Why does my amp sound better than my receiver?

[mtrycraft]

Those? Which are those? Here are your daily memory pills:

Null Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis

We're STILL waiting for those to be disclosed. First they exist. Then they don't. Then again they're supposed to exist.

(montereyamnesia3)

rw

You are worse off than I thought. You need some professional help.

[E-Stat]

You are worse off than I thought. You need some professional help.

You never did answer my question from the third post reference. Remember? So which of your two conflicting statements do you want to stick with? What a quandry !

mtry contemplating the response:

If I stick with my first statement...

A. There are no citations of ANY tests with equipment better than mid-fi, then he has a valid point. I don't like that.

or if I go with the second...

B. There actually are tests run with hi end gear, then he's gonna ask again for me to produce them. I don't like that either.

I've got it. I'll just dodge the questions again because I don't like answering them anyway. That always worked before !

(montereyamnesia4)

rw

[Geoffcin]

Here's Some interesting science from Cardas on cable performance.


http://cardas.com/insights/index.html


Seems that you can measure cable performance with something as simple as a square wave. So much for nothing measurable between different cables.

[mtrycraft]

Seems that you can measure cable performance with something as simple as a square wave. So much for nothing measurable between different cables.

The square wave is anything but simple.


Who ever stated there is nothing measurable difference between cables? I bet with the right instruments, you can measure a 1" length difference in a cable. So, what are you trying to say or imply?

[hifitommy]

that you think that measurement should be done with a tape meaure!

[mtrycraft]

that you think that measurement should be done with a tape meaure!

You certainly don't do it with your ears.

[mtrycraft]

You never did answer my question from the third post reference. Remember? So which of your two conflicting statements do you want to stick with? What a quandry !

mtry contemplating the response:

If I stick with my first statement...

A. There are no citations of ANY tests with equipment better than mid-fi, then he has a valid point. I don't like that.

or if I go with the second...

B. There actually are tests run with hi end gear, then he's gonna ask again for me to produce them. I don't like that either.

I've got it. I'll just dodge the questions again because I don't like answering them anyway. That always worked before !

(montereyamnesia4)

rw

You keep shifting and mixing your questions so much who knows, not even you know what you want to ask.

What components would be acceptable to you? Any? Why not list all that would satisfy your irrelevant question.
What you should be doing instead is supplying the proof for differences which you don't have nor will ever hope to have. That is your burden, regardless what equipment list I have or don't have.

Better, yet, you should acquire all those citations yourself and find out.

[Sondek]

The whole concept of "Proof" is totally unprovable and irrelevant to the enjoyment of music or reality.

Listener: makes declaration that he hears ____________ or a difference in ____________ and ____________

Mtrycrafts quotes 4 websites or popular topics ____________ said in an abx/dbt no one heard the difference between a ______________ and ______________ or ___________ makes no difference.

1. There is no way the listener can actually prove what he heard, unless other people are there and hear it also. The only thing you can do is point out dubious methods. (IE using Bose 301's as a reference monitor) Other than that, the individual most likely did, or didn't hear what was claimed. There is no reason to tell someone they can't hear a difference, or must hear a difference.

2. There is no way *any* abx/dbt can be cited, as the listener was not there. So a few measurements, or a test done with other people is not valid to argue that the listener was not correct.

3. Spending over 5,000 posts attempting to decry quality cables, cd players and amps is absurd. Telling everyone else they are biased, and you are not (or don't have a burr/ajenda) is absurd.

FWIW: no matter what MTRYCRAFTS says:

All cd players do NOT sound the same
All amps do not sound the same
All cables do not sound the same
There is such a thing as midfi (recievers) and hifi (separates) and they do sound different. The separates perform better.

Human hearing can percieved variances that a simple resistive measurement cannot. There is much more to sound than simple frequency response, or amplitude.

There is no proof on this planet that can tell me otherwise. Mtrycrafts can make another 5,000 posts, just to argue with this, and it makes no difference to me at all. He can tell me anything he wants, anything any test cites, and that won't make any difference. I know what I can and cannot hear.

I urge all of you to listen for yourself as to what makes music, and what doesn't. cutting mtrycrafts and his posts out of your life will only serve to enrich your experiance.

