Which Amp

[skeptic]

This statement ignores the fact that nearly all vacuum tube amplifiers exhibit significantly inferior performance by delivering an indistinct unclear sound and boomy colored bass with limited low end capability. (I exclude the relative handful of OTL tube amplifiers which have overcome the high output impedence exhibited by conventional designs using very high plate impedence output circuits with inefficient impedence matching transformers.) This is regarded by some audiophiles as a "warm" or "sweet" sound especially when connected to their shrill audiophile loudspeakers with limited low frequency output capability. The electrical shortcomings of these amplifiers may actually compensate for the shortcomings of the loudspeakers but that hardly justifies their other obvious limitations for example the fact that they begin to self destruct from the first second they are turned on.

The abillity of amplifiers with linear signal topology to perform up to their audible potential depends on the quality of the power supply and the nature of the load. Small amplifiers with relatively modest power supplies will sound indistinguishable from heftier designs with efficient easy to drive loads. On the other hand, the beefier designs will show their mettle when the loads are difficult and the program material is demanding. The good news it that for people more interested in the quality of the amplifier and not the quality of the brand cache, there are excellent units available at remarkably modest prices, a far cry from the market realities of 40 years ago.

The current specifications presently in use for describing and measuring amplifiers has been inherited fromt the 1930s when they showed the real differences between competing designs. They are completely obsolete and of almost no use today when comparing units. For example, frequency response is still measured at 1 watt with a resistive load. What of any practical use does that tell us?

If what you sad was true, you could pick practically any amplifier off the shelf at random and it wouldn't matter. IMO, sound systems should be engineered as a totality considering budget, type of music to be played through it, room acoustics, room size, and maximum undistorted sound levels required. Pick the loudspeakers first and then choose from amplifiers which can satisfy their drive requirements. You won't need an engineering degree to do that.

[DMK]

This statement ignores the fact that nearly all vacuum tube amplifiers exhibit significantly inferior performance by delivering an indistinct unclear sound and boomy colored bass with limited low end capability. (I exclude the relative handful of OTL tube amplifiers which have overcome the high output impedence exhibited by conventional designs using very high plate impedence output circuits with inefficient impedence matching transformers.) This is regarded by some audiophiles as a "warm" or "sweet" sound especially when connected to their shrill audiophile loudspeakers with limited low frequency output capability. The electrical shortcomings of these amplifiers may actually compensate for the shortcomings of the loudspeakers but that hardly justifies their other obvious limitations for example the fact that they begin to self destruct from the first second they are turned on.

The abillity of amplifiers with linear signal topology to perform up to their audible potential depends on the quality of the power supply and the nature of the load. Small amplifiers with relatively modest power supplies will sound indistinguishable from heftier designs with efficient easy to drive loads. On the other hand, the beefier designs will show their mettle when the loads are difficult and the program material is demanding. The good news it that for people more interested in the quality of the amplifier and not the quality of the brand cache, there are excellent units available at remarkably modest prices, a far cry from the market realities of 40 years ago.

The current specifications presently in use for describing and measuring amplifiers has been inherited fromt the 1930s when they showed the real differences between competing designs. They are completely obsolete and of almost no use today when comparing units. For example, frequency response is still measured at 1 watt with a resistive load. What of any practical use does that tell us?

If what you sad was true, you could pick practically any amplifier off the shelf at random and it wouldn't matter. IMO, sound systems should be engineered as a totality considering budget, type of music to be played through it, room acoustics, room size, and maximum undistorted sound levels required. Pick the loudspeakers first and then choose from amplifiers which can satisfy their drive requirements. You won't need an engineering degree to do that.

If you're responding to me, my statements ignore the "fact" you began with because I've never found it to be a fact. I've found tube amps outperform solid state with ease, if all we're talking about is the resultant sound and not the technical or longevity or convenience problems. If you're hearing boomy bass and especially an unclear sound, you're listening to the wrong amps! My speakers could hardly be called "shrill". No tweeter! If anything, the highs are rolled off which is ok since I can't hear anything above probably 13 khz anyway.

