# Differences in pre-amps?



## AudioDawg

I know the "differences in amps" has been kicked around here until it is on its last leg, but what about pre-amps?

If amps that spec out the same all sound the same (for the record, I do not believe they do), shouldn't pre-amps that share the same numbers sound the same as well? Surely the switching aspect of a pre-amp does not create the flavor of the pre-amp.

All pre-amps are doing is amplifying the signal (to much less a degree) as well. Based on the assumption that all amps produce the same sound, it would seem logical that all pre-amps produce the same sound as well and only the source component is responsible for the flavor of the music.

Is that correct? If not, why?

So, what is the wisdom around these parts on pre-amps?

Thanks in advance for a civil discourse.


----------



## chashint

Since you mentioned switching you opened the door to defining what a preamp is.
There is a difference between a simple preamp and a preamp with tone controls and even more difference with a full fledged processor.
Which one do you want to talk about.


----------



## tonyvdb

If your talking about a pre/pro (receiver without any amps). The only difference would be in the added room EQ software or processing modes. If running pure direct there should be no audible difference.


----------



## AudioDawg

For the sake of this discussion, lets assume that the pre-amp has multiple inputs, an analog rotary switch to select them, an analog volume control and no tone controls.

We are in the two channel area, so this is a 2 channel pre-amp, no digital processing.


----------



## AudioDawg

The reason I ask is because I have spent a good portion of the day reading the various threads here and it seems to me that there is a prevalent assumption among the membership here that...

A cheap CD player using the on-board DAC (all DACs sound the same) driving a
Cheap pre-amp (all pre-amps sound the same) and a 
Pro/audio amp (all amps sound the same) with some
12g lamp cord (all wire sounds the same) will produce the same sonic bliss as...

A megabuck audio system...

as long as the same speakers are at the end of the chain and the amp is of sufficient wattage to drive the speakers without distortion.

I just want to know what the consensus is here. Every site has its own "flavor" and I certainly don't want to be the guy that is always spitting in the punchbowl at the party. There are plenty of things to discuss without trying to sway others to my way of thinking, and I am just looking to avoid any possible conflicts.

I have many years of experience and I love a spirited discussion, but I am not young and certainly not a fool and would not attempt to shout about the superiority of Star Trek at Star Wars convention. Swimming is hard enough without trying to swim against the current. 

Thanks.

Mike


----------



## Sonnie

I would have to _believe_ that there would be no differences in sound. However, I have never tested any to see for myself, so I obviously could not say with 100% certainty there are no differences. I suppose it is possible that a manufacturer could design a preamp to alter the response so that it does sound different, although I think the goal would be to NOT interfere with the signal in any way whatsoever. Let the user decide if they want to alter the signal with processing or tone controls.

It seems appropriate that a preamp should be completely neutral... transparent... simply there to allow source switching and provide volume control. If you get two that are indeed transparent and do nothing to the signal, then I am not sure how they cannot produce the same sound. If they do not produce the same sound, then one or both would not be transparent. In my opinion, transparent is inaudible, otherwise it is not transparent.


----------



## tonyvdb

Define cheap? a $30 CD player wont be as good as a $150 one or super low priced pre/pro however after that there would be very little if any audible difference its more a build quality and longevity thing after that.


----------



## AudioDawg

> In my opinion, transparent is inaudible, otherwise it is not transparent.


I agree 100%.

I also believe there is absolutely no way to make any electronics completely transparent, and so the differences between pre-amps (and all other electronics) exist for me.

In fact, I believe that the manufacturers do not even attempt to produce neutrality, and rather produce a distinct "house sound" for their marque.



> there would be very little if any audible difference


Tony, we will just need to agree to disagree on that point.


----------



## Sonnie

AudioDawg said:


> The reason I ask is because I have spent a good portion of the day reading the various threads here and it seems to me that there is a prevalent assumption among the membership here that...
> 
> A cheap CD player using the on-board DAC (all DACs sound the same) driving a
> Cheap pre-amp (all pre-amps sound the same) and a
> Pro/audio amp (all amps sound the same) with some
> 12g lamp cord (all wire sounds the same) will produce the same sonic bliss as...
> 
> A megabuck audio system...
> 
> as long as the same speakers are at the end of the chain and the amp is of sufficient wattage to drive the speakers without distortion.
> 
> I just want to know what the consensus is here. Every site has its own "flavor" and I certainly don't want to be the guy that is always spitting in the punchbowl at the party. There are plenty of things to discuss without trying to sway others to my way of thinking, and I am just looking to avoid any possible conflicts.
> 
> I have many years of experience and I love a spirited discussion, but I am not young and certainly not a fool and would not attempt to shout about the superiority of Star Trek at Star Wars convention. Swimming is hard enough without trying to swim against the current.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Mike


I don't think it is the "prevalent" assumption among the members here. If you look at the "can we really hear a difference in amps" thread, it has been running about 50/50. So at least half of the members voting believe there is a difference. 

The majority (not all) of either side seems to be merely "belief" without tested confirmation one way or another. I am personally still in the belief stage of no differences myself, although I have tested some amps and not heard any differences based on our prerequisites. The main driving force behind my beliefs is the numerous testing that has been done that proves there were no differences heard IN THOSE TESTS with people adamantly claiming they could hear difference... and the lack of any organized testing proving there are differences. I reserve the right to eventually hear a difference, it just hasn't happened thus far.

The biggest doubt I have is with those claiming "huge"... "night and day"... "if you can't hear a difference you have a hearing problem"... "sounds so much better", type differences. I agree that if someone is hearing that drastic of a difference between amps, everyone should be able to hear it... and you should well be able to describe it. I have read all kinds of terms and phrases describing differences that I have no idea what they mean and those claiming the differences can't describe the term or phrase themselves. 

I would be much more likely to believe someone claiming to hear a subtle difference, but maybe they are not sure if it is for the better or worse, although they might like one over the other. HOWEVER... I refuse to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to only hear a subtle difference that may or may not be something I like. If I am going to buy an amp that cost $10,000 more... even $5,000 more... it HAD BETTER be a substantial IMPROVEMENT over what I replaced.

I would really like to test the differences between say a $1,500 system (CD, Receiver, Cables) vs a $20,000 system (CD, Preamp, Amp, Cables) with a really good efficient pair of $10,000 speakers. I have doubts that their would be an $18,500 improvement between the two systems, if any differences at all. Does it not make reasonable sense that there would need to be a significant improvement in sound to spend $18,500 more?


----------



## AudioDawg

People spend accordingly.

I agree that the differences are not "major" at all, but very subtle. How much one wishes to pay for that subtle difference varies from one individual to the next I suppose.

And since someone with a 1,500 dollar system would not be using 10K speakers, I dont think that test would offer much real world usefulness. It would be interesting however. :bigsmile:

Although my system is not modest, I would certainly not advocate someone buying 500 dollar interconnects to put into their 5K system. I think proportional spending is prudent. If you already have the gear you like, and spending an additional 150 bucks wont upgrade your equipment, the wires may be where that money is best spent...

Me, I would spend the money on music.


----------



## Sonnie

AudioDawg said:


> And since someone with a 1,500 dollar system would not be using 10K speakers, I dont think that test would offer much real world usefulness. It would be interesting however. :bigsmile:


I was mainly suggesting this in response to your comparison question. You stated "same speakers", so I was assuming the speakers in the megabuck system would be used in the cheap system, since no one would likely buy cheap speakers for megabuck electronics. :huh:

Ultimately neither scenario is likely... but a test would definitely have some real world usefulness... if in fact some people could get past the assumed proof that they only had to spend $1,500 to get the same sound out of their $10,000 speakers as they would if they spent $20,000. 

If we did a poll on hearing improved differences between speakers we know it would be 100%. There is no doubt that most $10,000 speakers are going to sound better than most $1,000 speakers... and that speakers are where we are going to hear the most significant difference. Therefore, I think it is more likely that there will be inexpensive electronics spent on expensive speakers than the other way around.



AudioDawg said:


> Although my system is not modest, I would certainly not advocate someone buying 500 dollar interconnects to put into their 5K system. I think proportional spending is prudent. If you already have the gear you like, and spending an additional 150 bucks wont upgrade your equipment, the wires may be where that money is best spent...


I wouldn't advocate anyone spending $500 on interconnects period, but I know some people do. I don't have issues with anyone spending whatever they want to spend, I just have _doubts_ that most of those spending the megabucks are hearing the differences so many of them are claiming to hear. I think a lot of them would cry if they had a spending conscience and heard their high dollar system in a blind test up against a reasonably inexpensive system.


----------



## AudioDawg

You may be correct.

But I do notice that most of the people here do not have inexpensive systems.

I suppose we could all cry together. 

I buy moderately priced cables (probably 75 bucks for a pair of interconnects)) because I like the way they look as much as anything else. And the typical response I get is "you cant see those cables behind your rack". And that is true. However I cant see the premium plumbing beneath the sink, or the more expensive brakes on my car either, but I feel better knowing they are there.

I believe in reasonable expenditures. You wont see any really outrageously priced stuff in my rack. But there are places I will splurge for sure.

Moderation in all things...including moderation. Oscar Wilde :bigsmile:


----------



## Sonnie

Look at the Emotiva cables... I love they way they look.

I like the way the RAM speaker cables look with the ViaBlue jacket and the locking banana pin connectors, which we use for our speaker events. Although ultimately I purchased some Canare 4S11 speaker cable, heat-shrink and tech flex and built my own for my MartinLogans.

I spent quite a bit on the Emotiva XPR-5. Don't really need it and can't hear a difference between it and a Behringer EP2500 at 1/8 the price (I would have to buy 3 for five channels though)... however, I like owning the amp... for now anyway. That amp is pushing the limit with me... and I highly doubt I could get any better regardless of what I spent.

There is no doubt looks can play a part in how much we spend. Then again, a Behringer EP2500 hardly looks good with those rack ears.

I have cried out spending all I have on electronics chasing something better. Fortunately things are coming my way a little less these days... maybe I can eventually make it up on all that I wasted.


----------



## ajinfla

Hi Mike,
'
Don't make me bring over lamp cord this weekend 



AudioDawg said:


> If amps that spec out the same all sound the same (for the record, I do not believe they do)


Me neither. 
Because the position that informed, rational people actually hold, is that all amplifiers that meet a set of specified criteria (FR, distortion, output impedance, etc, etc...which covers a large swath of SS and some tubes), when not driven into non-linearity (clipping, oscillation, etc, etc.), are sonically indistinguishable to human ears.
See the difference between "all amps sound the same"? (the position held by strawmen).



AudioDawg said:


> So, what is the wisdom around these parts on pre-amps?
> 
> Thanks in advance for a civil discourse.


No worries. A different set of parameters vs an amp hooked to a reactive load, but largely the same...caveats included.
Here's questions for you:
Would a system comprised of a "high end" preamp, say an Classe CAP-80, hooked to a YBA 2A amp, fed by a Wadia CD player, connected up with MIT cables....
....sound any different to your ears, than a $70 Sony DVD player feeding a Behringer A500 with the free cables that come with DVD players?
Lets say using ATC SCM 12 reference monitors.
Are you confident you could hear the difference using your ears only?

cheers,

AJ


----------



## AudioDawg

Sonnie,

I have not changed anything major in my systems for well over 5 years.

I know what you mean about "chasing" something. I have chosen not to chase anymore. Probably for the same reason you stopped chasing. I just dont think I can get much better, regardless how much more I spend.

Sometimes i miss the chase, but mostly I like buying music more than gear anyway. There was a time when I forgot it was all about the music/movies and my rack(s) looked like a revolving door.


----------



## AudioDawg

> Don't make me bring over lamp cord this weekend


You can bring some by but you ain't hooking up any of my stuff with it, unless you wanna re-wire that lamp in my living room..


----------



## AudioDawg

> Would a system comprised of a "high end" preamp, say an Classe CAP-80, hooked to a YBA 2A amp, fed by a Wadia CD player, connected up with MIT cables....
> ....sound any different to your ears, than a $70 Sony DVD player feeding a Behringer A500 with the free cables that come with DVD players?
> Lets say using ATC SCM 12 reference monitors.
> Are you confident you could hear the difference using your ears only?


I honestly believe they would sound different, and I also honestly believe I could tell them apart. The MIT cables have a Zobel network on them. I cracked open a pair some time back to see what was in the box.


----------



## AudioDawg

Sonnie,

Those Emotiva cables are indeed nice looking, and fairly priced as well. Are they truly as flexible as they claim? If so, I may get a pair or two myself.

I use either Outlaw, Onix or Better Cables currently. I really like the looks of all three. The Outlaws are a nice white color, the Onix are red and the Better Cables are silver. This helps me trace the stuff when I need to.

And Emotiva really makes some nice looking gear.


----------



## Savjac

I remember an interview with Dave Wilson wherein he said that given a budget, the largest portion should go into the speakers. A good speaker with less than stellar electronics will almost always sound better than stellar electronics with less than stellar speakers. I agree whole heartedly and I would guess most folks here would.

As most know I am firmly on the side of electronics, be it amps, pre-amps, dac's can and oft times do sound different. It would be not possible to listen to every permutation of equipment out there, but having heard differences, yes even in Mikes system, I can never turn back.

There seems no obvious way to, at least today, entirely define the parameters of the human senses. Be it taste, smell, sight and hearing that cannot, again, today be pigeon holed into random numbers or graphs. To me, a straw man would be one the has all beliefs on this matter riding on measuring devices. 

