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

[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 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.

Nor could I get anything to come up when I entered the link in my address bar. Usually I can open pdf files so I'm not sure what's going on. But it sounds like a typical naysayer "let's draw errant conclusions from faulty information" test.

I'll try it again later.

[E-Stat]

Nor could I get anything to come up when I entered the link in my address bar. Usually I can open pdf files so I'm not sure what's going on. But it sounds like a typical naysayer "let's draw errant conclusions from faulty information" test.

It is an unusually well documented test using good associated stuff like an ARC pre and Maggies. The question of musical familiarity was not really addressed other than a reference that someone brought their own music.

The notion that this one test, however, answers for all time the question is kinda amusing though. As you indicated, there are other ABX tests that have proven otherwise.

rw

[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!