But I'm glad you responded because it made me remember your post regarding SS amp sound where you wrote that you knew SS amps could sound different because when you swapped one out, you had to re-calibrate your equalizer. Could you refresh this for us and perhaps Mtrycrafts could respond?

[skeptic]

First of all DMK, I was responding to Rober Czar but I will be happy to discuss the recalibraton of my equalizer when I had to swap out my blown Dynakit Stereo 120 with the comparably powered (60wpc) Mosfet 120 I built in 1993. After more than 20 years of venerable service, the Dynaco was taken out by Prokifiev's Alexander Nevsky, track 5 The Battle on the Ice DG 419 603-2. The load was the relatively efficient but not necessarily easy to drive 4 ohm Teledyne AR9s with three additional Audax tweeters per channel in parallel. I can't say if my identical vinyl recording would have been so effective at blowing up that amplifier. The Mosfet was a kind of lineal decendent of the 120 designed by Klaus and Peterson, two very respected amplifier designers. Much to my amazement, a direct swapout of the amplifiers yielded a rather different sound. For other people who haven't read any of my postings about equalization and other matters, I want my sound system to reproduce the sound of acoustical instruments as exactly as I can remember them on as many of my recordings as possible and that I haven't found the kind of measurement equipment for audiophile use including noise generators, calibrated microphones, and spectrum analyzers useful in achieving that goal. So unfortunately, I have come to resort to a long period of trial and error trying to achieve one small incremental improvement at a time and sometimes going backwards. It took me about two years to get back to where I felt I had been. Can I be absuolutely sure that the end results are exactly the same? The obvious answer is NO.

Thanks for reminding me DMK. That experience alone was enough to convince me that all amplifiers do not sound the same.

[RGA]

Good tube amplifiers that I have heard don't sound warm or sweet. most new even cheap Tube amplifiers put out under 1% total harmonic distrotion across the complete audible bandwidth - including new Single ended topoplogies - and when it does happen to distort sounds better to the ear.

I would be happy to own either a SS or a Tube so long as it sounds good - and there are pretty good and bad examples of both.

[skeptic]

As an amplifier is strictly an electrical device performing strictly an electrical function, it ought to be possible for it to be judged strictly by electrical performance criteria. It's bad enough that manufacturers of other purely electrical devices such as cables have not developed specifications, measurements, performance criteria which demonstrate the differences between their products and that of their competitors describing their unique aspect but the fact that they haven't been researched and developed by amplifier manufacturers or in other research laboratories is inexcusable. Even if these criteria weren't understandable to the average non technical consumer or had so many aspects that there are often no clearcut winners and losers, they should at least be understandable to engineers. The meager exceptions are the half hearted and far from complete efforts to describe and measure transient intermodulation distortion in the 1970s and the qualifier that harmonic distortion be described as "up to and including rated power" in the 1960s. As a result, the market for audio amplifiers has degenerated into cultism. I don't think anybody would have forseen this decades ago.

While I don't agree with Rober Czar, I sympathize with him. You could take 20 amplifiers off the shelf and to look at their specifications, every one of them should sound identical. But they don't always and not only can't you predict what their differences will be by their specifications, even when you know that they sound different, there is no rational explanation as to why. Does it have to do with the way the power supplies interact with different loudspeakers? What are the other specifications we are missing. It's maddening. Will a $4,000 Bryston power amp outperform a $400 Panasonic receiver? The industry has no difinitive way to tell us. We are left to guess, conjecture, argue, and divide in to opposing camps. Cults. If an 8 watt SET has special electrical properties which mitigate its otherwise miserable performance by outperforming the competion substantially in some critical aspect as yet unknown, there ought to be a way to prove it. And this time you can't just blame the SET manufacturers, it's an entire industry that has been lazy and indifferent. Don't look for the answers from advertising hype either. If and when answers do come, they will start out in professional journals like AES or IEEE.

[CannondaleSuperVee]

Ok, i'll come to Rober Czars' defense and anyone that wants to try and take Richard Clarks amp comparison challange and win $10000.00 is able to try, you can find out about it on carsound.com in the forum under his column, search amp challage. I got in the middle of an agument about being able to hear the diffrence between a $200 sony and a $30000 krell and R C said that if I can tell the diffrence to bring both and win an easy $10K.