Maybe my way of looking at things is skewed a bit, but like most goods in out life, we can easily detect things that would go un detected by measurement gear. Why is it that I so dislike sour cream ? I have no clue really. Cannot be measured though. Everything makes a difference, some we can detect some we may not be able to, no argument there. If someone changes one of Mikes favorite golf clubs just a little bit, I would have no clue what it is, but I guarantee Mike would know at the first swing. The club may still, measurably be the same, but Mike is not fooled, he knows. The same thing happens with most anything that takes human senses to detect, Nascar, Indy, Drag racing, Archery, Cooking, using a Mac vs Pc. Changing a circuit in an amplifier by definition has to have an effect, although not everyone not having an intimate knowledge of what they are listening to may not know it. Ask the designer to listen and they would know. If however, we are going to put so many conditions in front of our expectation, all working into loads equally, same this, same that, etc etc. This is not the real world, in the real world we pick what we want because we like it, sound, image, held beliefs.

So, it seems that being able to hear the differences would require some education and practice. Not simple but most everyone can do it I think. Once the differences are known then it may be easier to repeat this knowledge elsewhere.


----------



## AudioDawg

The problem I have had in the past with the "prove it" tests is that the testers almost always want a 100% accuracy for the test to be valid.

Even as different as Pepsi and Coke taste, I think that after 20 taste tests, the person being tested would miss a few.

100% is unreasonable in my opinion.


----------



## Sonnie

I think the $10,000 challenge is down to 90%. 

I say anyone that believe that strongly that they can hear differences ought to be all over that challenge.

At this moment I do not own any of the Emotiva cables myself, just admiring them and been thinking about getting some of them. 

I am about to order one of the Van Alstine ABX boxes and will need some RCA cables for it. I got a bus load of them already, but none that look as nice as the Emotiva. I might even turn my amps around just so I can look at them all the time. :sarcastic:

How can you not like these:





































And check out this splitter... how neat is that:


----------



## Savjac

Good example, Pepsi tended to win and yet Coke is the biggest seller. It seems the blind taste test wherein the individuals were asked to sip the drink, found that they liked the sweet taste in these type of tests, but over time tended to like the whole cup to be less sweet. 

In this case it seems science was able to take the results and find a possible reason for the results rather than denying the results and working out algorithms that prove the people in the test were wrong. 

Pre amps, as most other equipment appears to be made to a price point within reason and most assuredly would be voiced to the designer. I think.


----------



## NBPk402

Those are nice but I am happy with my Monoprice Redmere cables.


----------



## NBPk402

I believe that with tube pre-amps you can hear the difference, but I believe it is due to input output impedance, and tubes.


----------



## Savjac

The $10,000 seems to not work well for reasons I do not know, but there it is.

Those Emotiva cables are nice looking and feel very solid in use. I have no doubt they will compliment all systems including the best of them.


----------



## AudioDawg

I know I am going to catch flack for this, but I think one test is plenty.

Switch, or dont switch. If the subject gets it right, test over. If they get it wrong, test over.

Multiple tries favor the tester, in a big way. My opinion of course.

If I were to take a test like that, I would do it one time and live with whatever the results were...if I was wrong, so be it. I will admit I cant tell the difference. If I am right, the tester has to admit there is an audible difference.

The people testing will never go for that however. The rules are "repeatable and predictable".

If you only do one test, and I get it right one time, you have your 100%. 

The two sides will never agree on a testing method. And, as I said before in another thread, I dont need to prove anything to anyone but myself anyway.


----------



## Sonnie

Savjac said:


> The $10,000 seems to not work well for reasons I do not know, but there it is.


Well naturally for you it wouldn't. 

Is there one that involves blind testing that would... especially if it involves money you would have to cough up if you can't hear a difference?

Come on... you are trained and educated to hear the differences... the only change will be swapping out the two amps. Surely you can tell the difference blind. You don't hear with your eyes.

I am thinking no matter what, those that have their minds made up are going to always find some fault with any blind testing methods. Nothing is ever going to change their minds. A mans opinion changed against his will is of the same opinion still. :bigsmile:


----------



## Sonnie

AudioDawg said:


> I know I am going to catch flack for this, but I think one test is plenty.
> 
> Switch, or dont switch. If the subject gets it right, test over. If they get it wrong, test over.
> 
> Multiple tries favor the tester, in a big way. My opinion of course.
> 
> If I were to take a test like that, I would do it one time and live with whatever the results were...if I was wrong, so be it. I will admit I cant tell the difference. If I am right, the tester has to admit there is an audible difference.
> 
> The people testing will never go for that however.
> 
> If you only do one test, and I get it right one time, you have your 100%.


This however would prove nothing, as it is a 50/50 chance that you will guess right. 

If you can hear the difference, why is it that you can't hear it repetitively? You are the one claiming you can hear the differences... so why is it so difficult to hear it every time? Do the differences come and go? When you do pick the wrong one, what caused you to believe it was actually the right one? You can describe the difference right? If you can, how could you possibly get it wrong?


----------



## AudioDawg

If you can hear the difference, why is it that you can't hear it repetitively? 

Please see my Coke / Pepsi analogy

You are the one claiming you can hear the differences... so why is it so difficult to hear it every time? 

The same reason you could take an algebra test 10 times and get 10 different scores. Testing is not a normal procedure, and the human brain is subjet to an astonishing number of variables. Your stereo sounds better with the lights off. That makes no sense, but it is true for myself and many people I know. Doesn't your stereo sound better in the dark?

Do the differences come and go? 

Likely not, but your perception changes and fluctuates. The changes should remain constant, they are not organic, but you are.

When you do pick the wrong one, what caused you to believe it was actually the right one?

That could be a myriad of things. Unless you have one of the rare systems that sounds the same everyday, then your perception changes as well. My system will sound better some days than others, doesn't yours? If not, you are fortunate.

You can describe the difference right? If you can, how could you possibly get it wrong?

I have stated my opinion on how, and not only how, but how easily someone could percieve something several different ways within the span of just a few minutes.


----------



## AudioDawg

> Surely you can tell the difference blind. You don't hear with your eyes.


All of my senses play a role in my perception. We are organic creatures and unlike a mechanical device, we cannot completely separate or isolate our various systems, they are a whole and each interacts with the other.


----------



## ajinfla

AudioDawg said:


> I honestly believe they would sound different, and I also honestly believe I could tell them apart. The MIT cables have a Zobel network on them. I cracked open a pair some time back to see what was in the box.


Other than the "you" part, that wasn't a hypothetical example : http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_marco.htm

cheers


----------



## Savjac

Sonnie said:


> Well naturally for you it wouldn't.
> 
> Is there one that involves blind testing that would... especially if it involves money you would have to cough up if you can't hear a difference?
> 
> Come on... you are trained and educated to hear the differences... the only change will be swapping out the two amps. Surely you can tell the difference blind. You don't hear with your eyes.
> 
> I am thinking no matter what, those that have their minds made up are going to always find some fault with any blind testing methods. Nothing is ever going to change their minds. A mans opinion changed against his will is of the same opinion still. :bigsmile:



Is there a blind test that would work, I honestly do not know Sonnie, but I would think that if one were to place 2 amplifiers in my rack, somehow hidden and let me listen for awhile, by my own criteria, good or bad, I should be able to list some differences. If not, I would try one more amp and see, if again negative, I think I would have to admit I am getting too old and would have to shut my yap. I do not hear with my eyes :gulp: and I don't have a witty comeback but I will think of one while sleeping tonight. :innocent:

Now, I am thinking no matter what, those that have their minds made up are going to always find some fault with any non blind testing methods. Nothing is ever going to change their minds. A mans opinion changed against his will is a man with a loving wife and kids. :bigsmile:


----------



## Savjac

ajinfla said:


> Other than the "you" part, that wasn't a hypothetical example : http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_marco.htm
> 
> cheers


Zowie, I had not seen that one a zillion times before. :rofl:

I know enough about science to know I don't know enough about science, but the Dawg is way smarter than I.


----------



## AudioDawg

Here is a good example of your vision and hearing being very closely linked.

Imagine you are an a street corner waiting to cross. Out of the corner of your eye you see a car approaching fast and they suddenly slam on the brakes causing the tires to screech. Since you saw the car, and saw that it was moving too fast, the screeching tires did not alarm you in any way, in fact you anticipated it.

Now imagine the same scenario but you are now blindfolded. The screeching tires would startle you and would sound much different due to increased adrenaline flow and unexpected nature of the sound. The attack would be much sharper, and the decay would likely be totally lost. 

This is just one example. Your vision (being your primary sense) filters into almost all the other senses.


----------



## AudioDawg

I have also seen experiments where the natural sound of a familiar thing in a film was replaced with another sound. As I recall, the image was of a man striking an anvil with a sledge hammer. The normal sound was replaced with the sound of a wooden mallet striking a board. Both were the sound of blows from a hammer, so they were similar in that way.

The test subjects still heard the hammer hitting the anvil in addition to the wooden mallet.

So, "you don't hear with your eyes" is not entirely accurate.

I also hear when I dream even though the room is silent. Hearing in not just about the ears.


----------



## AudioDawg

AJ,

The test you linked provided these results....



> The results showed:
> 
> 38 persons participated on this test
> 14 chose the "A" system as the best sounding one
> 10 chose the "B" system as the best sounding one
> 14 were not able to hear differences or didn't choose any as the best.


So, if I read this correctly then 24 out of 38 people heard a difference and expressed a preference. That is the key word here...preference. No blind test can account for preference. They must have heard a difference to be able to have a preference.

24 people heard a difference. Almost twice as many as could not hear a difference.

What I gathered from that test...

A)14 people should spend their money on something other than expensive audio gear. 
B) 10 people can justify the purchase of expensive audio gear
c) 14 people can do either, and be happy with their choice either way.

Mike


----------



## AudioDawg

I have enjoyed this lively discussion. It has been a while since I have had a passionate discourse on things electronic (and organic).

Time for bed now though. See you all on the flip side.

And as I sign off my stereo is playing the wonderful song Telstar by the Ventures....love that organ!


----------



## Sonnie

Let's just take the real thing (not coke... or is coke the real thing)... okay... no analogies. It only works with amps, not coke vs pepsi. Amp vs amp... or preamp vs preamp. You can make up analogies all day long, but they are not amps vs amps.

Pick a time that you are feeling good and know you are hearing your best, then do the blind test.

Ahhh... nevermind... you will figure out a way to discount it. But I do think you are admitting that you are allowing your mind to play tricks on you to accept there is a difference. I guess I am glad I am not allowing my mind to fool me... with regards to this anyway, as it is saving me a LOT of money.

I do listen with my eyes shut sometimes, only because it allows me to concentrate more, so in a sense, it does sound better in the dark. I don't think I have actually ever turned the lights off and left my eyes open to see if the music sounds better in the dark though... I think I would not enjoy it... I would just prefer to shut my eyes. :whistling:

And by the way Jack... all of my testing has been "non blind". I did not need blind testing to not hear a difference.

While I have my doubts, I admire your abilities, real or not. :hail:

I will give you guys the last word.


----------



## chashint

AudioDawg said:


> The same reason you could take an algebra test 10 times and get 10 different scores. Testing is not a normal procedure, and the human brain is subjet to an astonishing number of variables. Your stereo sounds better with the lights off. That makes no sense, but it is true for myself and many people I know. Doesn't your stereo sound better in the dark?


Soooo you are not good at algebra and prefer to guess instead of follow a process.
I don't understand this approach, but I have witnessed it many times.

Since darkness makes your system sound better it's no wonder you believe (belief is not indicative of fact) amps, preamps, cables all sound different.


----------



## Savjac

I was very clear on your testing and do not discount your thoughts one bit. Further, I would hope this is not the last word, that ends a discussion. :crying:

Please bear with us a bit, I would not discount things, I am not the coolest dude in the room, nor am I even handed on things but I am honest and tell the truth as I know it. This is not a life and death issue so there is nothing to be gained by misleading, I really am not worried about my reputation in the audio community, no one really cares what I think I would guess and I am truly my own worst enemy.

I cant think of any ability I have that is unique to me, well other than to convince my wife I was worth marrying. I have no clue how I did that. But none the less, every day is a learning experience for us and I still would proffer that most of the fine folks here can learn what to listen for. As you mentioned, the polls here and elsewhere are 50/50 give or take a few points. 

I keep going back to learning what to listen for as many of us really do not get to experience the wonderful bounty that has blessed you Sonnie. Your findings and reports are a perfect slice of reality in your world at this time. You know more than you did in a year ago and less than you will a year from now I dare say. So it could be possible that I am right and 50% chance I am wrong, but how cool it would be if the first option was the true one. 

Learning affects everything we do every day and all of our decisions and choices are based on what we have learned and/or felt but not all of our choices are based on good reason. I may have made one or two bad choices in my life knowing I was making that bad choice and like eating too much spicy BBQ on any given weekend, it will come back to bite me. So imagine that a groovy dude was raised in a place that had little if any contact with modern civilization. So imagine this groovy dude comes to our home and we are able to sit him down and tell him he will now hear a small group of musicians playing steel string flat top acoustic guitars. (Ok he has to come from a non civilized place that speaks English, southern Indiana would be a good example). So in the quartet of players, one has a Samick LWo25G, one is a Taylor 316ce, one is a Yamaha A1cr and finally the last one is a Martin OM28E.

