You really gotta get your facts right.
If you had read the article SY refers to, you would know, that he actually is able to tailor the sound of an amp, to exactly whatever he is asked to.
If that is to be "lacking the meat", I wonder what is required to not be lacking?
Magura 🙂
Tailored it to what? What falls from the butt of a cow is still foul smelling now matter what you add or remove from it. I have heard plenty of Bob's engineering genius. I will pass thank you very much.
Last edited:
That is no proof. They simply did what most here do. I.e. claim they did or did not hear a difference. That is not science. But subjective. No double blind testing. Not a large enough sample group...bla bla bla.
I find it interesting that anecdotal experiences are used as scientific proof when it suits one.
I don't know how any of Bob's amp could sound any worse, even if you tried to make them worse on purpose 😀
Hmmm. You got a point there, Bas.
OTOH, IIRC, Bob had to try a few times, they send him back to his solder iron a few times because they COULD hear a difference. That's better than just the statement, I guess.
jd
Nope, Bas, in a rare bout of rationalism, they compared the amps blind. And found that, when they couldn't peek, they couldn't tell the stunning and obvious differences between them by just listening.
Tailored to sound so close to another amp that trained listeners couldn't tell the difference. Engineering genius maybe not, but boy he knows what makes an amp sound the way it does. Wish I was that good!
jd
This has become stupid!
The whole matter - in its varied guises - has been covered so often and at such a depth [and /or lack of depth] that there appears to be no possibility of reconciliation between the extremes of viewpoints held.......at this time.
The potential for new measurement techniques, subjects, topologies etc. has not yet been totally exhausted - though there appears to be less and less left at the bottom of the barrel worthy of investigation......... other than the human involvement.
[ The only alternative which I can comprehend as being possible is that there may be a whole now unknown sub-technology involved which. If this were to be proved to be so it is probable that all of the science/technology as presently understood is in fact of secondary importance......BUT what we have got presents the best chance we have got until someone stands the whole applecart upside-down! ]
I know exactly what sounds right to me for my enjoyment of music from my preferred styles of performance and recording methods and media. I would strongly defend my right to so choose but I would NOT - even if I were an unbiased fully educated and well experienced audio-design engineer - defend my choice on any grounds other than that the choice is mine.
The "Journals" have a lot to answer for in creating the present divide. BUT their primary responsibility is to their shareholders and that involves keeping their advertisers sweet. Pick for yourself a system which meets your requirements but now PLEASE let this thread develop as intended.
The whole matter - in its varied guises - has been covered so often and at such a depth [and /or lack of depth] that there appears to be no possibility of reconciliation between the extremes of viewpoints held.......at this time.
The potential for new measurement techniques, subjects, topologies etc. has not yet been totally exhausted - though there appears to be less and less left at the bottom of the barrel worthy of investigation......... other than the human involvement.
[ The only alternative which I can comprehend as being possible is that there may be a whole now unknown sub-technology involved which. If this were to be proved to be so it is probable that all of the science/technology as presently understood is in fact of secondary importance......BUT what we have got presents the best chance we have got until someone stands the whole applecart upside-down! ]
I know exactly what sounds right to me for my enjoyment of music from my preferred styles of performance and recording methods and media. I would strongly defend my right to so choose but I would NOT - even if I were an unbiased fully educated and well experienced audio-design engineer - defend my choice on any grounds other than that the choice is mine.
The "Journals" have a lot to answer for in creating the present divide. BUT their primary responsibility is to their shareholders and that involves keeping their advertisers sweet. Pick for yourself a system which meets your requirements but now PLEASE let this thread develop as intended.
Last edited:
I believe that Mr. Curl also believes that passive components affect the sonic signature of his products as well. What is off base when discussing this aspect of designs?
I agree that the arguments against this is what is a waste of space. If you don't hear the differences, fine. If you do great. Let's get on with life and everyone occupies their own space, as they do in real life. Nothing will change, so the continued arguments do little but fill page after page with banter.
I have some great land in South texas for a resort area that i am willing to sell cheap, if you believe any of what you just wrote 😀
Does anyone have a link to the article? I've read it in the past. I don't remember anything about the blind testing. Since he took the same amp....went ahead and modified it..and then they listened to it. Seems to me you would not want that to be blind. Otherwise Bob could have fooled everyone by using a tube amp.
But sure. Often solid state amps and tube amps sound different. What is the point again? Bob Cordell also often writes and demonstrates how measurements don't necessarily predict good sound quality.
I'm old school. I tend to mean what I write, not make grand statements and then later backpedal on them. Sorry, need to go. Have fun😉
jd
Sorry I don't own a bicycle that goes backwards. I Write what I know to be true also.
I believe that is exactly what he did. Why would Jan not believe that?
Can I now buy that land in Texas for a small amount.
But what does it prove? That you can tailor the sound of an amp? That tube amps have worse damping factors?
For me it changes nothing. I have always and will always judge equipment by its sound.
I agree with brianco. This has all become stupid.
Which county would you prefer 😀 You are right Bas. This will go on for the next 1000 years more than likely. The Hatfield's and the McCoy's circa 2009 🙂
Just read the article. There was no blind testing at all. They only mentioned that if they found Bob's amp came close they would have to do blind A/B testing. This was dropped during the test procedure.
From the stereophile article:
And:
Also, there is no mention that the reference amp was a tube amp. Only that a tube amplifier was considered as the reference amp. It is likely that it was a tube amp though.
From the article:
In the end. The only thing that happened in this story is that a listening panel of people who used only their listening ability. Ascertained that Bob could tailor his 700$ amp to sound the same as their "state of the art" amplifier.
But they used only their ears. And there was no dbt. Ergo. Not science.
From the stereophile article:
And:
Also, there is no mention that the reference amp was a tube amp. Only that a tube amplifier was considered as the reference amp. It is likely that it was a tube amp though.
From the article:
In the end. The only thing that happened in this story is that a listening panel of people who used only their listening ability. Ascertained that Bob could tailor his 700$ amp to sound the same as their "state of the art" amplifier.
But they used only their ears. And there was no dbt. Ergo. Not science.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.