[RGA]

Will a $4,000 Bryston power amp outperform a $400 Panasonic receiver? The industry has no difinitive way to tell us. We are left to guess, conjecture, argue,

Well you could also listen - if you're in the DBT rigged and goes against Validity according to psychology then listening in the same manner you would normally listen is thrown away - I have done SBT's - thanks I'll take the Bryston. And hey I owuld be happy to take the 2k CDN bryston model over the 4kUS receiver.

[skeptic]

Even if what you say is true, because we don't understand why, there is no way to predict if we would get the same results with other loudspeakers. We also have no way to know if your preference is based on an objectively better performance or your personal preferences which might be exactly the opposite were other people doing the evaluation. This is the difference between science providing understanding and validating what we hear and cultism. Not only would objective standards by which to measure and evaluate perceived differences tell us why we perceive them differently, it would tell us how far we have to go before we reach the limit of what is possible and indicate for engineers the direction they have to go in. As it is, even for engineers, it's strictly hit or miss optimizing the parameters they do know about and leaving the rest to pure chance.

[rb122]

Ok, i'll come to Rober Czars' defense and anyone that wants to try and take Richard Clarks amp comparison challange and win $10000.00 is able to try, you can find out about it on carsound.com in the forum under his column, search amp challage. I got in the middle of an agument about being able to hear the diffrence between a $200 sony and a $30000 krell and R C said that if I can tell the diffrence to bring both and win an easy $10K.

The man claims that all amps sound alike, regardless of whether they are tubed or transistored. That's a very dangerous claim for someone who is offering to pay $10K. If he kept it to transistors, he might have something.

Recently, I had the displeasure of listening to a tubed amp that exhibits some of the characteristics mentioned by Skeptic in his above post. Simply by dialing in more negative feedback, the sound worsened considerably. I'll mention this challenge to the owner of the amp. I can't imagine anyone mistaking this amp for anything else.

[skeptic]

The improper use of negative feedback is not merely deleterious, it can be an outright disaster. It can send an amplifier into spontaneous oscillation. The people who have never looked at the complex equations describing negative feedback circuits let alone solved them are playing russian roulette with their designs if they try using it. You really have to look at the phase response as a function of frequency. It really requires a lot of skill to pull it off well. Many designs are probably ho hum in this respect realizing gains in some aspects of performance and losing some in others. I'm sure there is software for the really clever EEs to just plug in their numbers and let the CPU do the crunching. There is on the othe hand real risk in not using negative feedback. Not only is harmonic distortion considerably higher, possibly by a factor of ten times or more, and not only is bandwidth more limited but negative feedback also stabalizes performance so that gain remains constant and to a degree less dependant on tube condition.

Anybody who thinks all tube amplifiers sound great should hear my old HK A500. Specs said its frequency response extended out to something like 50 or 70 khz but it had a high end rolloff to my ears, it didn't have enough power, and it didn't sound clear enough. But in those days, so did most other amplifiers because they were all tubes.

[DMK]

Anybody who thinks all tube amplifiers sound great should hear my old HK A500. Specs said its frequency response extended out to something like 50 or 70 khz but it had a high end rolloff to my ears, it didn't have enough power, and it didn't sound clear enough. But in those days, so did most other amplifiers because they were all tubes.

Not all tube amps sound great, or even decent. The best amp I ever heard is a single ended triode. The worst amp I ever heard is a single ended triode. I've heard exactly ONE SET amp that I thought sounded good. I've heard single ended pentodes that sounded good and push-pull triodes that sounded good and I've heard lousy examples of both, either of which would make a SS amp sound like nirvana. I haven't a clue what makes one sound good and the other bad. I chose my tube monoblocks because they were the best sounding amps I could afford and I don't worry about distortion numbers and the like because I've also heard a system that had measurements to die for and it sounded like hammered s**t. I ask two things from my gear: first, that it bring me as close to the live event as possible and second, that it not break down every third day. While I could ask for more in the first case, my system definitely does better than any solid state, enviable test bench system I've ever heard. Who was it on this board that said he prefers distortion that simulates reality rather than reality that simulates distortion? If I find him, I'll give him a cigar.

