Some thougts, if you want this "test" event
"The same" people may chose amps randomly, as they expect them to sound the same anyway...or lets say that noone will be able to tell them apart in a so called "blindtest"...flawed already?
"The different" people will need to chose amps, which they expect to sound different...I think these people would be the only ones to perform a believeable test
Rather than a questionable blindtest I would prefer to have a small crowd of people listening, but already here the test has flaws
Each session(amp) should be evaluated in maybe 10 areas with possible scale from 1-10
To take it further there could several sessions with different music
In the end statistic will show a pattern
But I dont suppose this is what "the same" people had in mind
"The same" people may chose amps randomly, as they expect them to sound the same anyway...or lets say that noone will be able to tell them apart in a so called "blindtest"...flawed already?
"The different" people will need to chose amps, which they expect to sound different...I think these people would be the only ones to perform a believeable test
Rather than a questionable blindtest I would prefer to have a small crowd of people listening, but already here the test has flaws
Each session(amp) should be evaluated in maybe 10 areas with possible scale from 1-10
To take it further there could several sessions with different music
In the end statistic will show a pattern
But I dont suppose this is what "the same" people had in mind
BTW, all electrics should be hidden behind a curtain
From the summed result graphs can be drawn...but I dont expect "the same" people will accept such "quality" test, so it could be followed up with a "blindtest" where listeners can try if they can detect whenever amp A or B is playing, now they may have learned how each amp may sound
The "blindtest" could be performed with maybe 10-15 switching, and the listeners not knowing when, but making a mark on a paper scheme every 1 minute, and making a mark fore which amp they think is playing...the switching between the 2 amps should not be every minute, but with different intervals
Statics will again show if there is a pattern
From the summed result graphs can be drawn...but I dont expect "the same" people will accept such "quality" test, so it could be followed up with a "blindtest" where listeners can try if they can detect whenever amp A or B is playing, now they may have learned how each amp may sound
The "blindtest" could be performed with maybe 10-15 switching, and the listeners not knowing when, but making a mark on a paper scheme every 1 minute, and making a mark fore which amp they think is playing...the switching between the 2 amps should not be every minute, but with different intervals
Statics will again show if there is a pattern
Re: Re: Re: Yes, No, I don't know
It's not about proving anything, it's about turning down free money. The fact that you turn down the test proves your confidence in your ability to hear a difference is actually not all that great and you're really all talk.planet10[/i] But the perfect amplifier is not the same for every speaker.[/quote] And that's the fault of the speaker for being a high distortion device and a nonlinear load--not the amplifier. Just because the speaker sucks doesn't mean you can blame an amplifier for not correcting for speaker faults. [quote][i]Originally posted by Andre Visser said:
You gave no context at all. Efficiency? Impedance curve? Q? Room size and position? Single or multiamp? Top or bottom?
Example: my sub is driven by a Sunfire 500W amp. Works perfectly. It would *not* work perfectly with a Quad ESL57.
Example: the midrange and treble of my dynamic speakers are driven by a 17W p-p EL84 amp. Works perfectly. It would *not* work perfectly with WATTs.
Example: my sub is driven by a Sunfire 500W amp. Works perfectly. It would *not* work perfectly with a Quad ESL57.
Example: the midrange and treble of my dynamic speakers are driven by a 17W p-p EL84 amp. Works perfectly. It would *not* work perfectly with WATTs.
bear said:
Note how no one will even mention what amp they use!!
Now that's a laugh riot!
_-_-bear
This is almost as rare as the mentioning of music ...of any kind... and how music enhances one's life. Threads like this make me question why anybody bothers with this other than to be a better armchair quarterback than the other armchair quarterback.
I think I'll stick with tubes. Since we know that they are technically inferior devices, we are less apt to get into subjective /objective / you/ me/ us/ them ******* matches.
R.Feynmann said:
As I pointed out already, this kind of argument simply does not occur on photography forums.
