Is single ended worth it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#182
The comparative context is uber important, yet this factor is rarely given credence by many for obvious reasons.

The context in which I am usually duped into hearing non-existent differences between x and y is that of a system with whch I am intimately familiar using music with which I have a similar level of familiarity, without other persons present to bias the results in any direction. I have heard imaginary differences when I expected none, and I have also heard imaginary degraradtion when I expected improvement. Nowadays I don't expect anything.

In this context any non-existent difference I dupe myself into hearing is far more apparent than it would be in unfamiliar circumstances.

In the context of a system (and room acoustics) with which I am unfamiliar, listening to unfamiliar music, surrounded by baying objectivist hounds who 'know' there is no possible difference between x and y, I doubt very much whether I could fool myself into positively discerning any difference to a reasonable level of statistical significance.

In the meantime I shall continue to use my system to listen to music - rather than use music to obsess about things which may or may not exist outside my mind, and of who's others' opinions on which I care not one iota.

And yet I suppose, for some, getting half pissed when carrying out half baked magazine published subjective testing, the outcomes of which affect the livelihoods of real people is considered scientifically de rigeur? Sheesh!
 
Last edited:
#185
limono said:
Regarding DBT and Science
It could be that :
-Participants of that kind of test are usually clueless about audio and never developed any conscious comparative method. The have hard time telling clarinet from sax,or violin from viola but are eager to test themselves .The results are easy to predict I.E all sound the same
-Participants never really experienced High-End amplification at their on homes ,they are just show going / forum trolling experts . If the difference doesn't hit them in between the eye they are not able to react to more subtle clues
-Participants are DIY minded individuals who have deeply rooted conviction and agenda that the difference doesn't exist and all High-End is a scam devised to part suckers and their money , they can't help it even if they try and push the button randomly
- Everybody loves underdogs and it would be really nice if the High End component was knocked out by a DIY/ Costco/ black box .Nobody can help it ,m it's reality
-Every test is a stress no matter how relaxed and familiar atmosphere.
Click to expand...

These are just the kinds of arguments that psychics, mind-readers and spoon-benders come up with when they fail to be able to demonstrate their alleged abilities when they are put under the spotlight of scientific investigation.

What is it that is so difficult about accepting that there must exist thresholds of audibility below which the human ear and brain are incapable of resolving differences, and that therefore if two amplifiers differ by amounts that lie beneath the threshold, no differences will be perceptible?

Chris
 
#187
cnpope said:
These are just the kinds of arguments that psychics, mind-readers and spoon-benders come up with when they fail to be able to demonstrate their alleged abilities when they are put under the spotlight of scientific investigation.

What is it that is so difficult about accepting that there must exist thresholds of audibility below which the human ear and brain are incapable of resolving differences, and that therefore if two amplifiers differ by amounts that lie beneath the threshold, no differences will be perceptible?

Chris
Click to expand...

You're right it's not so difficult to agree, but let me remind you that you did not specify nor clarify those amplifiers designed to have no audible artifacts. (probably for the reason of not wanting to promote any specific brand) I have no idea what they are since all are advertised as such. In my humble subjective listening experience all amplifiers differed to some degree and frankly I had no problem with that fact whatsoever.It's simply not the goal of my audio quest to have an amplifier without audible artefacts in the techno crowd meaning of the term . I may suspect I was listening to the examples not designed to have no audible artifacts .Is Bedini 100/100 true enough? probably not although I have fond memories of that old noisy dreck 😉
When I read mister Evenharmonics posts I imagine a dozens of mister EvenHarmonics alike taking a test which results get published . Is it that that far from possible occurrence??
I'm am not on the quest to save the public from the vices of High End audio industry . Most of practitioners of check book audio get what they deserve BUT I I'd be careful to call all of them idiots. Audio performance of particular model is more often than not secondary or even further down the list.
best regards
 
#188
limono said:
Can you point me to the DBT results where it actually revealed the difference between any audio devices :amps ,( Tube and SS), Dacs ,CD players ,Tuners and turntables , cables?
Click to expand...

There are lots of those.
ABX Double Blind Tests: CD Players & DA Converters
ABX Double Blind Test Results: Power Amps
ABX Double Blind Test Results: Tape Generations
ABX Double Blind Test Results: Tape Decks
Headphone outputs : lots of measurments and one ABX
No one is claiming everything sounds the same. Only that it's not that difficult to make things with no audible artefacts.
 
#190
mach1 said:
If there were any differences detected under DBT conditions the items under test obviously weren't competently designed.
Click to expand...

Not if you design for certain audible artefacts. Or if you want to minimise the audible artefacts for instance in low bitrate lossy coding.

In both cases, designing for audible artefacts or designing without audible artefacts, double blind testing is a very valuable tool.
 
#192
True believers have an explanation for the chain of 303s. They assert that the first 303 damaged the sound in some way which meant that the rest of the 303s could not damage it further.

Minor snag with this 'explanation': the only distortion which acts in this way is peak clipping, and I am sure Peter Walker was competent enough to ensure no clipping took place.