[skeptic]

"Who was it on this board that said he prefers distortion that simulates reality rather than reality that simulates distortion? If I find him, I'll give him a cigar."

Then give him an exploding one because distortion by its very definition doesn't bring you close to the live event, your stated goal but further away. I said in my other postings that the art of measureing amplifiers hasn't kept up nearly with the art of building them. Therefore, to a degree, the objectives for an engineer to design to are incomplete and left to hit or miss. For a purely electronic device such as an audio amplifier, this is intollerable and inexcusable.

"I haven't a clue what makes one sound good and the other bad."

That's the crux of the problem. To a degree, neither do the engineers who design them.

[DMK]

"Who was it on this board that said he prefers distortion that simulates reality rather than reality that simulates distortion? If I find him, I'll give him a cigar."

Then give him an exploding one because distortion by its very definition doesn't bring you close to the live event, your stated goal but further away. I said in my other postings that the art of measureing amplifiers hasn't kept up nearly with the art of building them. Therefore, to a degree, the objectives for an engineer to design to are incomplete and left to hit or miss. For a purely electronic device such as an audio amplifier, this is intollerable and inexcusable.

"I haven't a clue what makes one sound good and the other bad."

That's the crux of the problem. To a degree, neither do the engineers who design them.

I don't recall who first said what I quoted -it may have been RB. I can't say what he may have meant but I can give my take. Without speculating on things I know nothing about such as recording, mastering, amp construction, etc, I'll have to talk about what I do know: sound. Or at least, the sound I hear in my head and deem proper, which is all I have to go on.

For me, tubes and vinyl almost without fail bring me closer to my view of the live even than do SS and CD. Particularly with CD, the exceptions are few and therefore notable. On a few memorable occasions, I was present during the live event. When I bought the CD, there were major sonic anomalies that negatively impacted my enjoyment of the music. Whether this is the medium itself or something else makes for interesting arguments but is ultimately at least somewhat irrelevant to me, since the quality of the finished product is what I deem important.

Yet, tubes and vinyl measure less well than SS and CD, with distortion figures being the primary culprit. With tubes and vinyl, distortion may very well simulate reality while with SS and CD, measured "reality" sounds distorted. However, I understand your point. I just can't reconcile it with my idea of what music should sound like in the home.

It would be easy for someone reading to simply conclude that I prefer the sound of distortion. That someone would be wrong. A list of sonic preferences for me would look like this:

1) Live music
2) Master tape (I've heard three and neither the corresponding LP or the CD sounded remotely like it - absolutely stunning!)
3) 45 RPM LP
4) 33 RPM LP
5) SACD (4 and 5 may become inversed at some point)
6) CD

If the LP's distortions are greater in number, they are at least musically consonant. The CD's distortions are amusical and grating - to my ears. As for amps, I could easily live with SS and not feel I was missing much but I find certain tubed amps sonically superior to any SS amp I've ever heard. The differences aren't earth shattering but they're there. No exploding cigar for RB - he gets a Cuban Montecristo Torpedo, the creme de la creme! He stated succinctly what it took me several paragraphs to explain!

[rb122]

I don't recall who first said what I quoted -it may have been RB. I can't say what he may have meant but I can give my take. Without speculating on things I know nothing about such as recording, mastering, amp construction, etc, I'll have to talk about what I do know: sound. Or at least, the sound I hear in my head and deem proper, which is all I have to go on.

For me, tubes and vinyl almost without fail bring me closer to my view of the live even than do SS and CD. Particularly with CD, the exceptions are few and therefore notable. On a few memorable occasions, I was present during the live event. When I bought the CD, there were major sonic anomalies that negatively impacted my enjoyment of the music. Whether this is the medium itself or something else makes for interesting arguments but is ultimately at least somewhat irrelevant to me, since the quality of the finished product is what I deem important.

Yet, tubes and vinyl measure less well than SS and CD, with distortion figures being the primary culprit. With tubes and vinyl, distortion may very well simulate reality while with SS and CD, measured "reality" sounds distorted. However, I understand your point. I just can't reconcile it with my idea of what music should sound like in the home.

