Blind Listening Tests & Amplifiers

[mikek]

Originally posted by mrfeedback


I am ignoring your references because they are pap.
Please also inform me any real relevence of the Carver test.

I can go searching on the net right now and come back with a list of references longer than your arms, supporting assertions that man and all animals were made in one day, and others showing evidence of genetic evoloution over hundred of millions of years.

Good science is good science, and bad science is bad science.
Standard Blind Listening Tests are bad science.

Eric.

..hear ye hear ye...let ye who haveth ears hear....cables cannot be heard...amps. cannot be distinguished....apart from the heroically misconceived ones....period.

[nw_avphile]

Well the folks who haven't provided a SINGLE reference, or ANY valid technical arguments are resorting to name calling again. Big surprise there.

Call ME an evangelist if you want, but who's asking people to believe in something they can't prove even exists? At least I have offered lots of very valid and credible references to support my position. I guess it's sorta like walking into a KKK or white supremacist meeting and trying to explain why racial prejudice is a bad thing? Some of the regulars get a little excited.

For the more open minded reading this thread, here's more interesting reading... Ian Masters, a long time audio reviewer, wrote a piece about sonic bricks and how the extreme high-end seemed to be getting a bit out of hand. He was rewarded by being bashed on the net (sound familiar?). You can find his response here:

http://www.mastersonaudio.com/audio.shtml

He also wrote this piece where he talks about a published blind challenge done with six amplifiers ranging from a $200 cheap receiver to a $12,000 pair of mono tube amps. Two dozen listeners, evenly divded between "believers" and "skeptics" listened to the six amps and, when all the data was tallied, they wrote:

"all interpretations of [the results] lead to the conclusion that correct choices were made totally by chance -- there were no audible differences to be heard...The evidence would seem to suggest that distinctive amplifier sounds, if they exist at all, are so minute that they form a poor basis for choosing one amplifier over another."

http://www.mastersonaudio.com/audio/20020901.htm

And again, in case anyone missed it, there are 18 references on amplifiers alone posted here:

http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioand...epage/id5.html

And of course another 23 here:

http://www.dself.demon.co.uk/subjectv.htm

I just keep digging this stuff up, and a select few here keep ignoring it and attacking me instead. Interesting isn't it?

[fdegrove]

Hi,

...refering to your good self then my fine friend?

Just wise words from someone who's been around:

Run your own business in this minefield and that will change your perspective within months, I assure you.

As you can see, I'm just trying to have the last word here, after all that is the purpose of this thread, isn't it?

Cheers,

[mikek]

Originally posted by fdegrove
Hi,



Just wise words from someone who's been around:

Run your own business in this minefield and that will change your perspective within months, I assure you.

As you can see, I'm just trying to have the last word here, after all that is the purpose of this thread, isn't it?

Cheers,

...running a hifi business is a minefield precisely because of all this inconsistent, quasi religious voodoo stuff about audible...directional cables...amps. op-amps..etc.....good luck say i..

[mrfeedback]

"all interpretations of [the results] lead to the conclusion that correct choices were made totally by chance -- there were no audible differences to be heard...The evidence would seem to suggest that distinctive amplifier sounds, if they exist at all, are so minute that they form a poor basis for choosing one amplifier over another."

Statistics can be misused.
In the sort of analysis presented above, if one listener gets it consistently wrong, then his results will undo the results of the listener who gets it consistently correct.
More attention needs to be paid to those who get it consistently correct, for those listeners are the real listeners.
Those who consistently wrong are not eligible to be in the test.

Including both types in the analysis, just proves that to the average noddy listener, all systems sound the same, and says nothing about those who do.

You have not been attacked personally - only your adherence to dogma.

Eric.

[Bratislav]

Originally posted by mrfeedback


This is ONE VERY SPECIAL CASE case where Bob Carver spent a couple of days modifying his amp so as to very closely match the 'reference' amplifier, and as such cannot be used to defend your stance that all same measuring amplifiers will sound the same (standard FR, THD, noise etc testing).

By definition, it is to be expected that the Carver and the 'reference' amplifiers, after null matching would measure the same.
HOWEVER, this is absoloutely NOT the same as any two particular amplifiers that measure the same using standard testing, to be expected to sound the same.

I can't keep out of this.
OK, Eric, could you explain in plain terms for us deaf and dummy engineers where does the detection process actually take place ?
If two amps produce the same low residual null on a real load (that is you compare amp's output to the input signal IN REAL TIME, WITH SAME SPEAKER, USING REAL SIGNAL - music of sorts), and there is no difference in voltage at speaker terminals to speak of, HOW can you hear the difference ? Speakers are not producing it. And I mean it - no driver will be able to produce any meaningful sound 60-90dB down from the 'useful signal' (and remember it has to do that at the same time). How do you actually DETECT the difference ?

Or is your exposure to the rainforest going to hone your ESP abilities as well ?

Bratislav

[fdegrove]

Hi,

Eh,eh...

...running a hifi business is a minefield precisely because of all this inconsistent, quasi religious voodoo stuff about audible...directional cables...amps. op-amps..etc.....good luck say i..

No, that's the easy part.

And don't think for a minute Eric or myself believe in Voodoo...Oh no, we're both pretty much down to earth people.

Tailchasing is not really a good way to evolve and once you're involved in it it's kind of hard to loose the habbit, isn't it?

Wonder why we bother,

[nw_avphile]

Originally posted by mrfeedback
Statistics can be misused.

Then find JUST ONE blind amplifier study between low distortion amps where the outcome went the other way?

Further, many of these studies have been published in magazines that make their money off advertising from companies that sell amplifiers. Those companies would have MUCH rather seen the outcome go the other way to where folks could hear a difference. Why on earth would a magazine skew the results, or conduct the study, in a way that would hurt their ad revenues?

Taking that concept a bit further, if an amplifier manufacture could prove their amplifiers sounded better in blind studies, don't you think they'd commission a few? At least ONE? It would make for great marketing material.

So, the ball is in your court... find a published blind amplifier study that supports your view Mrfeedback. I've given folks here a bunch of them that support mine.

[mikek]

Originally posted by mrfeedback


You have not been attacked personally - only your adherence to dogma.

Eric.

Really?

Dogma:A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or
truth; an arbitrary dictum.

[fdegrove]

Hi,

Taking that concept a bit further, if an amplifier manufacture could prove their amplifiers sounded better in blind studies, don't you think they'd commission a few? At least ONE? It would make for great marketing material.

Would it?

Pretty naive isn't it?

Cheers,