I don't want to be the bad guy here, but we've so far had a few people tell us about the obvious differences that they and some test group have noticed between amps, yet each one is just a "one day, we did xyz" story. No published results. Lets see some facts, and things will get fairer than word-of-mouth storytelling.
That being said, even though I sit more on the "amps aren't your biggest problem, ever" side of the fence, I will admit that amps DO impart a sonic signature of their very own. But, as I understand (and I could be wrong), many cheaper amps (say the $200-$1500 range) could be modified to produce a signature much more like a $20,000 amp, for only a few hundred dollars and a few hours of engineering. (In fact, Bob Carver has done EXACTLY this, I'll try and find the paper).
I am still entirely undecided on the matter, but I do know that there is NEVER a valid reason to spend $100k on an amplifier. Even if the "Every amp sounds very different" crowd is right, that does NOT mean that more expensive is always better. Accuton diamond tweeters, for instance, are stupidly expensive, and yet have nothing on the somewhat cheaper raven 3.2 MMX ribbons or the vastly cheaper scanspeak revelator tweeters.
And as long as we're all stuck in the stupidity of passive crossovers, I'd say amplifier signatures are the least of our worries. Give me a good active xo/dsp (the DEQX will do) and a whole bunch of crown amps, and you can keep your $20,000 amp and outdated, powersucking passives. 😛
Flame suit on (just having a bit of fun guys, I'm not trying to crush anyone's thoughts here. This thread should be kept light-hearted)
That being said, even though I sit more on the "amps aren't your biggest problem, ever" side of the fence, I will admit that amps DO impart a sonic signature of their very own. But, as I understand (and I could be wrong), many cheaper amps (say the $200-$1500 range) could be modified to produce a signature much more like a $20,000 amp, for only a few hundred dollars and a few hours of engineering. (In fact, Bob Carver has done EXACTLY this, I'll try and find the paper).
I am still entirely undecided on the matter, but I do know that there is NEVER a valid reason to spend $100k on an amplifier. Even if the "Every amp sounds very different" crowd is right, that does NOT mean that more expensive is always better. Accuton diamond tweeters, for instance, are stupidly expensive, and yet have nothing on the somewhat cheaper raven 3.2 MMX ribbons or the vastly cheaper scanspeak revelator tweeters.
And as long as we're all stuck in the stupidity of passive crossovers, I'd say amplifier signatures are the least of our worries. Give me a good active xo/dsp (the DEQX will do) and a whole bunch of crown amps, and you can keep your $20,000 amp and outdated, powersucking passives. 😛
Flame suit on (just having a bit of fun guys, I'm not trying to crush anyone's thoughts here. This thread should be kept light-hearted)
"...no one has ever (yes, ever!) heard a difference between two amplifiers..."
Peter Alcatraz
It is worse than that.
Oh good, the crazy thread has re-emerged.
Can I ask a purely semantic question of all you difference theorists? A kind of series question that is? A thought experiment?
For the purposes of the experiment it is necessary to introduce the concept of a 'perfect amplifier'. This is a kind of mathematical idea, such as 'zero' or 'infinity' or 'in the limit'. A perfect amplifier has an output identical to that of the input other than in scale, i.e. it is more powerful or, if the output is applied to a suitable 'perfect attenuator', it will exactly resemble the input. This is an amplifier of the mind.
Is it not the case that it is the intent of an amplifier designer to create an amplifier whose sound is indistinguishable from that of a perfect amplifier?
If 2 different amplifiers, regardless of construction, have a sound, each of which is identical to the sound of a perfect amplifier, will not then their sounds be identical?
This is the crux of what Peter Aczel is saying.
Evidently some people think that this is not the case, but I can assure you that within the commonly accepted meanings of the words I have used, it is the case.
w
Oh, misspelling his name. How low do you want to go? How bad do you want to look?
Can I ask a purely semantic question of all you difference theorists? A kind of series question that is? A thought experiment?
For the purposes of the experiment it is necessary to introduce the concept of a 'perfect amplifier'. This is a kind of mathematical idea, such as 'zero' or 'infinity' or 'in the limit'. A perfect amplifier has an output identical to that of the input other than in scale, i.e. it is more powerful or, if the output is applied to a suitable 'perfect attenuator', it will exactly resemble the input. This is an amplifier of the mind.