It would be easy for someone reading to simply conclude that I prefer the sound of distortion. That someone would be wrong. A list of sonic preferences for me would look like this:

1) Live music
2) Master tape (I've heard three and neither the corresponding LP or the CD sounded remotely like it - absolutely stunning!)
3) 45 RPM LP
4) 33 RPM LP
5) SACD (4 and 5 may become inversed at some point)
6) CD

If the LP's distortions are greater in number, they are at least musically consonant. The CD's distortions are amusical and grating - to my ears. As for amps, I could easily live with SS and not feel I was missing much but I find certain tubed amps sonically superior to any SS amp I've ever heard. The differences aren't earth shattering but they're there. No exploding cigar for RB - he gets a Cuban Montecristo Torpedo, the creme de la creme! He stated succinctly what it took me several paragraphs to explain!

Thanks but no thanks on the cigar! You accurately defined my earlier statement relative to distortion. I have the same issues as you with the gross inaccuracies of CD's. I'm not a diehard tube fanatic, however. I simply chose the best amp of all those I auditioned and it just happened to be powered by tubes.

[RobotCzar]

Nobody? That's a wild claim! You are infinitely familiar with each and every person that may have done such a test? Don't you mean nobody, as far as YOU know? If you do some research yourself, you might find that two guys from Stereophile demonstrated exactly what you're saying "nobody" has done. (PLEASE GIVE REFERENCE, IT IS UNLIKELY A GUY FROM STEREOPHILE COULD DEMONSTATE ANYTHING SCIENTIFICALLY.) Not enough trials to be a true demonstration? That's been said before. So now what you mean is that they haven't demonstrated it to YOUR satisfaction. That's quite a bit different from your original half-baked claim.
(MY CLAIM IS BETTER BAKED THAN YOURS AS YOU ARE ASSUMING SOMETHING WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE--"THAT I KNOW OF". DO YOU KNOW OF ANY?)

Audio magazines don't lie or fool themselves. What they do is exaggerate the differences they hear until they become "night and day" differences instead of what my experience tells me they are - slight, subtle, minute. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
(IT ALSO DOESN'T MEAN THEY DO EXIST!)

As for your last paragraph, I'd say the first sentence is very good advice, the second sentence is a claim you can't substantiate and the third is only your opinion. I'm not going to say you're wrong because, quite frankly, I think most solid state amps that measure properly and are of adequate power for the speakers DO sound nearly identical. But that's only MY experience and my opinion. So I essentially agree with your basic premise but it's absolutely wrong to think it's an absolute truth, at least at this point.

.

Of course I mean nobody I have heard of. How could I know about something I haven't heard of? I am not aware of any evidence that people can distinguish properly performing amps. Nit picking that statement is useless. I don't know that nobody can jump to the Moon, and I haven't checked everybody out. Still, I get the feeling that nobody can jump to the Moon. After 20+ years of NO ONE I KNOW OF being able to demonstrate they and hear amp differences AND due to the logic involved of distortioni and frequency response errors lower than can be detected, reasonable people might conclude that nobody can because (to my knowledge) nobody has and it defies the known perceptual abilities of humans to do so.

So, you can take the middle road and the reasonable position that we don't know that NOBODY can jump to the Moon. But, don't bet on it.

Skeptic criticizes measurements "from the 30s" (I guess the laws of physics and human perception have changed a lot since then), but he doesn't say what could be causing audible differences other than distortion and frequency response errors. There ain't anything else! He posits that some amps may have audible distortion into some speaker loads, but he is quite unspecific about that and, in my view, overestimates the problem because he thinks he hears problems in a 30 year old amp. Why assume that people can hear differences in amps, skep? Don't you think they should prove it? We are all awaiting such proof. Don't hold your breath and don't spend money on amp differences that are imaginary.

[DMK]

Of course I mean nobody I have heard of. How could I know about something I haven't heard of? I am not aware of any evidence that people can distinguish properly performing amps. Nit picking that statement is useless. I don't know that nobody can jump to the Moon, and I haven't checked everybody out. Still, I get the feeling that nobody can jump to the Moon. After 20+ years of NO ONE I KNOW OF being able to demonstrate they and hear amp differences AND due to the logic involved of distortioni and frequency response errors lower than can be detected, reasonable people might conclude that nobody can because (to my knowledge) nobody has and it defies the known perceptual abilities of humans to do so.

So, you can take the middle road and the reasonable position that we don't know that NOBODY can jump to the Moon. But, don't bet on it.

Skeptic criticizes measurements "from the 30s" (I guess the laws of physics and human perception have changed a lot since then), but he doesn't say what could be causing audible differences other than distortion and frequency response errors. There ain't anything else! He posits that some amps may have audible distortion into some speaker loads, but he is quite unspecific about that and, in my view, overestimates the problem because he thinks he hears problems in a 30 year old amp. Why assume that people can hear differences in amps, skep? Don't you think they should prove it? We are all awaiting such proof. Don't hold your breath and don't spend money on amp differences that are imaginary.

As for the reference on the Stereophile test, I don't save references. Sonic differences or no sonic differences among amps isn't a meaningful enough issue for me to go nuts and horde references. However, Mtrycrafts may have effectively shot that one down anyway.

What I meant by "no one you're aware of" has heard differences in amps is that the people that claim to do so aren't concerned enough about what you think (or what I think, either) to sit and take DBT's and make copious notes. That's for the scientific crowd. Your average audiophile only cares about what sounds good (or different) to him. There's no reason for him to try to prove anything to you. You're the skeptic - he's not. If you need proof, you can always gather your own. For what reason would they be obligated to make you happy with a peer reviewed, bias controlled test? Have you ever participated in one? I have! never again! They are a major PITA. And because YOU want proof, audiophiles should go through that?

My point is that simply because you aren't aware of anyone being able to detect differences in amps (assuming enough power, etc etc etc) doesn't mean they aren't there. You claimed they weren't. Until you've personally tested all amps under all conditions, you don't know for sure. I've tested enough of them to believe they sound virtually identical. However, Skeptic's experience with equalization that he has quoted a few times makes me wonder if perhaps my ears simply aren't up to the task. Either way, I'm satisfied with what I can or cannot hear but I don't presume that everyone else has my same hearing.

[RobotCzar]

What I meant by "no one you're aware of" has heard differences in amps is that the people that claim to do so aren't concerned enough about what you think (or what I think, either) to sit and take DBT's and make copious notes. That's for the scientific crowd. Your average audiophile only cares about what sounds good (or different) to him. There's no reason for him to try to prove anything to you. You're the skeptic - he's not. If you need proof, you can always gather your own. For what reason would they be obligated to make you happy with a peer reviewed, bias controlled test? Have you ever participated in one? I have! never again! They are a major PITA. And because YOU want proof, audiophiles should go through that?

IF "AUDIOPHILES" ONLY CARE ABOUT WHAT SOUNDS GOOD TO THEM, THEN WHY SHARE THEIR OPINIONS WITH OTHERS. THEY ARE HEARING THINGS THAT ARE ONLY IN THEIR HEADS, AND THEY ARE PRETENDING THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT REAL, OBJECTIVE DIFFERENCES. THEY NEED TO STOP AS THEY ARE MISLEADING AUDIO NEWBIES. THEY ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO MAKE ME HAPPY. ....AND I AM UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO RESPECT THEIR UNFOUNDED OPINIONS.

My point is that simply because you aren't aware of anyone being able to detect differences in amps (assuming enough power, etc etc etc) doesn't mean they aren't there. You claimed they weren't. Until you've personally tested all amps under all conditions, you don't know for sure. I've tested enough of them to believe they sound virtually identical. However, Skeptic's experience with equalization that he has quoted a few times makes me wonder if perhaps my ears simply aren't up to the task. Either way, I'm satisfied with what I can or cannot hear but I don't presume that everyone else has my same hearing.

And my point is that there is no evidence (I am aware of) that anyone can hear differences in amps. If you are aware of such evidence then tell us, if not, then don't pretend my statements are unreasonable. They are a lot more reasonable than believing things for which there is no evidence and also make no logical scienctific sense.