Yes, there is argument about the relative qualities of equipment, but nobody challenges the validity of the tests used to evaluate e.g. lens performance or claims to be able to see greater detail if the lens mount is made of platinum.
Anyone who swallows this kind of rubbish is missing a critical faculty from their mental toolbox.
It is shameful that a person seeking information should come onto a site like this and be confronted with ths kind of disarray.
Pull yourselves together, stop disseminating disinformation and start to show some sense of responsibility to your fellow human beings.
w
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, No, I don't know
Not at all... these applies equally well to any set of valid loudspeakers.
With loudspeakers maybe 10% of the way to perfect, it is very easy to choose 2 different speakers that are equally valid, yet sound very different, and have different loads for the amplifier and different quality of backEMF.
Furthermore was the speaker designed for a voltage amplifier (the majority for the last few decades) or for a current amplifier (coming back big time, and historically common) or somewhere in-between.
dave
PS: you do need to come to this summers event...
abzug said:
Not at all... these applies equally well to any set of valid loudspeakers.
With loudspeakers maybe 10% of the way to perfect, it is very easy to choose 2 different speakers that are equally valid, yet sound very different, and have different loads for the amplifier and different quality of backEMF.
Furthermore was the speaker designed for a voltage amplifier (the majority for the last few decades) or for a current amplifier (coming back big time, and historically common) or somewhere in-between.
dave
PS: you do need to come to this summers event...
SY, have you ever listened to Greiner's audio system?
You should see what REAL photographers use, and they believe in hi end audio. They showed me what they do to photograph the Louvre, etc. It is as hi end as any audio, and they showed me what they do, to get the two of us 'up to speed' so to speak.
You should see what REAL photographers use, and they believe in hi end audio. They showed me what they do to photograph the Louvre, etc. It is as hi end as any audio, and they showed me what they do, to get the two of us 'up to speed' so to speak.
BTW, anyone wishing to see what Prof. Greiner actually wrote can download it at http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_26_r.pdf . It's on p3.
John,
Please ask him how he would set up a test to satisfy both.... all three camps!
Then ask him if he thinks if this thread has too many posts and very little results. And then ask him if we are crazy if we double the current amount of posts and are still in the same place!
Then ask him if he knows that Sy has his quote on his signature! LOL
Then ask him to be the honorary guest at Sy's next festival!
That should be enough!
Regards//Keith
Please ask him how he would set up a test to satisfy both.... all three camps!
Then ask him if he thinks if this thread has too many posts and very little results. And then ask him if we are crazy if we double the current amount of posts and are still in the same place!
Then ask him if he knows that Sy has his quote on his signature! LOL
Then ask him to be the honorary guest at Sy's next festival!
That should be enough!
Regards//Keith
I thought it about time to put the stick in the anthill and stir up the natives again.
Different brands of resistors sound different.
I repaired a Mark Levinson ML-3 a while back, it didn't image (as well as some other problems).
All capacitors were replaced in both channels (believe it or not, there were different brands in the signal path of both channels as shipped when new).
This improved it, but did not fix it.
All semiconductors were replaced in both channels (and matched).
This did not fix it.
Each channel had a different brand of resistors, all 1% metal film types (except the emitter resistors), all within spec.
Replacing the resistors in both channels fixed the problem.
"All amplifiers sound the same"
(ROFLMAO)
Different brands of resistors sound different.
I repaired a Mark Levinson ML-3 a while back, it didn't image (as well as some other problems).
All capacitors were replaced in both channels (believe it or not, there were different brands in the signal path of both channels as shipped when new).
This improved it, but did not fix it.
All semiconductors were replaced in both channels (and matched).
This did not fix it.
Each channel had a different brand of resistors, all 1% metal film types (except the emitter resistors), all within spec.
Replacing the resistors in both channels fixed the problem.
"All amplifiers sound the same"
(ROFLMAO)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.