AMPs that DO sound Different??

[bear]

Ok, the thread on amps that do not sound different has been running for a while.

It made me think - what about amps that we can agree do sound different than some standard of non-difference? Since the position of many apparently is that a majority of amplifiers that are reasonably well made and with reasonably good specs are indistinguishable in terms of audibility, what are examples of commercial amps that do not meet this criteria??

I'll start it off, how about:

- Phase Linear 400 or 700
- Krell KSA 50 or 100 or 200
- Crown DC 300
- Bryston (any model of the first 10 years or so)
- Hafler DH200
- Dyna 400
- Parasound HCA1000
- Levinson ML-2


which of these all sound the same, and which do not equal the "sound the same" criteria??

NOW OBVIOUSLY, we don't have an actual ABX test going on here, and we don't have a "blameless" amplfier (one that sounds the same as so many others for comparison), but since so many amps "sound the same" it shouldn't be very difficult to move this discussion along, and get some concensus on units that are prime candidates for sounding "different"??

How about it??

_-_-bear



After we get to a list of "different sounding amps" maybe we can discect the topology and find some basis? Or engage in other interesting avenues of approach?

 

[KP11520]

Hey Bear,

NY State is a lot of ground. I have two different amps that I would bring to a listening trial, asuming that you aren't too far from Long Island!

Hafler DH500 stock (can't be too different from a DH200)

Rotel RHB10 Michi (nice)

Funny, they sound different to me!

Regards//Keith

 

[nitrate]

I have a definate contender..

My beloved Musical fidelity A100

Nobody can deny it has it's own charactaristicly warm soft sound. It can also double up as a handy cooking grill too



Leigh

 

[bigwill]

NAD 3020s seem to have their own warm characteristic sound

 

[bear]

well, obviously all amps do sound different then... a paucity of response.
either that or they all sound the same... so hard to tell...?





_-_-bear

 

[SY]

By "sound the same," do you mean "unable to be differentiated in a conventional blind test"? Or do you mean "really sound the same, no-one will ever be able to design a controlled test that will show identification"?

What's the load?

Sorry, you know me- always questions, questions, questions.

 

[jan.didden]

Ok, the thread on amps that do not sound different has been running for a while.

It made me think - what about amps that we can agree do sound different than some standard of non-difference? Since the position of many apparently is that a majority of amplifiers that are reasonably well made and with reasonably good specs are indistinguishable in terms of audibility, what are examples of commercial amps that do not meet this criteria??

I'll start it off, how about:

- Phase Linear 400 or 700
- Krell KSA 50 or 100 or 200
- Crown DC 300
- Bryston (any model of the first 10 years or so)
- Hafler DH200
- Dyna 400
- Parasound HCA1000
- Levinson ML-2


which of these all sound the same, and which do not equal the "sound the same" criteria??

NOW OBVIOUSLY, we don't have an actual ABX test going on here, and we don't have a "blameless" amplfier (one that sounds the same as so many others for comparison), but since so many amps "sound the same" it shouldn't be very difficult to move this discussion along, and get some concensus on units that are prime candidates for sounding "different"??

How about it??

_-_-bear


After we get to a list of "different sounding amps" maybe we can discect the topology and find some basis? Or engage in other interesting avenues of approach?

So, you'r just after anecdotes and free-flying stories, no real tests that have any significance, then? Fine with me, but just curious.

Jan Didden

 

[bear]

Noooo... I be fly fishin' Jan!

SY, come forth with your best data/information/engineering/science or anechdotal and apocryphal prose!

I just would like to know if anyone at all, on any basis - especially "level matched scientific blind test" - can cite where two different amps sound different. In EITHER or both of "unable to be differentiated in a conventional blind test"? Or do you mean "really sound the same, no-one will ever be able to design a controlled test that will show identification"

Let's not get too involved with the semantics and let's deal with the gestalt and grok it man!

_-_-bear

PS. do the amps on my list all sound the same if tested in a properly conducted ABX, blind or other testing paradigm deemed appropriate by those who do deeming of such things?? Yes, no? If not, why??

 

[SY]

Sure, I can name one. It was in Audio Amateur, early '80s, a comparison between an Audio Research transistor amp and (I think) a Mark Levinson. Good methodology and the amps were distinguishable.

After you look it up, you'll understand better why I try to be precise in my qualifications.

 

[bear]

SY,

I like you. But you are engaging in obfuscation.

But let me put you down for some sort of Audio Research and some model or another of ML sounding different according to Audio Amateur - you in accord with their findings??

Maybe it's a start??

Wait a second... those are the only two amps that you believe meet the "required engineering criteria" and sound different? All others sound the same then for all intents and purposes??

("required engineering criteria" = ~...unclipped, blah blah, level matched, blah blah, blind tested, blah blah blah... etc...)

Let's not deal with anything much that dates from the 80s in terms of "listening" types of tests??

Unless we're discussing a methodology and the merits or lack thereof? Oh, and we're not...