Let me reinterate this last point. Current scientific information about human auditory perception indicates that people cannot hear differences in distortion typical in modern amplifiers (driving typical speaker loads--for skeptic's sake). So why in the heck do you believe that some people can? If some claim that they can, shouldn't they be on the hook to demonstrate that they can? Well, to date, I am aware of no body that has demonstrated that they can.

Ask me if I care if audiophiles don't care about this or my opinion. Who cares who doesn't care about other people's opinions. Those people shouldn't be reading and writing in audio forums.

[DMK]

And my point is that there is no evidence (I am aware of) that anyone can hear differences in amps. If you are aware of such evidence then tell us, if not, then don't pretend my statements are unreasonable. They are a lot more reasonable than believing things for which there is no evidence and also make no logical scienctific sense.

Let me reinterate this last point. Current scientific information about human auditory perception indicates that people cannot hear differences in distortion typical in modern amplifiers (driving typical speaker loads--for skeptic's sake). So why in the heck do you believe that some people can? If some claim that they can, shouldn't they be on the hook to demonstrate that they can? Well, to date, I am aware of no body that has demonstrated that they can.

Ask me if I care if audiophiles don't care about this or my opinion. Who cares who doesn't care about other people's opinions. Those people shouldn't be reading and writing in audio forums.

1) I am not aware of any such evidence regarding sonic differences in amps. I don't care.
2) Your statement IS unreasonable! Your saying that because you know of no one that can discern differences in amps, that no one can.
3) I don't believe people can hear such differences. Again, that is only my belief. It just so happens I share your belief (emphasis on "belief"). But some people with some amps in some systems certainly may be able to tell differences.
4) "On the hook" to whom? You? Me? Why? Who should feel the need to demonstrate to you or me?
5) At least you finally admit that your post is only your "opinion".
6) I'm not saying you aren't totally correct. You may very well be. You may not be. But until you're proven correct, is it prudent to state unequivocally that power and features are all that's required in an amp?
7) Almost forgot - people post about their experiences with amps on audio forums because that is what they've experienced. Their implied suggestion always seems to be "try it for yourself".

[mtrycraft]

(I guess the laws of physics and human perception have changed a lot since then), .

It's called evolution

[mtrycraft]

7) Almost forgot - people post about their experiences with amps on audio forums because that is what they've experienced. Their implied suggestion always seems to be "try it for yourself".

Not all experiences are created equal or of equal value, right? Just like opinions, some are much better than others.
And the implied suggestion is also fatally flawed since no mention is made of biase, its affect on perception, and the subsequent reliability of the experience.

[lattybuck]

It is all in the synergy for me, and manyn others I suspect as well. I was taught that lesson when after rediculing radio shack, realistic equipment for their plain/flat sound a few years back a friend showed me his setup suing a realistic amp. It soudned great. He did lots of tweakin on it, but it was well balanced and very worth the under 1000 total he had in it all.
It is easy to only see thru the experiences we personally have. Doesn't make anyone elses sonic experience less valid though. Or possibly even less accurate in technical terms either. Everyone hears a little differently just as all equipment has some differences in how it reproduces that sound.
The mix is whats important in the end. Electronics to speakers to environment and finally to the sound curve you can physically hear. I have tested myself a few times and there have been changes in what I can hear clearly over the years. There is an evolving sound curve to my listening ability that I suspect everyone has to some degree. Mother nature will deal out what sounds good to you as much as anything you can obtain. In the end all we can do is give pointers based on ourselves.
My take on the "what sounds best" issue.
Take care all

[DMK]

Not all experiences are created equal or of equal value, right? Just like opinions, some are much better than others.
And the implied suggestion is also fatally flawed since no mention is made of biase, its affect on perception, and the subsequent reliability of the experience.

Right. that's why you and I have the ultimate judgment of whether we choose to believe the opinions and experiences. And it's highly unlikely the poster will care either way we go. To him, his experience is highly valuable.