So the quartet starts to playing, all the same song and after the song is over we ask the visitor to tell us the difference in the guitars. Its not gonna happen, he has no language with which to define the differences. They are all made of wood, have steel strings, we can even ensure the gauges are the same, playing the same piece of music and yet to our visitor, it would really not matter. Fast forward a year or two and let the visitor listen and play with the instruments and get very in tune with what they are and what the differences are and what to look for and given a language with which to describe the guitar sound and I would bet he could then listen and pick out differences that were there on the first day of introduction but not realized. Everything takes time, practice to get good at said thing and a learning curve. Without some serious learning I could not tell anyone anything about a wine except its good to me or not. No nose, no color no blah blah, just if I like it.
So I think it is time to try to put together a experiment that may assist y'all. Let me think...


----------



## Savjac

chashint said:


> Soooo you are not good at algebra and prefer to guess instead of follow a process.
> I don't understand this approach, but I have witnessed it many times.
> 
> Since darkness makes your system sound better it's no wonder you believe (belief is not indicative of fact) amps, preamps, cables all sound different.


Indeed, and a fact today is not necessarily indicative of the truth. Saying "ALL" may, at least in my mind, be a stretch in that that denotes a very all encompassing assumption.

All men are pigs
All blondes are stupid
All politicians are no good greedy people
All laws are just

So you get the idea, many amps sound different from one another, same for preamps and cables. For every negative review a positive one can be put forth. The fact that we are in this hobby and many of us have different products ranging in price from a few hundred to a many thousand certainly speaks to the belief that we choose products for their contribution to our audio experience and not just because they look good in our rooms, although that is a consideration. Things are different, science knows that but rather than look into what we hear science looks into why it believes we cannot hear. Nothing new there, as I mentioned some time ago, the earth was believed to be flat, the sun revolved around the earth, the reason many mothers died at child birth in the early part of last century was because they led unclean lives, not because the doctors went from one surgery to another without washing first and ultimately spreading germs. Science is only so good until the next big discovery is made than antiquates that old beliefs. We will never get to the moon, cant happen, nope never, maybe Capricorn One is right ??


----------



## AudioDawg

> But I do think you are admitting that you are allowing your mind to play tricks on you to accept there is a difference.


I agree with the premise, but not the wording. I am not "allowing" anything, it is a natural process and my mind is not "tricking" me. It is behaving normally.

I posit that much of the change that is heard is psychological, but no less "real" and is a basic part of our being. Like feeling fear in a dark room that is you know is completely empty. There is no "real" reason to fear anything, but the feeling is no less real than if you knew the boogie man was actually in there. 

Your body, and senses know no difference. You can flow with it, or not. I choose to flow.



> I do listen with my eyes shut sometimes, only because it allows me to concentrate more, so in a sense, it does sound better in the dark.


Exactly my point. The "sound" has not changed at all, but the organic process of listening has been altered by you eliminating a dominant sense and allowing more of your faculties to be focused on the listening part.

Your stereo DOES sound better in the dark, and with your eyes closed, and that is why it does. It is not a mystery nor any magic cables or voodoo gear. It is basic human physiology. And the same physiological changes can be attributed to listening when you are tired, sad, happy, stressed...etc. Which is why the sound of your rig may vary from one listening session to the next. 



> I guess I am glad I am not allowing my mind to fool me... with regards to this anyway, as it is saving me a LOT of money.


I have seen images of your system and it is not an inexpensive one. I suggest that your spending has been curtailed because you feel the proportion of money needed at this point to realize any positive gains far outweighs the sonic gains you may realize, and it has little to do with a revelation that you may be "fooling yourself". 

You seem to have "fooled yourself" into a very nice audio system that brings you great pleasure. Where is the harm in that?

I too thought for a very long time that I had stopped spending because I was fooling myself until one day I realized that I just could no longer justify spending that much money on audio gear. So I stopped spending money on audio equipment. If I had unlimited funds, my audio spending would also be unlimited and likely ongoing. I bet yours would too. 

We are both reasonable people, or so it would seem.  and we have to portion out our disposable funds. I also like to golf. I could have more expensive audio stuff if I didn't golf, but I need to ration out my funds and the current allotment is what I am comfortable with, so no new audio equipment for me.

I know we both enjoy our respective audio systems, and I would bet we both enjoyed the journey to get to the point we are at today. We are brothers in that respect.

I respect your opinions on how things work, and admire your spirit in trying to figure out why. I don't care so much why any more, I am happy just enjoying the music for whatever reason. And for the record, when I gave up trying to find out why, I started enjoying the music a lot more.

Mike


----------



## AudioDawg

Soooo you are not good at algebra and prefer to guess instead of follow a process.

Sooooo, you have never taken a test twice and gotten different results? Allrighty then

I don't understand this approach, but I have witnessed it many times.

I have no idea why anyone would guess. If the test were done one time, and the subject got it right...it is a guess??? If they get it wrong is it also a guess? I tend to think that the subject is trying hard to hear any differences and would not be guessing...but that is just me i suppose. Calling it a guess is certainly one way to dismiss a correct answer.

As I said, I would be willing to admit freely that I cannot hear a difference after one incorrect answer. I don't need multiple chances to be wrong or right. :bigsmile:

Since darkness makes your system sound better it's no wonder you believe (belief is not indicative of fact) amps, preamps, cables all sound different.

I hope the explanations of why I "believe" your audio system sounds better in the dark (or with your eyes closed) I provided in the answer to Sonnie help clarify my position on that issue.

Does your system sound better in the dark, or with your eyes closed? Have you ever explored this?


----------



## AudioDawg

And by the way, I think it would behoove all of us to pay a little more credence to "beliefs".

Entire civilizations have been built and destroyed based on them. Beliefs are just as powerful as facts...perhaps even more so.

At least, that is what I believe. :rofl2:


----------



## AudioDawg

> Let's just take the real thing (not coke... or is coke the real thing)... okay... no analogies. It only works with amps, not coke vs pepsi. Amp vs amp... or preamp vs preamp. You can make up analogies all day long, but they are not amps vs amps.


Fair enough.

Sampling music over and over again could eventually cause fatigue and confusion in the subject and make it much more difficult for them to discern the differences between the test samples. Just like it does in the Coke/Pepsi taste tests.

I would say that if you really wanted 20 samples from which to correlate the information that the test should be administered 20 separate times on 20 different days, or spaced several hours apart at a minimum to avoid subject fatigue and confusion.

Of course, some people would prefer to do it in one sitting I suppose.


----------



## ajinfla

AudioDawg said:


> What I gathered from that test...
> 
> A)14 people should spend their money on something other than expensive audio gear.
> B) 10 people can justify the purchase of expensive audio gear
> c) 14 people can do either, and be happy with their choice either way.


Not clear on the number of trials and their statistical analysis (which is crucial), but yeah, that's one way of looking at it.
Another, is that 24 or 28 people out of 38 were unaffected by audio Bling when they couldn't see it.
Just setting things up for a possible "us do" rather than "us read about"...you dig?

I think stuff like this with the group would be fun. Well, at least for me...:heehee:
Now, if it's purely psychological effects (changing perception) causing a person to "hear" the bling preamp, or XYZ, rather than anything perceptible in the soundfield, that's fine, we are 100% in agreement. Sit back, enjoy.
As I've stated a thousand times, there can be no (rational) dispute or contention over a purely subjective claim.
The _only_ source of contention, is if an objective claim is made...and inability to discern/comprehend the difference, is the real pickle.
I prefer the sound cable X over Y. Great!
I prefer the sound of pure solid core Silver cable X over the haze of stranded Copper.....uh oh.:rolleyesno:
I prefer the sound of preamp X over Y. Great!
There is no way a "cheap" preamp with commodity parts sounds better than my p-p wiring super-bling class A pre with $8k oil 'n foil WackoCaps!....oh dear.
Well, you catch my drift. Enjoy it, make no silly claims about magic fuses and whatnot...peace on earth for eternity.
Start challenging science with nonsense...watchout.

cheers,

AJ


----------



## AudioDawg

Nope, no "science based" claims from me. Never have made any.

All subjective. And primarily psychological, with a dash of physiological thrown in for good measure.

Most science based tests wish to divorce the other half of the equation...the human part, from their testing, as though that part is insignificant. They wish to take what is an equal participant in the sound equation and eliminate it totally from their tests. This type of test tells me nothing that a machine couldn't.

I don't sit in my chair and think of waterfall plots or graphs, I want to be emotionally moved by the music. When a blind test is administered it saps all the emotion from the experience equation. Emotion is why I listen to music, why would I care what the music sounds like when it has been stripped of its very soul?

I don't analyze art, I let it roll over me. The same with music. A/B testing is of no use to me at all. I want to be moved emotionally.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Oh, I have a spare 30 dollar fuse if you wanna try it. I did not pay for it.

It conducts electricity and does no harm. :bigsmile:


----------



## Savjac

Thoughtful post AJ, thanks.

I did note last night while listening that the speakers sounded great but by accident one got unplugged from the wall. So I plugged it back in and the mids and high frequency was once again present. But it sounded different somehow, so a check was put on before serious listening could take place. It seems that I did plug the one speaker in backwards from the other. It seems that by reversing the plugs on the AC power input that they took on different qualities. So I did them both and it was a amazing, by ensuring that the plugs into the wall are correctly oriented, the sound truly opens up and blooms much better in the all important upper mid range.

Hmmm.


----------



## Savjac

AudioDawg said:


> Nope, no "science based" claims from me. Never have made any.
> 
> All subjective. And primarily psychological, with a dash of physiological thrown in for good measure.
> 
> Most science based tests wish to divorce the other half of the equation...the human part, from their testing, as though that part is insignificant. They wish to take what is an equal participant in the sound equation and eliminate it totally from their tests. This type of test tells me nothing that a machine couldn't.
> 
> I don't sit in my chair and think of waterfall plots or graphs, I want to be emotionally moved by the music. When a blind test is administered it saps all the emotion from the experience equation. Emotion is why I listen to music, why would I care what the music sounds like when it has been stripped of its very soul?
> 
> I don't analyze art, I let it roll over me. The same with music. A/B testing is of no use to me at all. I want to be moved emotionally.
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> Oh, I have a spare 30 dollar fuse if you wanna try it. I did not pay for it.
> 
> It conducts electricity and does no harm. :bigsmile:


Ahhh but what if you are listening to a recording of a waterfall ? Then the graph would be pertinent. 
Remember that disc of weather, storms and calming sounds we have, bet there is a waterfall on that disc.


----------



## Sonnie

I'm back!

I did not have time to respond like I wanted to the other night, so I had to pass it on to you guys. Had a minute or two to respond now, so figured I would through a few things at you.

All good stuff I am reading thus far. A couple of things...



AudioDawg said:


> Your stereo DOES sound better in the dark, and with your eyes closed, and that is why it does. It is not a mystery nor any magic cables or voodoo gear. It is basic human physiology. And the same physiological changes can be attributed to listening when you are tired, sad, happy, stressed...etc. Which is why the sound of your rig may vary from one listening session to the next.


I may very well hear differently because of my mood or surroundings... my listening environment. I am hearing differently, but not differences in preamps and amps. I have no proof than any of the differences from one listening session to another is caused by the preamp or amps. I am not seeing any objective proof from anywhere that this is the case. 

And please understand, I am NOT saying you are not hearing differences in preamps and amps. Simply that the objective proof that I have seen causes me to _doubt_ you are. Even your own reasoning causes me to doubt you are.



AudioDawg said:


> I have seen images of your system and it is not an inexpensive one. I suggest that your spending has been curtailed because you feel the proportion of money needed at this point to realize any positive gains far outweighs the sonic gains you may realize, and it has little to do with a revelation that you may be "fooling yourself".
> 
> You seem to have "fooled yourself" into a very nice audio system that brings you great pleasure. Where is the harm in that?


Nope... there is no fooling myself here. I know for a fact I can get just as good of sound with less expensive preamps and amps in my system... been there and done that. Keep in mind that much of this gear would not be in this house if I were not in the very fortunate position that I am... and that absolutely is not a position of being monetarily wealthy. :bigsmile:



AudioDawg said:


> All subjective. And primarily psychological, with a dash of physiological thrown in for good measure.
> 
> Most science based tests wish to divorce the other half of the equation...the human part, from their testing, as though that part is insignificant. They wish to take what is an equal participant in the sound equation and eliminate it totally from their tests. This type of test tells me nothing that a machine couldn't.


As previously stated, I have no issues with people having psychological delusions that they are hearing differences. And I don't mean that in a negative way. If your mind is able to do that for you, great... if it makes you feel better and happier with what you buy... great! Makes sense to me. If it were happening to me, I might very well feel the same way. However, it does nothing to actually "prove" there are differences.

I don't think science based tests divorce the human part from the testing at all. We still have to think with our mind... the ONLY difference is we are not told the name brand and price of what we are hearing.

-----------------

About that Pepsi Challenge… the Challenge did not attempt to see if people could not tell a difference between the two. So it really is not an apples to apples analogy with preamp/amp blind testing, but I do think it serves to further prove blind testing can indeed work as it should.

This challenge was not setup to determine if there was a difference between the two products. It was already evident there was/is a difference, and the taste tests themselves proved this, as the majority blindly picked one over the other, as noted, typically Pepsi because it was sweeter and most people like it sweeter initially, but perhaps over time may prefer the less sweeter taste. We are not finding anyone being able to blindly pick one or the other between amps, because blindly they perceived no difference, yet they would likely perceive a difference with the Pepsi challenge.