All other distortions (and frequency response errors) which I can think of would be cumulative. Even even-order distortion in an inverting amp (which cancels in a cascade) causes a build-up of higher order terms.
 
#193
limono said:
No , I didn't but we experimented with the cables. After second round I was not able to form a clear opinion. It was not very scientific and frankly it wasn't conclusive . My friend's wife came from work and asked " what are you playing with boys" we explained that we're comparing cables . She rolled her eyes. Let me listen , she said . We played one cable, than another and she said . First cable sounds this and that the other does that and this . She was spot on , the problem was she couldn't say which one was better and why.
Please don't try to tell me that if you listen to your own intimately familiar setup with music of your choice you cannot spot the difference in amplifier even if they match the level and put the amp. behind the curtain .
Click to expand...

In the case of cables differences are a consequence of an inadequately specified preamplifier. An adequately specified preamp will eliminate any differences between cables.

This is what we are really hearing when we hear differences between equipment - the inadequacies of a component to do its job. Hence we hear a difference between SE and PP because most SE amps have inadequate damping to control the speaker load.

I would say that what people generally like about a particular piece of equipment are its inadequacies for the job.

Shoog
 
#197
I grew up with a 303 based system, it was replaced with the 606 and there was a definite change. My brother inherited the 303 but quickly replaced it with a Cyrus amp. None of these choices were made because they all sounded the same.

Shoog
 
#199
i am a tubehead for the simple reason that i like tubes for the fire inside the bottle that they contain....and not for any supposed superiority with any other technology....
i find enjoyment in both single ended and push-pull....
although i will admit that i am partial to teevee tubes....😉
 
#200
mach1 said:
Suggestion: new 606 = better than old 303. New Alvin Gold approved Cyrus2 = better than 606. He heard what he wanted to hear or read he should hear.
Click to expand...
Its just foolish to suggest that the 303 was neutral sounding. it has that 70's sound and anything after it developed a slightly different sound

As an example of this:

Exemplifying all that was admirable in British hi-fi, the 33 preamp (£43) and 303 power amp (£55) were Quad’s first commercial solid-state offerings, the company having waited for the new-fangled transistor to settle down before embracing it in 1967.
It was in many ways ‘a solid-state Quad 22’. Any previous customer would have immediately recognised the control locations, the flushmounted rotaries, the balance control under the volume control, the press buttons that also offered Quad’s unique, fully cancellable filter and tone controls and RIAA selectors. In size, the 303 and the Quad II power amps were nearly interchangeable. Both units would fit in precisely the same cabinet/ shelf spaces vacated by their valve predecessors.
In the preamp – a true ‘control unit’ – Quad accommodated various phono sources with plug-in boards for different cartridge sensitivities and impedances. Its matching solidstate sister was rated at 45W RMS into 8ohms, and was able to deliver 28W into 16ohms; it was designed to be stable into any load. Wireless World concluded that ‘The amplifier also has automatic current-limiting rendering it indestructible under virtually any combination of input and output, including an open circuit or dead short across the output terminals.’ Quad eventually sold 120,000 33 control units and 94,000 303 power amps.

SILKY SOUNDS
Returning a cherished 33/303 to active duty, after a 10-year break, we were staggered at just how good it was, even by today’s elevated standards. But it is neither as quiet nor as precise as current Quad equivalents. However, the 33/303 combination has a silkiness not normally associated with early transistor designs. With Jimmy Scott’s exquisite All The Way, a set of standards with the high-voiced legend backed primarily by piano, the sound through LS3/5As was almost too rich to be believed – it recalled valves as much as it did early trannies.
Resonant harmonics, shimmering into the aether, from that gentle piano, the slightly smoky hints that contrast with a voice often mistaken for a woman’s, the massed strings on ‘Every Time We Say Goodbye’ – although dating from 1992, the feel was that of a lush 1950s Capitol LP session.
With sizzling guitarwork from Jeff Beck’s recent tribute to Les Paul neither the speed nor the treble extension, the staccato transients or even the plump bass were undermined by the merely adequate wattage nor the unit’s nearly 50-years-old circuitry. Nor did this pairing have trouble combining with the delectable Tannoy Autograph Mini speaker.
For vinyl, we fed the all-Linn LP12 front end into an Ortofon step-up, to enjoy Nat ‘King’ Cole remasters from Analogue Sounds, as well as Sundazed’s reissues of Soft Machine and The Ventures albums. Returning to LS3/5As, we had effectively recreated a system one would have heard in the ’70s (save for the Linn’s MC). The standard wasn’t merely high: it was impressive. Of course it lacked the sort of ‘slam’ we now take for granted. Not that the bass was absent or lacking in extension, it seemed to be more a matter of power and tonal character.

VERDICT
With fine examples of the 33/303 plentiful, affordable and such a pleasure to use, it’s a lifestyle choice, like the decision to run a Morris Minor. Yep, the 33/303 is a time machine, and the destination is 1970. Switch off your mobile phone and you’ll be fine.
Click to expand...

Quad 33/303 - Vintage - Pre/power amplifiers

I would concur with every statement there.

Shoog
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom