Anyone have Jan 1987 Stereo Review "Do All Amplifiers.."

This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
cuibono said:
"Do all amplifiers sound the same", the infamous amp comparison? I'd love to read it, and maybe some other folks on the board. Anyone want to share?

...Ever been in a library...? Arlington should be big enough to have one... ;)

One detail I seem to recall from 20 years ago is that a cheapo pioneer receiver had the same short circuit current as a Mark Levinson Amp ;) Something like 12.5 amps.
Thanks guys - yes, I think I have been in a library once, to use the bathroom. :D I assumed that very few libraries would have an old obscure mag, but I will of course check. I had seen the link to the guy selling photocopies, I had just figured it was likely someone here had a copy. If not, I'll spring for the $6.
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Thanks very much Andy_c! Great reading.

Now I remember the the test, because of the Magnapans.

There are a few technical questions that are not answered for me, but still a great test.

I'll reserve comment for the amp thread.
I read this article, and have a question for those who are less statistics-challenged than I am.

In one comparison, it appears that the percentage of correct answers was 25 or so. That means that 75% of the answers were wrong. Does that in itself not mean anything? If a chance answer would be right 50% of the time, and I have it wrong 75% of the time, isn't that some kind of pointer? Don't know, maybe this is all non-sense, and if so I shut up.

Jan Didden
@ Janneman,

as SY pointed out- it could be significant.
Probability to get right answers by chance in these sort of tests is p=0.5 .
If a listener is right on every trial he reaches a probability of p=1 .

So, normally in the analysis we are looking for p>0.5, but if somebody is wrong on every sample he reaches a probability of p=0, and it maybe that he hears a difference in every trial but is unable to give the right answer.
Results like the one you´ve described should in every case get a further examination.

An interesting reading on this topic are Les Leventhals articles in the JAES. He creates the term `Statistical significant poor performance´ for these results.

But unfortunately his articles are a bit hard to read for the stastics challenged. :)
But i think well written so definetely worth a try.

This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.