Bratislav said:
You KNOW that MOST golden ears would laugh at that. How do you know that? You present this as the truth and as facts. Please give proof to back that claim up, otherwise you'r just wasting bandwith.
Also why would anyone want to compare one amp to another? Wouldn't be better to investigate and study scientifically how the DUT affects the signal that it will handle instead of comparing to something (possibly) unknown?
/Peter
cuibono said:
Accepted.
I don't have access to these papers either but the info I have at hand is IMO very important for the discussion in this thread. I did earlier say to Jan that I might get hold of some of these articles soon isn't that good enough?
About that Bryston article. I don't think it was ever meant to be a full blown scientificall paper worthy publishing in AES but a test report for the members in LTS. Now, the people that performed that test have an enormous experience and knowledge and they are 100% scientificall. There's no room for or acceptance for hifi-vodoo.
No contradiction in my reasoning, you must have misunderstood something. Please clarify casue I'm curious.
/Peter
Pan said:
Because this is the question asked at the beginning of this thread ?
Because it is subject of this thread ?
Because they are there ?
Why not ?
I don't know what DUT is but if you are alluding to switches/cabling etc., their influence on signal is very well known. There are sciences that deal with far weaker signals and with far greater bandwidth than audio ever will. Try radio astronomy.
john curl said:Brat---, there is something wrong with the test! What is it?
I don't know what are you talking about, Curly. Please be more specific what test you had in mind?
Engineers should know and understand what it really takes to make a 'perfect' signal transmission into and out of an amp. Most of the time, a 'reasonable' approximation is made and we don't take the care and effort that radio astronomers use to keep their signals virtually perfect, or else they have different concerns as to what is necessary. To presume that people usually take every effort to get things right in audio for a test is laughable.
This all stands. It is far too easy to measure how imperfect an audio amplifier is. Compare what gets in and what comes out is just the most obvious method (and just as effective as any proposed).
The question in dispute is "can we tell how imperfect transmission was using nothing but our ears and (grossly inferior) speakers/room" ?
The question in dispute is "can we tell how imperfect transmission was using nothing but our ears and (grossly inferior) speakers/room" ?
SY said:
This is only a question. Would it be better for the two amps to be hidden in a single box. Each time the user turns on the system a random number generator selects which is 'a' and which is 'b'. The listener is free to switch to whichever one she prefers. Other wise if the listener decides they like one or the other the first time are they not likely to be influenced by that in the future?
Actually, I agree with you, SY. All that matters is whether you prefer A or B. ABX is not necessary, and even appears to interfere with the decision. This is most probably because you need the reference playing to decide on it. You cannot pick it from random and be sure which it is, because the music is continually changing. I put this formally in writing in 1979. Where have the rest of you been?
Bratislav said:
No that is not the question or the name of the thread. The name of the thread is "Do all amplifiers really sound the same". Answer to the question is no without the slightest doubt.
Why not you ask... that's kind of obvious, but please tell me why instead.
DeviceUnderTest. It's the standard expression for the component, machine or whatever gear that are under investigation.
Other than that your last lines makes no sense at all and I don't know what you'r trying to say with that.
/Peter
I think the multiple trials would overcome my objection only if they were with the same listener. I.e. 'a' and 'b' are changed between trial sets with a given listener.
Pan said:
Pan said:
Hi Peter,
This is all a little OT, but - 'facts' are called such because a group of people have reviewed a body of evidence and agree that the data supports the conclusion, the conclusion thereby being considered fact.
As far as I can tell, you are arguing that just about all amplifiers sound differently, and support your position with the findings of the LTS. But the only publication from the LTS we have seen stated that no difference could be detected in DB listening for the amp they were reviewing, hence it not supporting your position.
The article was decent, I'll give it that. This whole post is a bit OT, so hopefully we don't have to keep beating this dead horse.
I hope we can see more LTS articles some time, they seem to know what they are doing.
😉
john curl said:Actually, I agree with you, SY. All that matters is whether you prefer A or B. ABX is not necessary, and even appears to interfere with the decision. This is most probably because you need the reference playing to decide on it. You cannot pick it from random and be sure which it is, because the music is continually changing. I put this formally in writing in 1979. Where have the rest of you been?
And I agree with both of you. Must be the moon or something.
😕
Anyone want to have a go?
I don't think there is a Fort Knox. I have heard about it but I don't really know. As a matter of FACT it might not exist.. it may all be in the head of those Americans.
Since I have never seen it, never been there or anything it's not a FACT that Fort Knox exists. It only becomes real and a FACT the day I see it with my own eyes..
🙂
/Peter
Since I have never seen it, never been there or anything it's not a FACT that Fort Knox exists. It only becomes real and a FACT the day I see it with my own eyes..
🙂
/Peter
john curl said:
Doesn't have to. My (SA)CD player has A/B repeat function (most do) so music can be the same. But in case of (supposedly flawed) Clark's test (and many others, including mine), subjects have been left to their own devices for as long as they wished to. Any length (from instant switching to several hours) and any music passage they wanted.
Same result.
So you argue that differences cannot be heard because of this and that. Fine.
Let me try again, John. What conditions should be met to allow the differences to be heard ?
Let me try again, John. What conditions should be met to allow the differences to be heard ?
Bratislav said:
Life has shown that most audiophile people pick amps and all other stuff audio, upon some preference that they can actually hear. If it was all the same, the audio biz it would have fallen very early like a deck of cards. Mass delirium cult deflates even. Cant be that millions of people are having heard only con audio upgrades from 1940s to today. You can fool some for sometime but not all forever. We argue how to find a way to prove that all amps differences are minimal, only BS money spent to do better for same driving ability. Come on! Sounds like the communist manifesto on amps. Just because some found a way to make some conditions tricky for recognition does not mean that a Sony $200 receiver will hold for long against a Jadis JA200 in your living room. Get a grip. Just see why under such circumstances, humans cant tell the Jadis from the Sony. Its a peculiar phenomenon not the truth! Aristotle is laughing if his spirit is alive and wired to the web right now. Lapse of critical reason.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.