John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
No its actual knowledge. Knowing how people make up their mind, what factors influence that.
And of course any differences or anything anybody hears or sees or feels are all in the mind, I hope we don't have to go back to those basics please.

jd

Reproduced music is not equal to live concert.
Reproduced music is being reproduced in two different mechanisms: the stereo setup is one and the ears-brain-mind is the second.
Thus, ones' mind is always involved in reproduced music. The stereo setup with its' various components is also involved.
Do we agree, so far?

It seems that there is an interaction between the two mechanisms, the stereo setup on one hand and the ears-brain-mind on the other hand.

The ears-brain-mind takes part in evaluating and enjoying live music and reproduced music alike.
The stereo setup components take also part. One loudspeaker sounds different from another one – and this holds true to most people, or to very many people, in myriad of mind-sets. Also, one amplifier sounds different from another.

Since my stereo setup is intended for me enjoying reproduced music (the best I can afford), when one amp makes me enjoy reproduced music more than another one – and when this is so also when I don't know which amp is playing at given time – this is all I need know concerning choosing an amp to my setup.

Of course, another person will prefer another amp, but I choose amps to my setup and to my enjoyment.

Therefore, the fact that the ears-brain-mind are involved in appreciation of music, live and reproduced, is irrelevant to the fact that various amps sound differently and to the need to choose one amp from few ones.
 
It doesn't preclude that the differences perceived are purely psychological. Or that the differences you perceive are due to something mundane, like a difference in levels between components.

se

You assume that the difference in level between components isn't adjusted.
You also assume that there aren't any real, objective differences between components.
 
You assume that the difference in level between components isn't adjusted.

No, I only offered it as a possibility, seeing as you didn't give any details, but rather a broad, ambiguous claim.

You also assume that there aren't any real, objective differences between components.

Even if there were, it wouldn't necessarily mean the objective differences were sufficient to produce actual audible differences.

se
 
No, I only offered it as a possibility, seeing as you didn't give any details, but rather a broad, ambiguous claim.

Even if there were, it wouldn't necessarily mean the objective differences were sufficient to produce actual audible differences.

se

I hear what I hear, while others assume what they assume.

Without knowing the details of my comparisons of different amps, all assumptions are baseless.
 
AX tech editor
Joined 2002
Paid Member
Reproduced music is not equal to live concert.
Reproduced music is being reproduced in two different mechanisms: the stereo setup is one and the ears-brain-mind is the second.
Thus, ones' mind is always involved in reproduced music. The stereo setup with its' various components is also involved.
Do we agree, so far?

It seems that there is an interaction between the two mechanisms, the stereo setup on one hand and the ears-brain-mind on the other hand.

The ears-brain-mind takes part in evaluating and enjoying live music and reproduced music alike.
The stereo setup components take also part. One loudspeaker sounds different from another one – and this holds true to most people, or to very many people, in myriad of mind-sets. Also, one amplifier sounds different from another. [snip].

Yes, agree.

[snip] when one amp makes me enjoy reproduced music more than another one – and when this is so also when I don't know which amp is playing at given time – [snip].

I do not believe this is proved to be the case under controlled blind conditions.

jd
 
I think that Rod Coleman is right on track. There apparently is NO WAY that we will satisfy 'double blind test' demands, but I feel that this is the fault of the test, NOT the listener.
To me, it is something like putting someone on a blanket in the back seat of a Mercury and of a Mercedes, and demanding that they can tell the difference.
No, you have to DRIVE the Mercury and compare it to DRIVING the Mercedes, and usually you are forced to know which is which, because the nameplate will probably be noted by you. However if you could DRIVE both autos, and you did NOT know which was which, then the one you chose as 'better' would be your choice. IF the Mercury really outperformed the Mercedes in drivability, and comfort, then let's give them an award. Most serious drivers would ignore the name-tag. It is the same for serious audio listeners when comparing audio equipment.
 
I think that Rod Coleman is right on track. There apparently is NO WAY that we will satisfy 'double blind test' demands, but I feel that this is the fault of the test, NOT the listener.
To me, it is something like putting someone on a blanket in the back seat of a Mercury and of a Mercedes, and demanding that they can tell the difference.
No, you have to DRIVE the Mercury and compare it to DRIVING the Mercedes...

