It's better an amplifier that sound warm or one that sound cold?

[musicoverall]

If the differences in amplifier sound are anywhere near obvious anyone could hear them. As to unaccountable variables in Ian Masters tests, what exactly do you mean. Various amps/receivers were level matched then played on the same speakers. Any differences in audio quality should have been very, very easy to detect. If the variances are so subtle that not even the best trained people can tell the difference, does it really matter???? Put your money in good speakers and room acoustics.

You obviously disagree so I would suggest that you go and buy the biggest most expensive separates money can buy, if nothing else your array will be very impressive.

So you're saying that any two amps, no matter how extreme the FR numbers, distortion specs and other measurements might be, sound identical when level matched? You believe that solid state and tubed amps sound alike, in spite of the documentation to the contrary - particularly documentation on the ABX website???? You're going to need something other than this Masters test to convince me the ABX folks are wrong. There is proof to debunk the results of this test - published proof. If you're attempting to render that proof inaccurate, please provide evidence.

As for unaccountable differences, I've stated them already. These tests tend to be conducted in some lab rather than the participants home listening environment using unfamiliar music and unfamiliar equipment. Might that not prove confusing? As I've said before, I could give someone an eye exam showing they couldn't tell the colors blue from green. All I'd have to do is make them use my eyeglasses.

But the REAL problem is that we don't know what the variables were in the Masters test. Masters doesn't say and therefore doesn't say how he accounted for them which makes me say that we can't take them at face value. What we DO know is that no one could tell the tubed monoblocks from the cheapo solid state. That makes this test less than believable. If all they tested were one solid state against another, you'd have some viable evidence. But if they can't tell tubes from solid state, I have to question either something about the test methodology or the participants. I'm very surprised that a hardcore objectivist such as you seem to be would simply accept it, particularly when it flies in the face of current knowledge concerning tubes vs transistors.

[ruadmaa]

So you're saying that any two amps, no matter how extreme the FR numbers, distortion specs and other measurements might be, sound identical when level matched? You believe that solid state and tubed amps sound alike, in spite of the documentation to the contrary - particularly documentation on the ABX website???? You're going to need something other than this Masters test to convince me the ABX folks are wrong. There is proof to debunk the results of this test - published proof. If you're attempting to render that proof inaccurate, please provide evidence.

As for unaccountable differences, I've stated them already. These tests tend to be conducted in some lab rather than the participants home listening environment using unfamiliar music and unfamiliar equipment. Might that not prove confusing? As I've said before, I could give someone an eye exam showing they couldn't tell the colors blue from green. All I'd have to do is make them use my eyeglasses.

But the REAL problem is that we don't know what the variables were in the Masters test. Masters doesn't say and therefore doesn't say how he accounted for them which makes me say that we can't take them at face value. What we DO know is that no one could tell the tubed monoblocks from the cheapo solid state. That makes this test less than believable. If all they tested were one solid state against another, you'd have some viable evidence. But if they can't tell tubes from solid state, I have to question either something about the test methodology or the participants. I'm very surprised that a hardcore objectivist such as you seem to be would simply accept it, particularly when it flies in the face of current knowledge concerning tubes vs transistors.

I grew up in the vacuum tube days, and no, tubes are nothing special. Quite frankly, in my opinion, tubes are nothing but trouble and I have no desire to return to the tube amp days.

If both Ian Masters and Julian Hirsch could not tell the difference between amplifiers which included tube amps that is good enough for me.

[musicoverall]

I grew up in the vacuum tube days, and no, tubes are nothing special. Quite frankly, in my opinion, tubes are nothing but trouble and I have no desire to return to the tube amp days.

If both Ian Masters and Julian Hirsch could not tell the difference between amplifiers which included tube amps that is good enough for me.

...it isn't good enough for me. That they cannot tell the difference between tube amps and solid state amps makes me wonder if they can tell the difference between speakers.

