The important thing in my post is about the tests performed by LTS. Those are exactly what you ask for and the outcome is not what you believe it would be.
I can tell you the late change in Bryston amps is a result from one of their top amp NOT passing the LTS test. After modification the amp could not be detected.
You are simply wrong in your assumption.
/Peter
I can tell you the late change in Bryston amps is a result from one of their top amp NOT passing the LTS test. After modification the amp could not be detected.
You are simply wrong in your assumption.
/Peter
SY said:
I suppose that goes both ways
eStatic said:
So what, call it a hypothesis, its really not important and I would prefer that you commented on the posted content rather than on my poor english
Not really, since the burden of proof is on those claiming an audible difference.tinitus said:
SY I believe so yes, in a Swedish non commercial magazine that this organisation publishes.
I don't have access to the papers now so please don't ask me to scan articles for you. The magazine can be found on most Swedish libraries but I do not have time to arrange with something. Maybe later.
/Peter
I don't have access to the papers now so please don't ask me to scan articles for you. The magazine can be found on most Swedish libraries but I do not have time to arrange with something. Maybe later.
/Peter
If I may ask, do anybody know of two different high-quality amplifiers that have the same measured specs (including phase errors, small signal response etc.) while driving real high-quality loudspeakers.
Perhaps we must sort this out before organizing serious listening tests.
André
Perhaps we must sort this out before organizing serious listening tests.
André
abzug said:
Ehh, I thougt it would be the other way round..."Do all amps really sound the same?"...who is it that started making a nonproven claim(hypothesis)?
Dont try to make this "rocket sciense" or sciense at all, as all "tests" will hold some kind of subjective judgement and questionable practise
As I think I asserted earlier but less strongly, assertions of the existence of studies without references to them demean and trivialize the spirit of science.
Pehaps that's a personal problem
Pehaps that's a personal problem
You--you're claiming that amplifiers with sufficiently closely matched measurements are audibly different by some hitherto unknown mechanism.tinitus said:
tinitus said:
I am sorry I was not clear in my meaning--I did not know you had a problem with English and was not in my mind to comment on it.
Yet, for English speakers the distinction between the two concepts remains very important. Science, through its stepchild of technology, has become crucial to the existence of civilization. Many more people vaguely feel this than grasp the nature of the scientific method and it's crucial role in understanding and changing our world. I feel this kind ignorance is a very real danger to civilization and obligated not to stand silent when I see such important concepts confused.
Nooo, I am only here because of the claim that different amps sound the same...and I dont believe this has much to do with science...at least its not significant nor very important, no matter what it wont change a thing 😉...but if you want to prove something, please do
Is like "testing" wine, perfume, tobacco and such, nothing more nothing less
Is like "testing" wine, perfume, tobacco and such, nothing more nothing less
@ tinitus,
The claim that different amplifiers should sound the same (what means if a human being is listening to the outputs via speakers) is based on psychoacoustics, namely the known thresholds of hearing ability in the various aspects like linearity of amplitude vs. frequency, total harmonic distortion and so on.
Looking at these thresholds one could indeed draw the conclusion mentioned above, asserted that the specific measurements are below the figures SY posted before.
And because these threshold figures are based on serious scientific work it is related to science. 🙂
wishes
The claim that different amplifiers should sound the same (what means if a human being is listening to the outputs via speakers) is based on psychoacoustics, namely the known thresholds of hearing ability in the various aspects like linearity of amplitude vs. frequency, total harmonic distortion and so on.
Looking at these thresholds one could indeed draw the conclusion mentioned above, asserted that the specific measurements are below the figures SY posted before.
And because these threshold figures are based on serious scientific work it is related to science. 🙂
wishes
I doubt that any serious (expensive) listening tests will come out of the arguments presented on this forum. If you read through this thread and others that are similar, you'll find that many of the arguments from the objective side are borne by contempt for people who make a living selling high-end equipment and tweeks such as interconnects. Those on the subjective side seem to care less one way or the other and only desire to simply carry one with their beloved hobby.
John
What a disgusting characterization.jlsem said:
What primarily motivates this side is seeking the truth.
abzug said:
And the other side seeks to mislead? What a stunning simplification of complex and contentious motives.
The other side doesn't have the ability to admit it's wrong (even to itself). It's not that it seeks to be mislead, but simply that it fails to see it's wearing colored glasses.
Far be it for me to paint the 'other side' with a single brush, by the available evidence your post strongly supports jlsem's proposition.
Rather than try to guess at one another's motivations, why don't we discuss the actual issue?
It is possible, bizarre as it seems, to have different views on something and not take that personally.
It is possible, bizarre as it seems, to have different views on something and not take that personally.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.