There are blind scientific tests that confirm there are indeed differences between Coke and Pepsi, yet testers could not differentiate between Pepsi and RC Cola. I have not seen even one scientific test to prove differences between amps, preamps or CD players.

We know there are people who have no issues determining that there is a difference between Coke and Pepsi. There are at least some who can identify which is which. My wife knows Pepsi very well. If she gets brought a Coke, she immediately knows it ain’t Pepsi. What if the Challenge went further and tested those who ended up preferring Coke or Pepsi in the long run. Could they then be able to do the blind test again and be able to identify which is which? I think so, as my wife is proof of this. She has no idea that the waiter brought her Coke, but the minute she takes the first sip she knows it ain’t Pepsi. She occasionally and unknowingly participates in a blind taste test and gets it right 100% of the time. I know a lot of people who prefer one or the other and know immediately which is which. If nothing else… again, we know for a fact that there are tasters that can tell there is a difference, even when blind. What they prefer in the long run does not change the fact that they know there is a difference… and actually further confirms they know there is a difference. They can even describe the difference. 

So you say you may not be able to tell the difference between two preamps/amps in a blind test. You do however, believe if you are able to live with one for several months and then another for several months, you can then hear differences (that is if you believe a difference exists between those particular two). So let’s say we get up a few dozen folks who guarantee they can hear differences and let them live for a few months each with a couple of preamps/amps that they firmly believe they can hear differences between. They now prefer one over the other and confirm they can hear a difference between these two. Now let’s go back to the blind testing. At least a few of them should now be able to tell the difference, even when tested blind, because now they have lived with it for a while. This is not really any different than what we have seen with several of the blind tests already. Those claiming and “guaranteeing” they could hear a difference in blind testing were using amps they owned and had in their systems, yet when the different amp was brought in, they could not pick out that amp they had lived with in their system.

Once again, we know the majority of the Challenge tasters can tell there is a difference blind initially, and some have drank one or the other for a while and can identify which is which, especially after they taste it once. They can then continually identify which is which, over and over. Grab a Coke and a Pepsi… have someone poor up both in separate glasses and not tell you which is which. Taste of them both. Maybe you don’t know which is Pepsi or which is Coke, but I believe you can pick out the same taste of each one over and over. If you can taste a difference that one of them is sweeter than the other, you will know each time you drink the one that is sweeter and the one that is blander. Perhaps you can’t, but there are people who can, yet we can’t seem to find anyone that can do this with amps.

Granted... if you just keep on and on... after a certain number of tests, your senses might start to get confused, but we are not asking for you to keep on and on and on. Just do it 5 or 10 times consecutively. Do it a limited number of times one day, take a break and do it again the next day. 

So, the Pepsi Challenge analogy, if anything, does more to prove blind testing works than not.


----------



## informel

Savjac said:


> Thoughtful post AJ, thanks.
> 
> I did note last night while listening that the speakers sounded great but by accident one got unplugged from the wall. So I plugged it back in and the mids and high frequency was once again present. But it sounded different somehow, so a check was put on before serious listening could take place. It seems that I did plug the one speaker in backwards from the other. It seems that by reversing the plugs on the AC power input that they took on different qualities. So I did them both and it was a amazing, by ensuring that the plugs into the wall are correctly oriented, the sound truly opens up and blooms much better in the all important upper mid range.
> 
> Hmmm.


Are you serious about the AC power claim?
your AC get converted to DC using a bridge of diodes and then pass to capacitors for filtering, so there is no way it can make a difference in sound, you can put a scope on it and you will see that you will have the same amount of DC and the same amount of ripple (AC volts) when you drive the amp


----------



## Sonnie

informel said:


> Are you serious about the AC power claim?
> your AC get converted to DC using a bridge of diodes and then pass to capacitors for filtering, so there is no way it can make a difference in sound, you can put a scope on it and you will see that you will have the same amount of DC and the same amount of ripple (AC volts) when you drive the amp


But that would be objective testing and faulty... and I am sure he can tell you why. :whistling:


----------



## AudioDawg

Sonnie,

I would be willing to bet money I could tell Coke from Pepsi everytime...the first test. (I am a Pepsi guy)

After the tenth one...I would not bet on being able to tell them apart.

That was kind of the point I was making in the "one test" thing.

And I think I already posted this quote, from a guy much smarter than I...and I think it is applicable...

Everything that can be measured does not matter, and everything that matters cannot be measured. _Albert Einstein_

I know that most people (especially EE's) believe that we do indeed know all there is to know about the science of electrical properties, and that by measuring things we can determine what we can or cannot hear. I simply am not willing to accept that as wholly accurate.


----------



## informel

AudioDawg said:


> The reason I ask is because I have spent a good portion of the day reading the various threads here and it seems to me that there is a prevalent assumption among the membership here that...
> 
> A cheap CD player using the on-board DAC (all DACs sound the same) driving a
> Cheap pre-amp (all pre-amps sound the same) and a
> Pro/audio amp (all amps sound the same) with some
> 12g lamp cord (all wire sounds the same) will produce the same sonic bliss as...
> 
> as long as the same speakers are at the end of the chain and the amp is of sufficient wattage to drive the speakers without distortion.
> 
> 
> Mike


speaker cable no difference for sure, peoples loose their time and money, buying expensive or making complicated cable trying to minimize the capacitance/inductance effect of the cable,the crossover that is in the path has over 1000 time the inductance/capacitance of the cable, so you are loosing your time/money

CD player, this one I am ready to accept that there might be a difference, because cheap DAC can have linearity problem (converting ones and zeros to analog), best solution: stay digital going to the preamp

preamp: if you stay digital, your preamp is basically just a switcher, and your are switching digital content and should not loose any bit, so it does not make a difference. But that is only valid for a preamp not doing any kind of processing. EQ is now part of preamp like Auseyssey, Dolby digital and all the other processing change the sound.
So once you do any kind of processing it will change the sound. 

Unless you are listening to vinyl; stay digital

AMP: amp not driven over limit will sound the same, but the weak part of many amp is the power supply, in most case it is only a diode bridge and some big capacitors, everytime you have high energy content going to your speakers, the voltage will drop from the power supply and this cause a 'breathing' effect and can be heard, so a good amp (good does not mean highly expensive) will have a better power supply and will sound different in that case.

interconnect cable: If you are on the analog side, use good quality shield cable to prevent noise, if you use digital cable then it makes no difference (how many bits can you loose in 6 feets)

now knowing that, would I by expensive gears if I had all the money?

YES, Because expensive gear sometime look incredible, when you buy expensive gear, you don't want to hide them in the closet, you want to see them in your living room.

I would buy expensive gear not because I beleive they will sound better, but because I could affort them, for the same reason I would like to drive a Ferrari instead of a Chevrolet Cruze, they both drive me from point A to point B and I can get a ticket with both car, but the Ferrari is more fun to drive and it is a piece of art instead of just a motor on 4 wheels


----------



## NBPk402

informel said:


> speaker cable no difference for sure, peoples loose their time and money, buying expensive or making complicated cable trying to minimize the capacitance/inductance effect of the cable,the crossover that is in the path has over 1000 time the inductance/capacitance of the cable, so you are loosing your time/money
> 
> CD player, this one I am ready to accept that there might be a difference, because cheap DAC can have linearity problem (converting ones and zeros to analog), best solution: stay digital going to the preamp
> 
> preamp: if you stay digital, your preamp is basically just a switcher, and your are switching digital content and should not loose any bit, so it does not make a difference. But that is only valid for a preamp not doing any kind of processing. EQ is now part of preamp like Auseyssey, Dolby digital and all the other processing change the sound.
> So once you do any kind of processing it will change the sound.
> 
> Unless you are listening to vinyl; stay digital
> 
> AMP: amp not driven over limit will sound the same, but the weak part of many amp is the power supply, in most case it is only a diode bridge and some big capacitors, everytime you have high energy content going to your speakers, the voltage will drop from the power supply and this cause a 'breathing' effect and can be heard, so a good amp (good does not mean highly expensive) will have a better power supply and will sound different in that case.
> 
> interconnect cable: If you are on the analog side, use good quality shield cable to prevent noise, if you use digital cable then it makes no difference (how many bits can you loose in 6 feets)
> 
> now knowing that, would I by expensive gears if I had all the money?
> 
> YES, Because expensive gear sometime look incredible, when you buy expensive gear, you don't want to hide them in the closet, you want to see them in your living room.
> 
> I would buy expensive gear not because I beleive they will sound better, but because I could affort them, for the same reason I would like to drive a Ferrari instead of a Chevrolet Cruze, they both drive me from point A to point B and I can get a ticket with both car, but the Ferrari is more fun to drive and it is a piece of art instead of just a motor on 4 wheels



I like your analogy!


----------



## Sonnie

So you should be able to tell the differences in preamps/amps for the first 10 times or so... then it might get muddy for you. I would have no issues stopping at 10. The first 9 out of 10 would suffice for me. Then I would want to know if I could hear the same... and see if we can describe the differences. If I can't hear it, then we would certainly have to credit your ears as being better, whether just better hearing or better trained hearing with more experience or a better understanding of the differences. It would be a very helpful test for everyone.

Albert was a obviously a brilliant man, but didn't he do most of his work in the early to mid 1900's? He died in 1955. Technology has advanced quite a bit since then, so today he might say that "Some things that can be measured does not matter, and some things that matter cannot be measured."

Blind listening tests also have nothing to do with measuring anything either, at least not with mechanical instruments.


----------



## AudioDawg

One thing I have never understood...

Why do people want to "prove" that there is no difference anyway?

Does it really matter? Not a bit.

It is no skin off my nose is someone wants to claim that red is blue, and I don't need to concoct a batch of tests to prove he is wrong. I simply don't care, it doesn't matter one whit.

Why people feel the need to call someone out for making statements they believe to be false, especially statements that harm absolutely no one, I still cannot fathom.


----------



## informel

AudioDawg said:


> I know that most people (especially EE's) believe that we do indeed know all there is to know about the science of electrical properties, and that by measuring things we can determine what we can or cannot hear. I simply am not willing to accept that as wholly accurate.


I am one of those guy that studied electronic, and electronic instrument can detect a one in million difference in sound, I do not beleive any humain could go below one in a hundred.

Now, intruments are better than any of our senses, but what if we do not know what we are looking for.

One example of that is that I can talk to my cat and he will look at me (if he feels like it of course), but he will never turn his head around to look in the speakers direction (I never tried to record my voice, but I am pretty sure that to hear or feel a difference).

So I have to agree with you on this one. There might be something else we have't found yet


----------



## Sonnie

informel said:


> speaker cable no difference for sure, peoples loose their time and money, buying expensive or making complicated cable trying to minimize the capacitance/inductance effect of the cable,the crossover that is in the path has over 1000 time the inductance/capacitance of the cable, so you are loosing your time/money


Not all speaker cables will have a crossover in the path though.

It also doesn't have to be complicated to make low inductance and low capacitance speaker cables.

But I understand what you are saying for some cases.




informel said:


> preamp: if you stay digital, your preamp is basically just a switcher, and your are switching digital content and should not loose any bit, so it does not make a difference.


If you stay digital, your preamp would also include digital to analog conversion.


----------



## NBPk402

Sonnie said:


> Not all speaker cables will have a crossover in the path though.


Are you talking about using an active crossover setup?


----------



## AudioDawg

Hey, maybe this is a good thing for them to do on Mythbusters!

Have they ever done a speaker wire thing?


----------



## Sonnie

AudioDawg said:


> One thing I have never understood...
> 
> Why do people want to "prove" that there is no difference anyway?
> 
> Does it really matter? Not a bit.
> 
> It is no skin off my nose is someone wants to claim that red is blue, and I don't need to concoct a batch of tests to prove he is wrong. I simply don't care, it doesn't matter one whit.
> 
> Why people feel the need to call someone out for making statements they believe to be false, especially statements that harm absolutely no one, I still cannot fathom.


I am not trying to prove there are no differences... I am trying to prove there ARE differences. I want to be able to hear them... and if I can't, it would be nice to try to figure out why, but first let me prove that there is.

None of the test I have seen were to prove there were not differences... they were to have the one suggesting and guaranteeing they could hear differences prove that they could. They agreed to and wanted to prove it... thought they could, but could not.

This is not a calling out, remember you started the thread to create the discussion. If you did not want any challenges to claims one way or another, then you shouldn't have started the thread. :huh:

I have said it a ton of times... I also have no issues with anyone claiming they hear differences, as long as they are not outrageous claims. I do take a bit of an issue with those claiming "night and day" type differences, especially when they can't even describe it. Those kinds of claims can cause readers to make unwise purchases.


----------



## Sonnie

ellisr63 said:


> Are you talking about using an active crossover setup?


Yes... such as powered speakers, or powered subs with panels... or even full range, like Magnepan.


----------



## chashint

OK Dawg

Test would be to play A for however long you want with you controlling the media and the volume...then play B with you controlling the media and the volume....then randomly either A or B would be selected and once again you control the media and the volume...the objective being to correctly associate X (random) to A or B

One listening session per day for 10 sessions....if you score 70% correct I would concede you can hear a difference


----------



## AudioDawg

Please understand I am not the slightest bit upset. 

I am enjoying the conversation.

I dont think I have been called out at all.


----------



## AudioDawg

Chashint,

I don't like your test.

Play A, then play B and I have to tell you if you played A and then B, or A twice.

70% is a fair number.