_-_-bear

 

[SY]

You asked for an example of a properly controlled test that showed audible differences between power amps that "measure well." I gave you one, and it was a pretty eye-opening article (if you're having trouble remembering it, I think that Greenhill was one of the authors). I don't understand your objection.

Obfuscation? I certainly don't intend that, in fact quite the opposite, I'm trying to get things clear and specific. For example, my question about specifying the load: I can have two amps that will be indistinguishable in (for example) an ABX test with my speakers, but put them on John Curl's and they'll sound totally different.

 

[bear]

Well ok SY... so then you agree that when GENERALIZED to "all amps" (again kind readers we mean those meeting some sort of engineering criteria, not clearly flawed ones... ie. MOST of all amps) they do all sound different?? Generally speaking?

Anyone else out there?

_-_-bear

Oh, and you say that two amps can sound indistinguishable on your speakers - are there any that do that in your opinion (never mind if you've "tested" or not)?? Or put another way, how many amps have you had on your speakers that in your opinion sound different??

 

[Andre Visser]

I have not found two amplifiers that sound the same yet, perhaps it would be easier to name amps that do sound the same, in that case I would like to know with what equipment it was used.

André

 

[SY]

Bear, I've had four amps on my current speakers and three sounded noticeably different (in the sense that the difference could be detected in a conventional blind test).

The two that sounded the same would certainly sound different on Curl's speakers.

 

[cuibono]

Or put another way, how many amps have you had on your speakers that in your opinion sound different??

Bear,

I take it you started this thread to make a list of amps that sound different. Unless you specify how to determine difference, anyone can add any amp ever to the list. That would make it a pretty useless list.

I believe the whole point of the 'other thread' is about trying to specify how to determine that amps are different/same.

Every amp I've had sounded different - but I _never_ did any sort of rigorous comparison. I doubt I even A/B'ed them at all. So I've got four amps to add to your list. But whats the point? Any amp can have anything claimed about it if you don't first state you criterion, and secondly, check that it matches the criterion, and thirdly, have other people check it and agree.

The BIG question is 'what is that criterion'.

 

[GRollins]

Bear,
I've participated in a number of threads on this general topic--as I recall, my very first posts here were in a thread wherein a fellow had fallen for the THD specs-are-everything, if it's below X%, then it's inaudible thing. Every so often I'll participate in another one, just to see if anyone has bothered to listen to things but it keeps boiling down to the same old thing: People have been told there's no difference, so they go in with the preconceived notion that there's no difference and yet they refuse to believe that their point of view is prejudiced. After all, they've been told by "leading authorities" that "science" has proven this and that and the other thing.
Clearly, it comes down to details. Some people just listen to see if music comes out. Others see how many times they can count the broken, rolling glass go 'round after the 'cat's cry' in "Private Investigations" by Dire Straits. If they don't listen for details, they won't hear a difference. Ever. And they will continue to deny that there are differences. Forever.
The defensive maneuver to this is to demand that anyone who claims to hear differences submit to their test regime. Having submitted myself as a guinea pig multiple times back when I was in retail, I can tell you it's not fun. It's not interesting. And after the first three or four times, there's not even any satisfaction in proving the idiots wrong (and, boy, they take it badly). It's just pure flippin' drudgery. To which the aforementioned current batch of idiots react with scorn, claiming that the listener just doesn't want to be caught out....yadda, yadda, yadda...
Not to mention multiple problems with the inevitable ABX demand. Etc., etc., etc.
So, like, what's in it for me? Nothing. Nada. I quit being a lab rat years ago. Nobody gives a damn about the test subject and how he feels, they just want to obscure as many differences in the hardware as possible, so they can claim that they were right all along.
Incidentally, you're wasting your time trying to pin SY down. We're talking about a guy who builds tube gear, but won't take a hard and fast stance on tube gear. Ya know?
Me? I like your Crown vs. nearly anything suggestion. Man, that was one raw sounding piece of equipment. Proof positive (as if it were needed) that most people don't listen with their ears--they listen with their eyes.
My prediction is that this thread will either die fairly rapidly (how many ongoing arguments can one website support on this topic at one time, anyway?) or it will go for about three or four pages in a semi-productive vein before becoming a clone of the 'other' thread.
I understand what you're trying to accomplish and you have my sympathy, but I don't have the time at the moment to argue with people who can't be bothered to listen for details, because that's the only way you can tell the differences.
Good luck, fella.

Grey

 

[SY]

won't take a hard and fast stance

What has been soft and slow about my attitude about tube gear?

 

[Bratislav]

... proving the idiots wrong
... It's just pure flippin' drudgery.
... aforementioned current batch of idiots

Surely one way to win the argument ... very eloquent.

 

[GK]

Surely one way to win the argument ... very eloquent.

Typical complaint. You obviously listen with your eyes. That is why people like you will never appreciate the subtle sonic benefits that come with the liberal application of tinfoil shielding and the use PVC and 4" copper pipe chimneys in true audiophile quality amplifier construction.

I bet you have inferior wood working skills also.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1468490#post1468490

 

[Bratislav]

Hey, I don't listen at all. I just let my water molecules rearrange themselves under the expert baton of Вале́рий Абиса́лович .