"You can change perceptions, but reality won't budge" Rush/show, don't tell/ presto

[Sealed]

The whole concept of "Proof" is totally unprovable and irrelevant to the enjoyment of music or reality.

Listener: makes declaration that he hears ____________ or a difference in ____________ and ____________

Mtrycrafts quotes 4 websites or popular topics ____________ said in an abx/dbt no one heard the difference between a ______________ and ______________ or ___________ makes no difference.

1. There is no way the listener can actually prove what he heard, unless other people are there and hear it also. The only thing you can do is point out dubious methods. (IE using Bose 301's as a reference monitor) Other than that, the individual most likely did, or didn't hear what was claimed. There is no reason to tell someone they can't hear a difference, or must hear a difference.

2. There is no way *any* abx/dbt can be cited, as the listener was not there. So a few measurements, or a test done with other people is not valid to argue that the listener was not correct.

3. Spending over 5,000 posts attempting to decry quality cables, cd players and amps is absurd. Telling everyone else they are biased, and you are not (or don't have a burr/ajenda) is absurd.

FWIW: no matter what MTRYCRAFTS says:

All cd players do NOT sound the same
All amps do not sound the same
All cables do not sound the same
There is such a thing as midfi (recievers) and hifi (separates) and they do sound different. The separates perform better.

Human hearing can percieved variances that a simple resistive measurement cannot. There is much more to sound than simple frequency response, or amplitude.

There is no proof on this planet that can tell me otherwise. Mtrycrafts can make another 5,000 posts, just to argue with this, and it makes no difference to me at all. He can tell me anything he wants, anything any test cites, and that won't make any difference. I know what I can and cannot hear.

I urge all of you to listen for yourself as to what makes music, and what doesn't. cutting mtrycrafts and his posts out of your life will only serve to enrich your experiance.

"You can change perceptions, but reality won't budge" Rush/show, don't tell/ presto

AMEN! I could not have said it better. Listening to music, not test gear.

[mtrycraft]

AMEN! I could not have said it better. Listening to music, not test gear.

Too bad. You should expand your horizon more. Might lear a few things.

[mtrycraft]

Boy, you ar eso far off the target that you are in another world, not in audio land. Mythology land?

Of cores a person can demonstrate what he can hear or not hear regardless what others can demonstrate or not. How silly can you be? The rest of your post goes down hill from there. No need to respond to a silly poster.

[E-Stat]

You keep shifting and mixing your questions so much who knows, not even you know what you want to ask.

I haven't shifted an inch. Your references have always been either ridiculously incomplete or been based on mediocre mid-fi components.

What components would be acceptable to you?

If the question is whether or not audible differences can be heard with the state-of-the-art equipment, then start by elimininating all receivers and bookshelf speakers. Comparing one size zip to another size zip and declaring that the results are conclusive for ALL cables of ALL designs is absurd. There are innumerable components better than cheapo BB fare. Say like the ones in the Tag McLaren reference.

Better, yet, you should acquire all those citations yourself and find out.

So the answer to my question is "A" - there are no serious citations.

Detente - you have no proof (nor experience with anything worth proof) and I have no proof you'd accept. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less what labcoats think. DBTs will likely never be done with cables for commercial purposes (or any other component for that matter) for reasons I've stated before. Your advice to the masses needs a big fat qualified asterisk given the performance limitations of your citations..

rw

[mtrycraft]

Of course you shifted a mile. Just review the treads. You confused issues with every post, didn't stay on topic. Selective memory?
Remember the 'get a doifferent expert?'
You cannot make a list, nothing will satisfy you. You have no proof, period, regardless what I will or will not accept. You have anecdotes and testimonials no better than infomertials have.

I guess Greenhill must have had a superior setup to show cable differences, right?
You cannot even demonstrate that you need a system you claim you need to hear differences. You speculate on that too with nothing to support it with. Speculating that you do, insisting that you do is worthless, isn't it?
How can you be taken seriously about anything? You don't have anything of value. But, you are happy with what you have as I am.

[E-Stat]

Of course you shifted a mile. Just review the treads.

When did tires come into play?

You confused issues with every post, didn't stay on topic. Selective memory? Remember the 'get a doifferent expert?'