Someone should take you up on this.

Not me though, I have already made it clear that I dont really care one way or the other.

Which brings me to another question...

What if (and this is purely hypothetical) a disbeliever discovered that there was indeed someone that could hear the differences. What then? Do they get their ears checked? Do the stew in a funk for days? Do they sell all their gear searching for the difference. What is to be gained by a test?


----------



## Sonnie

AudioDawg said:


> What if (and this is purely hypothetical) a disbeliever discovered that there was indeed someone that could hear the differences. What then? Do they get their ears checked? Do the stew in a funk for days? Do they sell all their gear searching for the difference. What is to be gained by a test?


If they can hear the differences, they are going to be quite unique in that they are able to prove it. 

I would like to know if the difference is subtle or fairly evident... and can they describe it.

I would want to know if the differences they hear sounds better, worse or just different.

I would want to test myself between those two pieces of equipment to see if I can hear it too.

It is the same reason you want to try out a new preamp... to see if it can improve your sound.

What is gained by you buying another preamp?

Do you stew in funk for a few days when you hear a difference? Not sure what that is... and certainly don't think I want to try it.

If we can objectively prove there is a difference, and that difference is for the better and I can hear it too, then I want to determine if it is worth me considering it to improve my sound.


----------



## AudioDawg

A brief (true) story if I may...this happened to me just a few weeks ago.

I had 2 amps in my stereo system A PSAudio HCA-2 and a 4 channel Exodus Audio Hypex based amp. I was using the PS to drive my main speakers and 2 channels of the Exodus to drive my sub.

The PS took a dive.

No problem, I have 2 extra channels on the Exodus. So I pulled the PS out and just re-routed the wires to my Exodus. 

It did not sound the same to me. The Exodus had a more etched high end. I then pulled the Exodus from the rack and replaced it with 4 Outlaw monoblocks form my HT system.

Again I believe the sound changed. This time is was a bit muddy and unfocused.

Granted the Outlaws are not the same topology as the other two (both class D) amps, but I was not expecting it to sound different.

Currently, the PS is in the garage waiting for me to get the cash together to have it repaired. the Exodus is back in the rack and driving all the speakers including the sub. But honestly, I prefer the sound of the PS on the main speakers, and the Exodus on the subs. So, even though the system still sounds fantastic, I am going to repair the PS and put it back in the rack.

Now, I am certain I heard these differences, but I would not bet on it, and I would not want to do any tests to prove I heard anything either. I am completely happy just accepting what I think I heard and moving forward from that point. I realize that would not be enough for the more curious.

Whether I really heard something or I am just crazy as a loon...well, it just doesn't matter to me. :bigsmile:


----------



## AudioDawg

> Do you stew in funk for a few days when you hear a difference?.... Not sure what that is...


Sitting around all mopey and sullen and kicking the dog.


----------



## NBPk402

AudioDawg said:


> A brief (true) story if I may...this happened to me just a few weeks ago.
> 
> I had 2 amps in my stereo system A PSAudio HCA-2 and a 4 channel Exodus Audio Hypex based amp. I was using the PS to drive my main speakers and 2 channels of the Exodus to drive my sub.
> 
> The PS took a dive.
> 
> No problem, I have 2 extra channels on the Exodus. So I pulled the PS out and just re-routed the wires to my Exodus.
> 
> It did not sound the same to me. The Exodus had a more etched high end. I then pulled the Exodus from the rack and replaced it with 4 Outlaw monoblocks form my HT system.
> 
> Again I believe the sound changed. This time is was a bit muddy and unfocused.
> 
> Granted the Outlaws are not the same topology as the other two (both class D) amps, but I was not expecting it to sound different.
> 
> Currently, the PS is in the garage waiting for me to get the cash together to have it repaired. the Exodus is back in the rack and driving all the speakers including the sub. But honestly, I prefer the sound of the PS on the main speakers, and the Exodus on the subs. So, even though the system still sounds fantastic, I am going to repair the PS and put it back in the rack.
> 
> Now, I am certain I heard these differences, but I would not bet on it, and I would not want to do any tests to prove I heard anything either. I am completely happy just accepting what I think I heard and moving forward from that point. I realize that would not be enough for the more curious.
> 
> Whether I really heard something or I am just crazy as a loon...well, it just doesn't matter to me. :bigsmile:


When you are switching these out are you using a SPL meter to make sure they are at exactly the same spl?


----------



## AudioDawg

Nope, that would be too much like testing. :rofl2:

I did adjust the volume to my regular listening level, but just by ear, no instruments.

Hey, I could be full of hooey, I don't really know.

I am willing to throw some money getting an amp repaired that I don't actually need though, so I am fairly confident that I did prefer the PA amp in the main speaker location.

Probably 150 bucks or so (I think it is just a bad cap). Not much to satisfy my mind.


----------



## NBPk402

The reason I was asking is different amps could have different gain even though the preamp was set at the same level... plus if you set the gain using a tone, and were still able to hear the difference then it goes a long way to proving that you really can hear the difference.:T


----------



## chashint

I would not agree that EE's think everything about electronics is understood.
But EE's do understand that this is not magic.

Just for the sake of audiophile argument let's say the EE's have missed something and to even go one step farther let's say the human ear is the finest instrument on the planet to discern differences in sound.

You know what? ??

It still does not matter.
The best audiophile approved speaker in the world has many orders of magnitude greater distortion, phase error, and modulation issues than any mainstream home audio amplifier has.

Until this limitation is overcome it renders amplifiers that are operating within their design parameters to be indistinguishable from each other.


----------



## lcaillo

The human ear is an incredible system. It is just part of an even more complex system of perception and communication. Even if one argues that human perception can detect differences we have not learned to measure, on must recognize the tremendous individual differences in hearing, perception, and belief that affect what we report to "hear." Lots of people hear differences that may or may not be "real" by the definition of others. The arguments between the two extremes bore me, personally. When we get closer to the middle, where we are trying to determine what is important in the sound rather than arguing about whether it is there or not, well, that is where my interest lies. If someone hears a difference that intrigues me, I want to figure out how to quantify it.


----------



## chashint

If somone proved there are audi le differences i would certainly not stew in a funk.

I would want to know all about it.

It could possibly even ignite my OCD to launch a quest to find a superior sounding suite of electronics.

Nah I would just stick with the get better speaker theory.
At least then you are guaranteed to get a difference in sound.


----------



## NBPk402

I hear voices sometimes when there is no one around... Don't know who it is or where they are coming from. Maybe I am hearing a radio from outside of our house? :huh:


----------



## chashint

AudioDawg said:


> Chashint,
> I don't like your test.
> Play A, then play B and I have to tell you if you played A and then B, or A twice.
> 70% is a fair number.
> Someone should take you up on this.


Of course you don't like the test.

FWIW this test has been done many times and no one has ever achieved 65%.


----------



## AudioDawg

A couple of questions....

Phono-carts, they are just small amplifiers. Do they all sound the same too? Making voltage, that's what they do.

Tubes? Making small volts larger.

I am just interested in where the line is drawn and why.

And, as far as I know...there aren't any machines that can listen to music. All they do is analyze signal of some kind. They cant tell if Led Zeppelin or Neil Diamond is playing...but my ears can. :bigsmile:


----------



## chashint

ellisr63 said:


> I hear voices sometimes when there is no one around... Don't know who it is or where they are coming from. Maybe I am hearing a radio from outside of our house? :huh:


Hello hello hello....is there anybody in there?


----------



## AudioDawg

> Of course you don't like the test.


Well, you are not testing what you are supposed to be testing.

All you need to know is if the subject can tell one amp (or whatever) from the other. You don't need to know if they can match samples. Your test is overly complex to answer the question you are seeking to answer.

That's why I don't like it. It is poorly constructed for the task.


----------



## Sonnie

I don't think there is a line drawn anywhere for the most part. Sure there are some who are just flat out going to say there are no differences, but we know those are far from the majority.

Like Leonard, instead of just simply saying there is no difference and accepting it... the same needs to be said for simply saying there is a difference and accepting it... at least as far as trying to instill your opinion of one or the other on someone else.

When people claim differences, let's do study it closer and try to figure out what that difference is and why they are hearing it. Not just a comment that I took amp A and replaced it with amp B and it sounds better. Why? What exactly are you hearing. We can't really justify those comments without some rational comparison standards... at least in a minimalist way, such as making sure you have the volume level the same, cause if you don't you are likely to hear differences... and I cannot imagine anyone saying they cannot hear a difference between two amps at different volume levels. One difference is one is louder than the other, so how can you possibly argue there is no difference.

It is hard to accept there is a difference between the amps when there are so many other variables that could be causing the difference you are hearing other than the amps themselves.

Hey... if it sounds better in your system... how much better? Is it worth me giving it a try? Can you do some more testing to help us identify what you are hearing and if it is indeed an improvement? These are things I certainly want to know. Of course I don't want to accept your word for it, because you have already admitted that the difference you hear may or may not be real. You have already admitted that it doesn't matter to you whether it is real or not. You have already admitted that you don't have a problem if it is psychological or influenced by other things other than the amps.


----------



## AudioDawg

Hey... if it sounds better in your system... how much better?

Not a significant amount, but enough for me to repair the amp. If it meant buying a new 1800 dollar amp, I would not do it.

Is it worth me giving it a try? 

As long as something is free, it is always worth trying in my opinion. Swapping amps with amps you already have in house seems like a no brainer.

Can you do some more testing to help us identify what you are hearing and if it is indeed an improvement?

Sure. But I can tell you what the difference were. In fact, I think I did in the previous post. The PS audio sounded smooth, the Exodus had a great deal of punch but somewhat etched high end, and the Outlaws were soft sounding in the bottom end.

These are things I certainly want to know. Of course I don't want to accept your word for it, because you have already admitted that the difference you hear may or may not be real.

Any time we perceive a difference in anything there is a chance it may be "wishful thinking". I hope that my many years of experience (many) would help keep me level headed and not starry eyed like a schoolboy.

You have already admitted that it doesn't matter to you whether it is real or not.

In reality, I only care that I perceive it. (notice I did not say "hear") If I take a placebo, and my headache goes away, do I really care if it was an aspirin or not?

You have already admitted that you don't have a problem if it is psychological or influenced by other things other than the amps.

Right. I don't really care what causes it, I only care that it is...or that I believe it is. If I believe it, and I perceive it, then it *IS* real...at least to me.

I report what I perceive, and the reader can take that and try it for themselves or not. I am not trying to say it is fact, it is only my experience.


----------



## AudioDawg

And I did indeed level match the volume each time. I just did not do it with a device. I am not a greenhorn to all of this. This is not my first rodeo.


----------



## Sonnie

Those first set of questions were not really directed towards your particular situation as much as in general when people claim they hear (or perceive) differences.


----------



## chashint

AudioDawg said:


> Well, you are not testing what you are supposed to be testing.
> 
> All you need to know is if the subject can tell one amp (or whatever) from the other. You don't need to know if they can match samples. Your test is overly complex to answer the question you are seeking to answer.
> 
> That's why I don't like it. It is poorly constructed for the task.


Its not poorly constructed at all. 

The listener plays A and B and has control of media and volume switching back and forth as they see fit and then when the listener is ready either A or B is randomly selected with the listener once again controlling the media and volume. 
All the listener is asked to do is identify the random selection as A or B.
Its not complex and its not unreasonable. Level matching is removed from consideration and the listener is given every advantage except knowing the subject equipment as anything other than A B X.
If differences can be heard it should be 100% accuracy but 70% would be statistically significant and prove the listener could indeed hear differences.


----------



## AudioDawg

I did not say it was overly complex. I said it was overly complex for the task at hand.

It has one too many steps.

All you need is A and B. You don't need X.


----------



## rkeman

The argument over audibility of differences between electronic components has raged for decades in the audiophile community. Double blind testing is one method to determine the presence of such differences and has largely polarized the debate. Over the years, I've participated in a good number of blinded tests and have discovered that, unless the circumstances are very well controlled, the differences between electronic components may actually be obscured. 

The best example of this was a test comparing two CD players. Included was player with a known defective DAC. It truncated data to about ten bit and had high levels of distortion and noise. It also produced a variety of odd low-level whistles and idle tones. Hashy and gritty with any program material, it was the worst electronic component I've ever used. 

Musical test selections included classical orchestral selections and a pop track. The playback system was of high quality, levels were closely matched and the players were synchronized within about a second. The participants could take as long as needed for each test. Two of the four listeners could consistently identify the defective player (p < 0.1), but only on the classical material and at high listening levels. All of us failed with the pop music - even though I was an "educated" listener who knew the limitations of the defective player. 

The defective player went home with one of the participants that failed to identify the players with either program for a more extended evaluation. He remained unaware that the CD player was in any way defective. That next day he called and apologized profusely for damaging the player because it sounded terrible! 

This result demonstrates that double testing is not necessarily sensitive enough to reveal differences between electronic components, particularly if they are subtle. That is not to say that double blind testing serves no purpose, much to the contrary, it has broadened the understanding of how we listen. It is also important to recognize how difficult it is to perform and that the results merit close scrutiny. Healthy skepticism is recommended when considering both the claim that no significant differences exist between electronic components and the opinions of "golden eared" audiophiles that proclaim to hear drastic differences in every instance.


----------



## AudioDawg

Thanks, that was most excellent!


----------



## AudioDawg

Also, here is something that you wouldn't think you would hear from me....

If you must use a quick A/B test to determine if a difference exists, the difference is too insignificant to be concerned with.


