in ABX land...
Howie
- Status
- Not open for further replies.