You see, the problem that subjectivists have with blind tests (well, one of the problems!) is that they claim the tests mask the subtle differences they are testing to find. In other words, the tests aren't sensitive enough, which is why mostly null results occur. So when known differences exist between components and those differences aren't picked up by blind tests, something is amiss. Either the so-called "known" differences don't really exist or the tests are suspect...or the participants have one of the problems I mentioned above. Since known differences exist between tube and SS amps (even the most staunch objectivist I've ever encountered will concede THAT one!), the Masters tests shed no light on the situation of amp differences. The only thing they show is that something went awry with the test. If known differences exist between tube and solid state amps and the trials produced only the null, it makes one wonder if there really were differences between two or more of the SS amps compared with one another and the participants simply missed them due to the problems with blind testing or whatever. We just don't know and because we don't know, your conclusion that all amps sound alike is not supported by the Masters tests. I do, however, accept that all amps sound alike to you personally. That is your experience and is inarguable, as is your preference for solid state.

[ruadmaa]

...it isn't good enough for me. That they cannot tell the difference between tube amps and solid state amps makes me wonder if they can tell the difference between speakers.

You see, the problem that subjectivists have with blind tests (well, one of the problems!) is that they claim the tests mask the subtle differences they are testing to find. In other words, the tests aren't sensitive enough, which is why mostly null results occur. So when known differences exist between components and those differences aren't picked up by blind tests, something is amiss. Either the so-called "known" differences don't really exist or the tests are suspect...or the participants have one of the problems I mentioned above. Since known differences exist between tube and SS amps (even the most staunch objectivist I've ever encountered will concede THAT one!), the Masters tests shed no light on the situation of amp differences. The only thing they show is that something went awry with the test. If known differences exist between tube and solid state amps and the trials produced only the null, it makes one wonder if there really were differences between two or more of the SS amps compared with one another and the participants simply missed them due to the problems with blind testing or whatever. We just don't know and because we don't know, your conclusion that all amps sound alike is not supported by the Masters tests. I do, however, accept that all amps sound alike to you personally. That is your experience and is inarguable, as is your preference for solid state.

You may wish to follow this link to a pdf file that is pretty self explanatory: http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

[Feanor]

You may wish to follow this link to a pdf file that is pretty self explanatory: http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

On page 6 see the column, "Probability Result Due to Chance". There you will see that the were several instances where identification was very unlikely to be due to chance, viz. ...

Counterpoint vs. NAD: 5.6%
Futterman vs. Levinson: 4.6%
Futterman vs. Hafler: 5.5%

This refutes the simple assertion that differences cannot be heard -- on the contrary, it strongly implies that they can, at least between certain amps in a given setup.

[ruadmaa]

On page 6 see the column, "Probability Result Due to Chance". There you will see that the were several instances where identification was very unlikely to be due to chance, viz. ...

Counterpoint vs. NAD: 5.6%
Futterman vs. Levinson: 4.6%
Futterman vs. Hafler: 5.5%

This refutes the simple assertion that differences cannot be heard -- on the contrary, it strongly implies that they can, at least between certain amps in a given setup.

In the area to the far right, directly above listener comments the article clearly states: "But for now, the evidence would seem to suggest that distinctive amplifier sounds, if they exist at all, are so minute that they form a poor basis for choosing one amplifier over another. Certainly there are still differences between amps, but we are unlikely to hear them".

[Feanor]

In the area to the far right, directly above listener comments the article clearly states: "But for now, the evidence would seem to suggest that distinctive amplifier sounds, if they exist at all, are so minute that they form a poor basis for choosing one amplifier over another. Certainly there are still differences between amps, but we are unlikely to hear them".

You and Master can ignore them if you like, but they they are. To his credit, Masters included them.

Bear in mind, it is in the nature of DBTs that they cannot prove that differences do not exist, only they could not be reliably identified under the circumstances of the given test. But in this case the results strongly suggest that differences did exist at least between certain units.

[musicoverall]

You may wish to follow this link to a pdf file that is pretty self explanatory: http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

I'll have to check it out when I get to work in the morning. My ancient computer at home is struggling to open it.

I hope it's better than the Master's tests! Perhaps this one shows the protocol and the ancillary gear, etc? Sadly, most of what I've read so far is not very forthcoming about how they derived their results. Deliberate obfuscation rarely strengthens a point of view. But I'll definitely give it a read. Thanks!