----------



## AudioDawg

Still waiting on an answer about whether tubes and phono carts all sound the same.


----------



## NBPk402

Tubes do not sound the same in my experience and I found that tube preamps were very sensitive to interconnects, the input impedance of power amps, and as to whether or not you used spikes, sand filled stands, sorbathane, etc..


----------



## Sonnie

rkeman said:


> The argument over audibility of differences between electronic components has raged for decades in the audiophile community. Double blind testing is one method to determine the presence of such differences and has largely polarized the debate. Over the years, I've participated in a good number of blinded tests and have discovered that, unless the circumstances are very well controlled, the differences between electronic components may actually be obscured.
> 
> The best example of this was a test comparing two CD players. Included was player with a known defective DAC. It truncated data to about ten bit and had high levels of distortion and noise. It also produced a variety of odd low-level whistles and idle tones. Hashy and gritty with any program material, it was the worst electronic component I've ever used.
> 
> Musical test selections included classical orchestral selections and a pop track. The playback system was of high quality, levels were closely matched and the players were synchronized within about a second. The participants could take as long as needed for each test. Two of the four listeners could consistently identify the defective player (p < 0.1), but only on the classical material and at high listening levels. All of us failed with the pop music - even though I was an "educated" listener who knew the limitations of the defective player.
> 
> The defective player went home with one of the participants that failed to identify the players with either program for a more extended evaluation. He remained unaware that the CD player was in any way defective. That next day he called and apologized profusely for damaging the player because it sounded terrible!
> 
> This result demonstrates that double testing is not necessarily sensitive enough to reveal differences between electronic components, particularly if they are subtle. That is not to say that double blind testing serves no purpose, much to the contrary, it has broadened the understanding of how we listen. It is also important to recognize how difficult it is to perform and that the results merit close scrutiny. Healthy skepticism is recommended when considering both the claim that no significant differences exist between electronic components and the opinions of "golden eared" audiophiles that proclaim to hear drastic differences in every instance.


If I do an A/B test and don't hear a difference, but take it home and discover it is faulty, that is a good thing and again does not necessarily discount that A/B testing. Perhaps my A/B testing was not thorough enough. Maybe there was more damage done between the A/B testing and the time he got it home.

I would consider this a rare exception anyway... and you may find extraordinary situations in any kind of testing from time to time, but it in no way discounts testing or makes it any less important, nor does it prove that the testing is not sensitive enough, because there were two of you who consistently heard the difference with the right music. None the less, I think in this case it was done backwards. I think A/B testing for those claiming they can hear a difference, should be with gear they claim they hear a difference in. As Dawg and a few others have suggested, you would have lived with it for a while anyway... this is how you discovered the difference. So it is likely you would have discovered the issue with it before testing. 

There is not a lot of value in me getting you guys to a test with equipment you have NOT already claimed you heard differences in, because I want you to know you have heard a difference and help me be able to hear it.

Wayne brought an amp to my house for us to test. It had some distortion in it, which we could measure (by the way). Wayne knew there was something going on with it in advance, but weirdly enough it was only on one particular song and only during one particular part of that one song, that he could hear it. I never could hear it with music, but I was finally able to hear it with sine waves at certain frequencies. So... here we have a situation that perhaps in an A/B test no one would hear the difference because they did not play the right songs. However, at some point in time after they get it home, they might discover a difference. Now why... what caused it... why did I not hear it in A/B testing? This is what Wayne and I pursued. We think it was created by a ground issue, but not absolutely sure, and plan to test it some more later.

Testing is not done in an attempt to fool anyone or with equipment that is faulty that some don't know about in order to try to make them think they can't hear differences that are there... it should be done to try to show people there ARE differences and to help them identify those difference and describe them. We can't think of it in a backwards manner.

Once again, I want to PROVE the differences... not disprove them... and you proved a difference in this test. Yet, the difference was proven only because there was a faulty DAC. It sounds like none of you would have noticed a difference if the DAC was not faulty.



AudioDawg said:


> Also, here is something that you wouldn't think you would hear from me....
> 
> If you must use a quick A/B test to determine if a difference exists, the difference is too insignificant to be concerned with.


I would actually expect no less than you believing this from your previous opinions. It makes sense.

It is not necessarily so though, not for me anyway... maybe for you, but you would not be doing an A/B test anyway, so I don't think you would mean that as a fact for everyone, rather for yourself.

What I want to A/B test is for those significant differences. If they are differences that are too insignificant to be concerned with, then in my opinion they are subtle (faint, slight). You are going about it backwards too... listen first... if you hear a subtle difference, no big deal really, not for me personally. If I believe I have heard something that causes me to spark up... or think I notice something enough to cause me to want it over the other brand, then I want to do an A/B test to make sure I am not just imagining differences... and especially if we are talking about more money. I am trying to prove the difference, not disprove it.



AudioDawg said:


> Still waiting on an answer about whether tubes and phono carts all sound the same.


I have no idea myself... and have not seen any testing on either, nor have I researched or owned enough of either to draw a conclusion. All of the tube amps I have owned sounded good, not sure if they were different, although I don't remember that they were.

Either way, I am assuming it doesn't matter to you, so not sure why you would want an answer. You should listen for yourself and see if you hear a difference. I don't think you would believe anyone that said there was not a difference, right?


----------



## lcaillo

chashint said:


> Its not poorly constructed at all.
> 
> The listener plays A and B and has control of media and volume switching back and forth as they see fit and then when the listener is ready either A or B is randomly selected with the listener once again controlling the media and volume.
> All the listener is asked to do is identify the random selection as A or B.
> Its not complex and its not unreasonable. Level matching is removed from consideration and the listener is given every advantage except knowing the subject equipment as anything other than A B X.
> If differences can be heard it should be 100% accuracy but 70% would be statistically significant and prove the listener could indeed hear differences.


I am not sure that I agree. Having to match A or B to X is not a test of whether there are differences as much as it is a recognition test, involving differential memory, which has been shown to be quite imprecise.

Statistical significance also depends on the number of samples. In a choice experiment, where one chooses a preference between two options, the probability of choosing the same one 8 of 10 times by accident is about 5% With 20 trials you would need to choose the same one 13 times for the same probability. This assumes a binomial distribution and that the probability of making the same choice is the same over time. In reality, with more listening one might either become better at the task or become bored and distracted, so we really don't know how well this statistic would represent chance vs. choice.

So you have a mix of subjects, some are really interested in listening for differences, some are skeptical and don't expect to hear any differences. Is the test fair? I don't think so. I think you have to have subjects that are interested in hearing differences, then check for fatigue by monitoring the samples over time to find if there are changes in the probablity that change with the number of trials. Having done trials like this before, I think ten trials is not likely to result in fatigue.


----------



## Sonnie

Yeah... our testing as been simply A vs B... no X involved.

We play A... and we play B, back and forth with the same music, and also with repetitive tracks. We test it in various ways with various songs.

Wayne recorded some loops where they played three times... then he added a faint pop marker after the third loop so we would know to swap the amps, then the loop started over.

But I think if the difference is significant enough, just playing a song and instantaneously switching back and forth during that song, you should be able to hear it. Especially if it is differences I have seen described.

Here are just two that I kept handy:


> Kain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have the old Harman Kardon AVR 8000/8500 that I bought new. It was a flagship in the DVD days and has quite a beefy amplifier section. However, I noticed someone on the Klipsch forum stating that he had this A/V receiver and when he upgraded to QSC pro amps, there was a significant improvement. There are many threads about going from A/V receivers to separate amplifiers on the Klipsch forum and nearly all state that there is a great improvement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SQBubble said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey guys, just an update.. i ended up getting the rega exon3s and cursa3 and couldnt be happier!!
> 
> believe it or not... I plugged in my beater speakers out of curiosity that i had since 2003, 11years old, these speaker went through everything(Sony mhc-gx450, first stereo system ever), i know them quite well and i never expected them to sound good like that (for what they are), considering they are very generic speaker, the depth and resolution became beautiful!! whereas the xti was very very harsh sounding, rude, very fatiguing and now with the new pre-amp/amplifier the voices are soft, crisp, controlled and simply beautiful, all over the frequencies, very articulate as well, also I cant believe the deep bass that those cheap sony are making now....
> 
> not sure if thats the amplifier or the pre-amplifier ... but it is quite impressive.. as i know these speaker extremely well, they are really horrible to be honest LOL ... but i got really surprised how "natural" they sound wiith the regas they actually are listenable without problem...
> 
> literally a huge difference from the crown xti2000 in terms of musicality... i dont know why, but it is....
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I would like to know why these guys are hearing "great improvements" and a "huge difference". How about all those in the Klipsch forum claiming "great improvements".

BTW... I could go (and eventually will when I have time) to another forum, a smaller niche forum for owners of a particular high-end brand and get all kinds of similar comments. These are the guys I want to A/B test so I can figure out why so many of them are so adamant about the improvements... and find out if I can hear what they hear. I probably still could not afford the equipment some of them have, but I could be jealous at least.


----------



## lcaillo

If you really want to only know if there are reliable differences, all you have to do is keep the conditions as similar as possible, then let the listener listen as long as he/she likes to be able to make a choice about which one sounds better. Do that ten times and if you get 8 or more times that the same is selected as better, you can be pretty sure that it is not by chance. Now there may be some other variable leading to the bias other than better sound, like level difference. You have to be very careful to match, preferably to a small fraction of a dB.


----------



## rkeman

All cartridges and tube-based electronics do not sound the same. Different cartridges have a wide variation in performance that is easy to measure and appreciate in the listening room. Even the same cartridge can perform very differently depending on how it is set up. The tracking force, overhang, vertical tracking angle, stylus wear and other parameters will audibly change the sound. Tubes show less variation, but still may be affected by microphonics and other factors. The differences between several class D and a class H amplifier previously mentioned in this thread are probably secondary to variation in high frequency response found in some class D amplifiers. They sound, and would measure, differently because the frequency response of the amplifier changes depending on the load presented by the loudspeaker!


----------



## Sonnie

I just have a hard time spending lot of money on something where I hear crackle and pops. One could be better than the other, but the cracks and pops are still going to be there. Of course I know some albums are better cut than others. All personal preferences for the various formats, so I can appreciate those who go all out with it. I have the minimalist setup when it comes to vinyl.

I was impressed with the Rogue Cronus Magnum we used in our first speaker evaluation. I was also impressed for the few minutes I listened to the Audio Space Galaxy 88, which I still own and would like to sell.


----------



## Sonnie

lcaillo said:


> If you really want to only know if there are reliable differences, all you have to do is keep the conditions as similar as possible, then let the listener listen as long as he/she likes to be able to make a choice about which one sounds better. Do that ten times and if you get 8 or more times that the same is selected as better, you can be pretty sure that it is not by chance. Now there may be some other variable leading to the bias other than better sound, like level difference. You have to be very careful to match, preferably to a small fraction of a dB.


In an ABX the level matching would not matter though, but you do have the memory issue going on. This is why it would have to be a significant identifiable difference that is easily heard.


----------



## Savjac

informel said:


> Are you serious about the AC power claim?
> your AC get converted to DC using a bridge of diodes and then pass to capacitors for filtering, so there is no way it can make a difference in sound, you can put a scope on it and you will see that you will have the same amount of DC and the same amount of ripple (AC volts) when you drive the amp



No I was not, just checking to see if anyone was reading. I did unplug things but plugged them back in after I cleaned up the wires and put them back on the risers to get them off the floor.


----------



## Sonnie

We were all worrying about you Jack. :sweat:


----------



## Savjac

Thank You Sonnie, I am not over the rainbow yet. 

I used that example as it is one I read about and yes, tried many years ago. We were supposed to test the ground between a piece of equipment and the receptacle ground then change the orientation of the plug, use a cheater plug if necessary and then measure again. Which ever reading was lower would be how the plug should be oriented. I thought there may have been a difference, but in reality I was too young and really would not stand by that at all. Neither do I feel a need for cable risers, they may work but in my case, I have never heard it. 

So is there still hope ?


----------



## Sonnie

Savjac said:


> So is there still hope ?


I am trying as hard as I can... maybe I will figure it out. :sarcastic:


----------



## Savjac

Sonnie said:


> What I want to A/B test is for those significant differences. If they are differences that are too insignificant to be concerned with, then in my opinion they are subtle (faint, slight).



Let me ask this if I may, What differences are you listening for ?? Are there pre-defined differences that one would expect to hear ? Distortion is not one I would listen for, I would doubt that it would even exist in most of todays amps. Might we be looking to hear audio molecules going on strike in one amp because they are jealous of the other amp and sound would suddenly back up and not go out to the speaker ? Might the differences have to be on a scale of one amp causing the canon's at the end of the 1812 to sound like a cap gun while the other amp has the canon's sounding like a kid clamping his hand in his arm pit and squeezing to make noise ?

Nope, way to much to expect really, again, unless as y'all suggest something is faulty then the differences could be outright shining. 

So, in order to help with the possible education of those wishing to be in the know, what differences are expected to be heard ? Once defined we can move to the next lesson boys and girls. Remember there will be a test at the end of this lesson plan. :R


----------



## Savjac

Sonnie said:


> I am trying as hard as I can... maybe I will figure it out. :sarcastic:


This is an easy one, No, there is no hope so don't bet on that horse.