So, by not peeking, how are you prevented from listening?

With no ABX box, but controlled blind level-matched conditions, your system, your choice of material, your control of changeover (other than seeing it), and arranged as repeated paired preference, could you tell the difference BY EAR ALONE between any of the preamps you have in house and a cheap opamp line stage? If "no," then case closed- you believe that can't tell the difference by ear, no matter your dancing. If "yes," I'll be happy to run that test for you, my expense, but you agree that the results be published no matter what the outcome.

Ready to stand up for what you loudly and repeatedly assert?
 
I do not believe this is proved to be the case under controlled blind conditions.

Your beliefs have nothing to do with my reality.
It looks like you are going to continue with your beliefs. However my reality is that different amps sound different to me, even when it's a blind listening, that is, when I don't know which amp is playing at a given time.

Furthermore, I heard setups which I could see the brand name of the various components, though I didn't bother to look. Later on I found out that I never heard before on those brand names. Anyhow, I had a concrete impression of the sound signature and the sound quality of those setups. Later on I compared notes with an audiophile friend of mine who heard the same setups on different occasions. Our impressions were similar. So, I don't always need a blind test to know that I hear what I hear. However, seeing brand names which I never heard about them before is somewhat equal to a blind test, though not to a double blind test. I don't need a double blind test to hear what I hear. I don't need a double blind test to note neither the extended details and microdynamics of a SET amp, neither its' unbearable distortion on loud passages.

It looks to me that double blind tests may be necessary to those who don't trust their ears.
 
Last edited:
In my experience SET amps in typical listening tests are frequently used with inappropriate speakers. This would make the test unblind as the amps maybe (more likely are) clipping.

I would rephrase your statement.
Only on very sensitive (and rare) loudspeakers, SET amps wouldn't distort on loud passages.
Furthermore, the extended details and microdynamics of SET amps are notable on almost any loudspeaker.
 
With no ABX box, but controlled blind level-matched conditions, your system, your choice of material, your control of changeover (other than seeing it), and arranged as repeated paired preference, could you tell the difference BY EAR ALONE between any of the preamps you have in house and a cheap opamp line stage? If "no," then case closed- you believe that can't tell the difference by ear, no matter your dancing. If "yes," I'll be happy to run that test for you, my expense, but you agree that the results be published no matter what the outcome.

Ready to stand up for what you loudly and repeatedly assert?

John, I'm repeating the question. Here's your chance to shut up all those terrible skeptics. Or you can continue running away. Which is it?
 
SY, I was told over 20 years ago, that I should never fall for a test made by critics of listening differences. I can't be 'suckered in' like Ivor was, years ago.
In fact, all that I will say is that I like what I like, and many people, even many here, hear essentially what I hear as to what they like.
The problem, to me, in double blind testing, even in my own environment, is that most differences do disappear, YET they come back with normal listening. Why, is unproven as yet, but I think that the reason is how the brain handles information differently, under different listening situations.
 
Thanks for a very frank answer. So, in fact, you can't tell the difference by ear alone, by just listening. You don't "trust your ears." You have to peek. The SOUND is the same. (Unless you want to reactivate the bizarre "Stuart has bad vibes which make me deaf" excuse?)

And that's OK. You're selling Rolexes, and even Rolex can't claim that their watches make the time any different.
 
Thanks for a very frank answer. So, in fact, you can't tell the difference by ear alone, by just listening. You don't "trust your ears." You have to peek. The SOUND is the same. (Unless you want to reactivate the bizarre "Stuart has bad vibes which make me deaf" excuse?)

And that's OK. You're selling Rolexes, and even Rolex can't claim that their watches make the time any different.

Sy, you just committed the offense you commit here far too often. You made an empirical personal internal decision on what John's words mean and decided for the rest of us what that is.... and projected that whole mess into the world as one of those icky self created 'facts'.

You just committed the 'crime' you accuse others of ...and are, seemingly, completely unaware of having done so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.