The implied suggestion is "try it for yourself". Very few audiophiles find anything more powerful than their own perceptions, including bias - right or wrong. But then, I'm not telling you anything you don't already know!

[RobotCzar]

Right. that's why you and I have the ultimate judgment of whether we choose to believe the opinions and experiences. And it's highly unlikely the poster will care either way we go. To him, his experience is highly valuable.

The implied suggestion is "try it for yourself". Very few audiophiles find anything more powerful than their own perceptions, including bias - right or wrong. But then, I'm not telling you anything you don't already know!

I just want to say that I do not find a lot to disagree with in DMKs comments in this area. I disagree with his notion that there are "subtle" differences in amps, but what I really object to is his standards of proof and evidence. We have been over this a lot, but the scientifically correct view is that it is up to those making an assertion to prove it. Scientific investigation never tries to find all instances of a phenomina (e.g., all listeners). The philosophical postion that "not everyone has been tested" is merely a dodge to get the onus of proof off of those making a claim. This could be said about any scientific law or principle (e.g., not all matter has been check to see if gravity is the same for it as other matter).

The other thing that bugs me is this notion that we should all be "fair" and "accept" the views of others as they have a right to their beliefs and opinions. That is all well add good, but there is such a thing as evidences and that evidence is being ignored by a large number of "audiophiles", so much so that the extreme subjectivist magazines are now the mainstream in audio publications. Many ridiculous and unsupported concepts are taken as fact in the audio world and I find that detrimental to the hobby (or whatever you want to call it).

Perhaps the worst notion in home audio is that idea that you can simply listen and compare components. The number of variables affecting what you here is very large and a listener cannot control them all. Perhaps the most ignored variable is the listener's own expectations--one's expectations are PROVEN to effect ones perceptions therefore you can never get control of that variable unless you blind yourself. The second variable most ignored is level, but there are many, many other factors that make it impossible to get a comparison that, for example, removes all audible variables except the current from the amp. Audiophiles' "own perceptions" ARE powerful, they just happen to be very unreliable. (This unreliabity has been established in several listening tests that I AM aware of.)

I'd really like to talk about skeptic's idea that our standard measurements are lacking. There are two problems with his position at this point:

1) he merely criticizes by saying that frequency response measurements into 8 ohms of resistive impedance is inadequre, instead of giving some evidence that frequecy response changes into 4 ohms (or non-resistive loads) with typical amps. In other words, he needs some evidence other than his opinions.

2) he keeps saying he hears difference in amps, but there is no credible evidence (I am aware of) that anyone has demonstated this. If he can he should share the details with us (and not use old amps that may not be performing up to spec).

[rb122]

Perhaps the worst notion in home audio is that idea that you can simply listen and compare components. The number of variables affecting what you here is very large and a listener cannot control them all. Perhaps the most ignored variable is the listener's own expectations--one's expectations are PROVEN to effect ones perceptions therefore you can never get control of that variable unless you blind yourself. The second variable most ignored is level, but there are many, many other factors that make it impossible to get a comparison that, for example, removes all audible variables except the current from the amp. Audiophiles' "own perceptions" ARE powerful, they just happen to be very unreliable. (This unreliabity has been established in several listening tests that I AM aware of.) ).

Robot,

We've heard all of this many times in the past. However, I don't think it really hit home for me until I read the above. Your comments were succinct but thorough. I think every audiophile owes it to him/herself to read this and take heed. Thanks.

[RobotCzar]

Robot,

We've heard all of this many times in the past. However, I don't think it really hit home for me until I read the above. Your comments were succinct but thorough. I think every audiophile owes it to him/herself to read this and take heed. Thanks.

Hey rb, how are you doing? I have taken a part time job at an instructor and my class uses a computer-lab with fast Internet access, so I have some time to read and respond in AR (while they are working on projects). Find any good LPs lately? Have I ever asked you about your views on direct-to-disc LPs?

Thanks for your kind comment. As you know, I think there are many factors that are important in getting a good (i.e., realistic) result in home audio. Too bad so many people are attending to the wrong ones (in my opinion). Pehaps it is simply easier for some people to spend a lot of money on snobby equipment rather than to learn what really matters.