----------



## kevin360

Indeed, this is a debate (Do amps (I know; the thread began in the context of preamps) that measure the same sound the same?) that will continue to rage after all of us have shuffled off the mortal coil. There's a very good reason for that. It's an intractable problem, or series of problems. It's simple enough to conceptualize a solution until one peels away the assumptions inherent in each and every one of them. 

There's a great deal to consider. How does one 'measure' sound? We can analyze a signal – distortion in that domain is easily quantified. One problem with specifications is that they define performance under a specific load, which may differ greatly from what one's speakers present. If these loads were simple resistance, it would be a cakewalk, but speakers are reactive beasts – and vary widely (cables too). Still, such specs relate to a signal, not sound. So, the measurement camp attempts to resolve the issue with a quantification in a related, but different domain (and with incomplete data). 

Sound is what we (our brains) experience. The processing which gives rise to that experience is massively complicated – with more, in some cases, backward projection than forward. What we _know_ modulates what we _experience_. We are designed to _know_, and we often _know_ what we really don't know at all! Perception is a rule-based _creative_ process (illusions teach us much about those rules). 

So, what of listening evaluations and blind comparisons? If the proper domain for comparing sound is in our experience of it, then why shouldn't we simply listen and decide?

If one is comparing things with full knowledge of what is what, the contamination is obvious. In such settings, it is very easy for us to be fooled, either by the dopaminergic surge associated with novelty (the new device in the typical comparison – we can also be led astray by a difference which initially thrills us, but becomes irritating with time) or by the priming of the cingulate gyrus by simply anticipating the stunning performance of the _dream device_. Each will produce real increases in the enjoyment of the sound, even if there is absolutely no real difference. Our experience doesn't always align with reality.

If one is comparing things in a blind fashion, a different set of obstacles dooms our results. Aside from the difficulty of not introducing a change which exceeds the difference between the devices in question, we are again confronted with our brains. As I mentioned earlier, we like to _know_ – not knowing introduces stress, and a blind test revolves around not knowing. Such evaluations often go a step further by demanding the listener to quantify the differences. Cognitive research has demonstrated that seemingly innocuous task to cripple our sensory processing.

Ask a baseball player how he connected with that fast ball that he launched into the cheap seats and he'll explain the impossible. Neurologically speaking, there simply wasn't enough time for him to see the pitch and then decide to swing, but that's how he'll describe it. Sometimes, audiophile explanations work in much the same way. Have your salt shaker ready because you'll need more than a few grains. I've been just as guilty as anyone else (and I'm not pointing any fingers). 

In my opinion, there is no substitute for the long term evaluation. Many of those little demons that spoil our results die off over time. Furthermore, I don't think the time should be spent 'performing an evaluation'. It should be spent simply listening to music – the durable enjoyment of which hints at the proper decision. 

Of course, unless one is a reviewer for a respected (or not) magazine (or whatever), the manufacturers of these products aren't going to lend them to us for a month. So, there's another one of those omnipresent hitches – in order to do this requires personal investment. Fortunately, the used market permits us to tremendously limit our losses in the process. 

When I purchased the amp I mentioned in another of the OP's threads, I kept the amp that was tentatively being replaced. Nelson Pass is another one of those engineers whom I deeply respect and I had an X350 (purchased 2nd hand), which I thought was magnificent in every way, including being stunningly good looking. Introducing a crossover to dump the low end grunt work from the mains onto the subs reduced the power demands of my system and I wanted to test the waters of the debate between solid state and tubes (I serviced tubed equipment decades ago – also had a tube guitar amp ages ago, but...) for myself. 

So, I bought the valve amp that I would buy if money were less of an object than it was. It would have to win me over, because I was very partial to that Pass Labs amp. It was 9 months before I listed the X350 for sale – it sold less than an hour after I listed it. After a few transitions during that time, I learned what I was hearing and it became less and less subtle (though, there was obviously no change in the difference which I initially gauged as disappearingly subtle).

Don't be fooled. I haven't solved a thing. My 'solution' is just as entangled as any other. After all, I have never been unaware of what it was to which I was listening. Each time I made the change, more knowledge regarding what to expect would inexorably influence my reaction. Knowing that it was happening didn't inoculate me from the disease of being a normal human.

Let's face it. We're doomed to fail at resolving this issue. There is no resolution. At the end of the day, what is important is the enjoyment one gets from one's investment. Frankly, I just like to listen to music. The disposable income that I've been able to dedicate to the hardware for listening to music over the years is an inverted bell curve (with a much taller tail). Getting older has its perks. Still, I've enjoyed listening to music at every point along the way. 

There are differences. They are real. There are many different designs. It seems as unlikely that there should be no audible differences between amps (especially between those of radically different design) as it is that life is unique to Earth. We can offer no proof for either assertion, but I don't think either needs proving.

Sorry for the extreme ramble.


----------



## Sonnie

Savjac said:


> Let me ask this if I may, What differences are you listening for ??
> 
> So, in order to help with the possible education of those wishing to be in the know, what differences are expected to be heard ? Once defined we can move to the next lesson boys and girls. Remember there will be a test at the end of this lesson plan. :R


If you have read any of what I have been writing, I have answered this numerous times.

YOU guys are the ones hearing the differences, not me... so YOU guys tell me what to listen for.  But herein lies the issue with this... I don't have the same amps as you guys have and have had, so you can't tell me that the same differences you are hearing are going to exist with my amps. Plus you have a lot more variables involved that are causing you to hear differently, it is not just the amps, so you can't educate people on hearing differences in amps because you will also have to train them on mood, listening environment, psychological influence, imagination, delusions, etc. Two members stating there are differences in amps have already stated that they might not actually be real... right here in this thread. You just can't educate someone to hear something that might not really even exist. The first thing you have to do is know without any shadow of a doubt that you are hearing differences in the amps, and that only the amps are influencing you, nothing else. You have to educate yourself first... yes? Learn how to get all this other stuff out of your mind to where you are not letting all this other stuff influence you, then you might not hear those differences.

The reality of all this is that unless we are all listening to the same two amps back to back and with a clear mind, we will likely never hear differences that you claim you hear. BUT if we were listening to the same amps, then I would say, okay... YOU describe to me the exact differences you are hearing and with what songs. Let me take the two amps you have heard these differences with and see if I can hear them. But I can tell you, I am not going to try to take several months to hear a difference... my hearing may get worse in several months times, but none the less... my memory (and I suspect most others) is not going to be good enough to discern significant differences (the ones that you will claim matter) over that long of a period of time.

At any rate... I have given you plenty of examples of what I am looking for... and it certainly ain't distortion differences. It is whatever all those people claiming the big differences are... describe it for me, then you have your answer. You gotta answer your own question... and you have to overcome this other variables to get to the real truth.


----------



## NBPk402

Sonnie said:


> I just have a hard time spending lot of money on something where I hear crackle and pops. One could be better than the other, but the cracks and pops are still going to be there. Of course I know some albums are better cut than others. All personal preferences for the various formats, so I can appreciate those who go all out with it. I have the minimalist setup when it comes to vinyl.
> 
> I was impressed with the Rogue Cronus Magnum we used in our first speaker evaluation. I was also impressed for the few minutes I listened to the Audio Space Galaxy 88, which I still own and would like to sell.


I think the cartridge makes a difference in whether or not you hear the cracks and pops. When I had my Gyrodec, Sumiko SME arm, and Sumiko Blue Point Special I heard no pops and cracks at all. It was awesome to say the least and at the time (early 1990s) I thought it sounded better then the big bucks cd players at the time. I even had friends listen with me in the big Audio Salons to the mega dollar setups and they thought my analog setup was better too. I had a CD player that was rated very good (but not mega bucks) and I would cue up the cd and the record and then A/B them with my Classe DR-6 and then ask them which one sounded better. 100% of the time they picked the record as the CD! I was told at the time that some cartridges would dig the groove out to virgin territory and that was why it sounded so good. A lot of my records were used ones from record stores and they were pop, and crack free too. The only thing I did was clean with a record cleaning machine.


----------



## AudioDawg

> If one is comparing things in a blind fashion, a different set of obstacles dooms our results. Aside from the difficulty of not introducing a change which exceeds the difference between the devices in question, we are again confronted with our brains. As I mentioned earlier, we like to know – not knowing introduces stress, and a blind test revolves around not knowing. Such evaluations often go a step further by demanding the listener to quantify the differences. Cognitive research has demonstrated that seemingly innocuous task to cripple our sensory processing.



:clap:


----------



## AudioDawg

> Either way, I am assuming it doesn't matter to you, so not sure why you would want an answer. You should listen for yourself and see if you hear a difference. I don't think you would believe anyone that said there was not a difference, right?


I was suggesting that if tubes and phono carts (both amplifiers) can sound different, then it is certainly plausible that all amps can sound different. If someone were to tell me that all phono carts and tubes (of the same configuration) sounded the same, then I would know which individual to discount when it came to audio advice. 

As for my statement about the differences being inconsequential if an A/B test is needed to define them. I stand by it.

If I hear a difference in an amp (or pre-amp as we were supposed to be discussing) and I need to do an A/B test to make sure I can hear it...and I need to do it 10 times to be absolutely sure, then the difference I heard (or imagined) is really not worth concerning myself with. It is too small to worry about.

Back with Coke and Pepsi and RC cola (good stuff BTW, we cant get it here anymore). If I had to take a dozen sips to determine that RC and Pepsi were different colas, the I would be happy with either drink (as long as I liked the flavor). But I can tell Coke from Pepsi right away (just like your wife) and I don't need any A/B test so with those two, there is a marked difference that is most surely enough to concern myself with. 

Mike


----------



## AudioDawg

> I would like to know why these guys are hearing "great improvements" and a "huge difference". How about all those in the Klipsch forum claiming "great improvements".


Hyperbole? That would be my guess.

A "huge" difference is going from my system in my office to the one in my home. I dont think changing ANY equipment is going to offer a "huge" difference (short of the speakers)


----------



## AudioDawg

> The differences between several class D and a class H amplifier previously mentioned in this thread are probably secondary to variation in high frequency response found in some class D amplifiers. They sound, and would measure, differently because the frequency response of the amplifier changes depending on the load presented by the loudspeaker!


Thanks for this!


----------



## JoeESP9

kevin360:
Your post last night was long so I'll not quote it here. I feel the need to comment because our approaches to evaluating gear are very similar. Probably the biggest difference is what we call our two methods. I've been calling it the LTLT (long term listening test). It's how I determine what stays or goes in my system. This applies to everything, amps, pre-amps, wires and cables. I settled on this method after years of trying all the standard objectivist approved methods. This includes single and double blind testing. A buddy and I once together bought an ABX tester for that purpose. Every one of those tests were inconclusive.

I've also stopped concerning myself with specs. Every piece of gear I have the slightest interest in has excellent specs. Yes, I know how to "interpret" specs. I have a bench full of test gear and the knowledge to make my own measurements. So my ignoring specs does not come from a point of ignorance. I've learned over the years that most of them have very little to do with how something actually sounds. Anyone who doubts this should listen to a good SET amplifier driving an HE type speaker and then check the measurements. The specs for most SET amplifiers are pretty bad. However, the sound can be absolutely marvelous. *

What this world needs is a 100 Watt SET that I can afford!:devil:
*
Back to the original reason for this thread: IME the differences between pre-amplifiers is several times greater than the differences between power amplifiers. They have been big enough that the differences are relatively obvious under DBT's. This is not what I've experienced with power amplifiers. Properly working power amplifiers while IMO sounding different are close enough in sound character that the small differences tend to be obscured under rigorous formalized testing. This is why I believe the LTLT is the only way to truly evaluate them or anything that has very small differences.


----------



## Sonnie

I am glad you guys who can hear differences (or perceive, imagine, make believe... or whatever it is - using your own words) and can do so with the long term listening test, although I think your defense of it is fairly weak and has a lot of faults in it, just like you think blind testing has faults, yet it is more scientific that long term listening test. I wish I could do the same as you guys on the long term testing, and I also wish you were not so fearful of A/B testing. If indeed I ever do "think" I am hearing a difference long term, I will want to confirm it with A/B testing. And I can assure you there is nothing stressful about it for me. The stress is created by how you approach it. If you go into worried that you will not hear a difference, then you might not. When you think of it as a challenge or a task... and you are afraid you might fail, that is when you could (not necessarily saying you you will, although you admit you believe you will), get stressed and your senses are crippled. 

I have enjoyed the conversation... and I have spent way too much time on it, particular when I knew what the outcome would be. I also knew this thread would end up a repeat of the amp differences thread, but decided to let it ride anyway. I think I said about all I can say, here and there. As always, we'll let the readers decide if it is real or myth... as it is always about personal choice... and satisfying ourselves, whichever we might choose to believe.


----------



## chashint

Yep its all about enjoying our entertainment experience.


----------



## ajinfla

JoeESP9 said:


> This is why I believe the LTLT is the only way to truly evaluate them or anything that has very small differences.


Hi Joe, but this is inherently illogical. Its called circular reasoning. You presume "small differences" exist...which only manifest themselves over longer periods of "listening". That are of course, "masked" by scientific methodology (ABX, etc.).
And how did you determine that these small differences exist in the first place? By completely invalid "test" methods, informal "listening", which we know, without a shadow of a doubt, introduces too many variable (yes, including delusion) to determine causation. It's precisely why we have controlled tests!
And lastly, for the last time "listening" is what you do in A BLIND TEST. It's the ONLY THING YOU CAN DO. There are no peeking options. No prior knowledge options, etc, etc. Just listening. With your ears only.
Now, if you'd like to call your method, the long term viewing, seeing, knowing, feeling, touching, etc, etc, etc. + listening "test" (that would be LTVSKFTEEE+LT btw), sure by all means do so.
But lets' be perfectly clear about what's being done here.