Is it not the case that it is the intent of an amplifier designer to create an amplifier whose sound is indistinguishable from that of a perfect amplifier?
If 2 different amplifiers, regardless of construction, have a sound, each of which is identical to the sound of a perfect amplifier, will not then their sounds be identical?
This is the crux of what Peter Aczel is saying.
Evidently some people think that this is not the case, but I can assure you that within the commonly accepted meanings of the words I have used, it is the case.
w
Oh, misspelling his name. How low do you want to go? How bad do you want to look?
Last edited:
The question is an insult in itself! Did you say theorists?
Look dude, if you can't hear any difference it is alright but we are not theorists, we are talking about lots of years of endless practice.
Do not dare to talk about semantics... please....
What is happenning here???
I don't understand what's WRONG with the editor statement ("...no one has ever (yes, ever!) heard a difference between two amplifiers..."). 😕
And I don't understand either what's WRONG with HornTube statement ("Most idiotic statement in audio history") 😕
The editor was "right" when he implied that in a CONTROLLED situation it is PRACTICALLY impossible to hear subtle differences (and the referred blind test is not really controlled), tho the differences are RIGHT THERE. Imagine just how many people, ignorantly, comparing devices (e.g. doing a blind test) without a controlled environment.
Yes, there are people with better hearing. And I think I have one also, a sensitive ear, tongue, feeling, and I think I can sense a "ghost" around me either 😀 Well, my boy seems to be able to see them, make me scared! (of course I'm not scared of the "things" but I'm afraid of what may happen to my boy, or what he is going to be. I don't know whether I should try to stop that or just let it be).
HornTube and John Curl are of course right with their statements. But I believe that most of those in their "camp" are more idiotic than the editor.
If you seek for absolute correctness in any statement, of course the editor's statement is wrong, and so is HornTube's statement. Because it is certainly not the MOST idiotic statement in history. May be the 12th I'm not sure...
I don't understand what's WRONG with the editor statement ("...no one has ever (yes, ever!) heard a difference between two amplifiers..."). 😕
And I don't understand either what's WRONG with HornTube statement ("Most idiotic statement in audio history") 😕
The editor was "right" when he implied that in a CONTROLLED situation it is PRACTICALLY impossible to hear subtle differences (and the referred blind test is not really controlled), tho the differences are RIGHT THERE. Imagine just how many people, ignorantly, comparing devices (e.g. doing a blind test) without a controlled environment.
Yes, there are people with better hearing. And I think I have one also, a sensitive ear, tongue, feeling, and I think I can sense a "ghost" around me either 😀 Well, my boy seems to be able to see them, make me scared! (of course I'm not scared of the "things" but I'm afraid of what may happen to my boy, or what he is going to be. I don't know whether I should try to stop that or just let it be).
HornTube and John Curl are of course right with their statements. But I believe that most of those in their "camp" are more idiotic than the editor.
If you seek for absolute correctness in any statement, of course the editor's statement is wrong, and so is HornTube's statement. Because it is certainly not the MOST idiotic statement in history. May be the 12th I'm not sure...
The best is to taste the output leads with the tongue
Can be quiet useful (serious) for checking out the output if you don't have a voltmeter.
Okay so we are in an uhm... millenium country. How do you define a controlled environment? (I believe that a perfectly controlled environment is just not achievable practically. The editor might only said a few examples). As you said, your listening skill is developed from years of practice. Were those years of practice with a controlled environment? Of course not.
Actually, one single GENERAL statement cannot make us seen like idiots. But too many may. And there are idiots in both camps so let's stop in case we are one of them 😀
I agree that it isn't the MOST idiotic statement in Audio history. One only has to search the name "tspence" on diymobileaudio.com forums to see that.
Mr. Curl, please try Baxandall´s difference test with equipment (above certain level conservative measured performance), hear output difference signal (with real level compared to input signal-music), and compare this heared "nothing" with differences, You "hear"..Ears are very unreliable and mostly show us differences between ears and expectations..
Last edited:
Agree , All electronic devices sound different ......
a shame but true .....
🙄
LOL.. so true Carlos ..... 😀
very interesting results John ....
LOL.. .So true ....... 🙂
This thread has quickly run its course. There is no good outcome for this type of thread.- Status
- Not open for further replies.