It will likely come as a surprise to you that those were your words! I was questioning your flip flop comments between these two posts:

Wire is Wire - The Proof

Wire is Wire - The Proof

First you tell Rikki that he needs a new expert because he is breaking in his cables according to one expert - then you ask where you ever said such a thing. Have you had someone check out your short term amnesia problem?

You cannot make a list, nothing will satisfy you.

I already did.

I guess Greenhill must have had a superior setup to show cable differences, right?

If this is your reference:

A 6-page article by Laurence Greenhill titled "Speaker Cables: Can You Hear the Difference?" was published in Stereo Review magazine on August 1983. It compared Monster cable, 16-gauge wire and 24-gauge wire. The price at that time for a pair of 30-foot lengths of monster cables was $55.00. The cost for 16 gauge heavy lamp cord was $.30/foot or $18.00 and the 24 gauge "speaker wire" was $.03/foot or $1.80

"...So what do our fifty hours of testing, scoring and listening to speaker cables amount to? Only that 16-gauge lamp cord and Monster cable are indistinguishable from each other with music and seem to be superior to the 24 gauge wire commonly sold or given away as 'speaker cable.' Remember, however, that it was a measurable characteristic--higher resistance per foot--that made 24 gauge sound different from the other cables. If the cable runs were only 6 instead of 30 feet, the overall cable resistances would have been lower and our tests would probably have found no audible differences between the three cables. This project was unable to validate the sonic benefits claimed for exotic speaker cables over common 16-gauge zip cord. We can only conclude, therefore, that there is little advantage besides pride of ownership in using these thick, expensive wires"

Then it all depends upon what he is trying to prove. More than likely, he was trying to determine what Joe Stereo would hear with his $300 Pioneer receiver and bookshelf speakers using 1983 wire technology. As to determining the performance envelope of audio cables (especially in terms of what is available today) , his test is an utter joke.

A. Using 30 feet of zip will mask a ton of fine details
B. He is only comparing one kind of zip with another. 1983 Monster is 12 gauge zip.
C. Although he doesn't state what equipment he uses (no surprise), I highly doubt that his 1983 receiver is anything representative of the state-of-the-art.
D. His test is valid for only that which he tests. It has nothing to do with numerous cables today that are quite different and better than zip.

How can you be taken seriously about anything?

That is for others to judge. Unlike you who has zip in the way of audio experience (pun intended), I do have considerable experience with some state-of-the-art gear. Unlike you, I'm sure that most audiophiles would very much like to spend a weekend with Harry Pearson to hear his spectacular system and talk with him about music and audio. I leave for Seacliff Friday night.

rw

[maxg]

Casually perusing this thread it seems to me we have another round of "I hear a difference between 2 amps" / "Oh no you dont" / "Oh yes he does" etc. etc. etc.

From what I understand of Mtry's position 2 solid state amps driving benign loads and within their limits (at normal listening levels etc.) have never been proved to sound different.

This may or may not be true, but is it applicable to the case in point?

Does anyone happen to know, for example, what the impedance characteristics of the speakers in question are? If these speakers have dramatic falls in impedance (or even rises in impedance) then the load on the amp will not necessarily be benign and the scientific evidence, therefore, inapplicable.

I too, used to have a Yamaha receiver some years ago. I attempted to drive a new pair of Klipsch Heresies with them and couldnt get any bass out of the things at all. At the time I got hold of a Rotel 1080 2 channel power amp and using the Yamaha as a pre - obtained a very different result with masses of bass. Of course the sound was still hard enough to drive nails into the walls!!

As it happens I came across a chart of impedance levels for the Heresy. It seems that at higher frequencies the impedance climbs all the way to 37 ohms (nominal 8 remember) and I am guessing that had something to do with the failure of the Yamaha to drive them.

As a reverse case I once tried to drive a pair of Quad 989 speakers with an Accuphase E211 integrated amplifier rated at 90 wpc. At very moderate volumes the amp simply shut down, whilst a lower power (45 wpc) tube amp played on at much higher volumes. Again we guessed that impedance was the issue. It seems that Quads drop down to around 2 ohms at points in the spectrum and that was just too low for the Accuphase.

YMMV and all over caveats