One more time, with feeling, there is NO TIME LIMIT on ABX or other controlled methods. It's just that there ARE time limits on aural memory, moods, concentration, etc, etc.
Hence the established by science quick switch method for determining real differences in the soundfield.
And no one holds a gun to your head, so the whole "stress" business, is merely an excuse by those who know, somewhere deep in their psyche, that they are going to be awfully red faced when they see their results. Sure, that could be stressful. Listening to music on stereos to hear wires and whatnot, _stressful_??? Please....
For other things, like how you'll feel about a component 2 years from now, well, do any "test" you please. Just put it in proper perspective. All will be well.

cheers,


----------



## Savjac

Sonnie said:


> I am glad you guys who can hear differences (or perceive, imagine, make believe... or whatever it is - using your own words) and can do so with the long term listening test, although I think your defense of it is fairly weak and has a lot of faults in it, just like you think blind testing has faults, yet it is more scientific that long term listening test.


I enjoy this sentence, and have to object your honor, this is a leading statement, kind of like AB testing, that makes a happy statement, then knocks the happy statement down and then goes on postulate in another direction, again, telling us our case and beliefs are weak. "Perceive, Imagine, Make Believe or whatever...

The presentation, that we know we can detect differences really causes many good people to bust at the seams with all sorts of tests and measurements that have been used in various forms for 40 or more years seems so old school. When a test or theoretical documentation simply does not work, as mentioned before, maybe its time to rethink the question. Can we define the differences we hear by information from a test ?

Nope, I do not think a test will reveal depth of image, spacial qualities, thin sound, drive in music, overhang of notes, close to accurate reproduction of any given instrument, voice or object. 

So is the test to prove that there is no difference in the sound or does it prove that the test is wrong ? Yes you know my answer, because the differences, howsoever slight are there, no question. Now find a way to test them. But first DEFINE the differences one needs to hear, I know some of them, and because someone else does not, is no reason to consider them as close minded because we choose not to believe in measuring that which cannot, today, be measured. 

Or, you can continue to spout rhetoric based on some electronic values trying to change out opinion with all the vigor you can muster. Science discovered Nuclear Energy to help the human race and yet, look what it got used for early on. One cannot believe science knows or can predict all that is or is not.


----------



## AudioDawg

I don't need to do any testing. I don't need to prove anything...the ones seeking proof are the ones that need to do the test. I am not seeking any proof.

If people think I am full of malarkey, well that is just a burden I will have to bear.


----------



## Savjac

AudioDawg said:


> I don't need to do any testing. I don't need to prove anything...the ones seeking proof are the ones that need to do the test. I am not seeking any proof.
> 
> If people think I am full of malarkey, well that is just a burden I will have to bear.


Ok Dawg, I could maybe think you are full of malarkey, but I am not sure what malarkey is.

But you are one wild and crazy Floridian, there must be something in the water down there. :innocent:


----------



## chashint

Savjac said:


> Nope, I do not think a test will reveal depth of image, spacial qualities, thin sound, drive in music, overhang of notes, close to accurate reproduction of any given instrument, voice or object.
> 
> Or, you can continue to spout rhetoric based on some electronic values trying to change out opinion with all the vigor you can muster. Science discovered Nuclear Energy to help the human race and yet, look what it got used for early on. One cannot believe science knows or can predict all that is or is not.


Image, spatial, depth, thin sound, overhang, accuracy.....by orders of magnitude are all defined by the speakers not the electronics driving them.

As I recall history the earliest use of nuclear energy was indeed used for the good of mankind.


----------



## ajinfla

Savjac said:


> The presentation, that we know we can detect differences


How? How do you "know", other than you perceive it?
Remember Jack, no one is arguing that you didn't "hear" it. That you didn't perceive it.
But that is evidence only of your perception...NOT evidence that the device changed the soundfield one iota.
Do you believe your informal listening perceptions, to be unerring representations of reality? 
That if you "heard it", then "it" must be ascribed to the device/soundfield...not solely, to _you_?



Savjac said:


> When a test or theoretical documentation simply does not work, as mentioned before, maybe its time to rethink the question.


Wait a second, doesn't work??? Because, when asked to listen with ears only, stripped of your biases and imagination, you fail to hear what you "heard" with sight, volume changes, biases and imagination, etc, etc?
As I mentioned to Joe, exactly what method are you using, to determine these differences, missed and "masked" by ears only testing? Please explain in detail. TIA.



Savjac said:


> Can we define the differences we hear by information from a test ?


Yes. That's why your cel phone works. Why your VOIP works. Why the Fletcher-Munson curves exist. Why JNDs for FR are known. Etc, etc, etc.
IOW, that is the basis for the entire field of aural perceptual science. Its a rather large field, compared to the audio fashion market.



Savjac said:


> Nope, I do not think a test will reveal depth of image, spacial qualities, thin sound, drive in music, overhang of notes, close to accurate reproduction of any given instrument, voice or object.


Actually they do. Sound wave tests and measurements for every one of those. Unless you are suggestion an alternate method of transduction to the brain. You are talking about soundwaves impinging upon the pinna, yes? Well then, those can be measured. And tested.
Even the imaginary stuff, in the form of fMRIs, which is the post processing functions.



Savjac said:


> So is the test to prove that there is no difference in the sound or does it prove that the test is wrong ?


First rule of logic; you can't prove a negative.
The test can only determine whether you hear or do not hear what is being claimed of the device, with your ears.



Savjac said:


> Yes you know my answer, because the differences, howsoever slight are there, no question.


Because you claim so? Using what error free method of detection?



Savjac said:


> Now find a way to test them. But first DEFINE the differences one needs to hear, I know some of them, and because someone else does not, is no reason to consider them as close minded because we choose not to believe in measuring that which cannot, today, be measured.


What can't be measured? We're going in circles here Jack 
"We" (science) can measure the soundwaves/field (so the physical part of the "sound") _and_ your brains reaction to it (fMRI), including the imaginary parts (like this). So what is being missed by science?
Are you sure it isn't you guys, missing out on all the vast fields of perceptual science instead?



Savjac said:


> Or, you can continue to spout rhetoric based on some electronic values trying to change out opinion with all the vigor you can muster. Science discovered Nuclear Energy to help the human race and yet, look what it got used for early on. One cannot believe science knows or can predict all that is or is not.


I doubt anyone is trying to convince anyone, look up "Red Herring" regarding Nuclear Energy and this is nothing but a nice Friday afternoon happy hour chat between rationalists and subjectivists.
The next topic will be "best tasting beer" and why you can't prove my choice as wrong....

cheers


----------



## AudioDawg

I object to the term "rationalist". you guys are anything but rational. :rofl2:

I prefer "objectivist" because you object to everything.


----------



## JoeESP9

ajinfla said:


> Hi Joe, but this is inherently illogical. Its called circular reasoning. You presume "small differences" exist...which only manifest themselves over longer periods of "listening". That are of course, "masked" by scientific methodology (ABX, etc.).
> And how did you determine that these small differences exist in the first place? By completely invalid "test" methods, informal "listening", which we know, without a shadow of a doubt, introduces too many variable (yes, including delusion) to determine causation. It's precisely why we have controlled tests!
> And lastly, for the last time "listening" is what you do in A BLIND TEST. It's the ONLY THING YOU CAN DO. There are no peeking options. No prior knowledge options, etc, etc. Just listening. With your ears only.
> Now, if you'd like to call your method, the long term viewing, seeing, knowing, feeling, touching, etc, etc, etc. + listening "test" (that would be LTVSKFTEEE+LT btw), sure by all means do so.
> But lets' be perfectly clear about what's being done here.
> 
> One more time, with feeling, there is NO TIME LIMIT on ABX or other controlled methods. It's just that there ARE time limits on aural memory, moods, concentration, etc, etc.
> Hence the established by science quick switch method for determining real differences in the soundfield.
> And no one holds a gun to your head, so the whole "stress" business, is merely an excuse by those who know, somewhere deep in their psyche, that they are going to be awfully red faced when they see their results. Sure, that could be stressful. Listening to music on stereos to hear wires and whatnot, _stressful_??? Please....
> For other things, like how you'll feel about a component 2 years from now, well, do any "test" you please. Just put it in proper perspective. All will be well.
> 
> cheers,


Sorry, I disagree with you about ABX and any kind of blind testing. Having owned an ABX box and participated in numerous blind and double blind tests I've found they simply don't bear much relationship to how we actually listen to music.

We do not listen to music under test type circumstances. We listen to music for pleasure, not to analyze and determine if one thing is grossly or minutely different from another.

For most instances of ABX or any kind of blind or double blind there is a time limit because the test subject does not own and is not using said device in their home with their system. As far as I'm concerned, not using your own gear in your own room invalidates the test from the beginning.

I'm a retired EE. I've been taught to think that technical specifications and measurements can explain and describe everything about the behavior of "X" device. I was dragged while kicking, screaming and loudly protesting into the things sound different camp by an ex-wife who had a pair of truly golden ears. She could come home from work, stand at the top of the stairs to my basement listening room and declare with absolute certainty that I had changed a pair of cables. She routinely got 19 out of 20 right with an ABX box. She also was able to give me quite a bit of insight as to what she heard and didn't hear from all stereo equipment. She opened up my ears and I've kept them open.

I'm certain those small differences are there because over time some things make me listen less and others prompt me to listen more. If others can't or don't hear these differences it's not my problem. I'm not trying to convince anyone. In fact, I don't care whether anyone believes this or not.

If everything sounded the same we'd all be using the same design of inexpensive gear and all our electronics would sound the same. This is not supported by the fact that there is a lot of different gear and people with different preferences. If it all sounded the same there would be no reason for different gear and no one would have any preference.

I bought and auditioned a DH Labs Air Matrix IC against the Kimber Silver Streak that I owned and was using. Over a period of several weeks it turned out I liked the DH Labs better than the Kimber. I had no axe to grind and the Kimber was actually more expensive. In fact I wanted the Kimber to sound better. It however turned out not to be the case. I sold all the Kimber (at a big loss) and replaced it with the DH Labs IC's. 

If as you say those "small differences" don't exist why do you have any preference for anything? Why do you not use bargain basement gear of some indeterminate type with dime store speaker cables and IC's. Why don't you buy gear based on specs alone? Do you buy gear without listening to it and just place it in your system and forget about it? I think not.

If there are no audible differences in gear why bother doing any testing at all? It almost seems that a lot of this type of testing is done only to discredit those of us who say we hear differences. Why are objectivists so determined to make subjectivists see and believe their way. There is a large difference between holding up laboriously derived test results to try and convince us and us saying "I hear differences even if you can't or won't". We believers don't give your test results any credence and you testers don't give our ears any credit. The real difference is that we're not trying to convince you (we don't care if you don't believe us) while you're constantly touting your test results and attempting to convince us. 

To paraphrase, "You're a different man than I Gunga Din".

One of the things my first wife drummed into me was that when most women complain about it being to loud it's actually their way of saying it doesn't sound very good. The can tolerate the, to them, bad sound at lower volumes not when it's louder. Maybe that's why my Grandmother always called it "Victrola music" to differentiate it from live music.

Word: If your wife/SO doesn't like the sound of your system get better gear.:bigsmile:


----------



## JoeESP9

ajinfla said:


> The next topic will be "best tasting beer" and why you can't prove my choice as wrong....
> cheers


If your choice is any kind of light beer you're choice is wrong.:devil: Of that neither I nor anyone else needs any proof other than taste buds. BTW: I think Budweiser is also pretty bad. So "taste buds" is not a play on words.:bigsmile:


----------



## ajinfla

AudioDawg said:


> I prefer "objectivist" because you object to everything.


Well, I'll let you argue that one out with Ayn Rand


----------



## NBPk402

JoeESP9 said:


> If your choice is any kind of light beer you're choice is wrong.:devil: Of that neither I nor anyone else needs any proof other than taste buds. BTW: I think Budweiser is also pretty bad. So "taste buds" is not a play on words.:bigsmile:


It is Dark beer of course! Murphys Stout is my favorite beer. :T


----------



## ajinfla

JoeESP9 said:


> Sorry, I disagree with you about ABX and any kind of blind testing.


That's fine, but once again, you mischaracterise. It's not "me" you disagree with, it's science.
The science that makes your cel phone work. The science that makes your medicine work. The science that makes your VOIP, HDTV, hearing aids work. Fletcher-Munson, JNDs, Particle Physics, etc, etc.
*That*, is what you disagree with.



JoeESP9 said:


> Having owned an ABX box and participated in numerous blind and double blind tests I've found they simply don't bear much relationship to how we actually listen to music.


Absolutely!! How many times must we agree on this for you to state as if we don't?
ABX prevents volume perception changes, vision perception changes, imagination perception changes, biases perception changes, mood perception changes, etc, etc.
Of course it changes how you "listen" to music with your ears, eyes, biases, imaginations, moods, volume changes, etc, etc.
*Again*, we are in 100% agreement here.



JoeESP9 said:


> We do not listen to music under test type circumstances. We listen to music for pleasure, not to analyze and determine if one thing is grossly or minutely different from another.


Again, YES!!
"We" are not under ABX test, *the DUT* is!! The DUT is the amp, pre, whatever.
For a test of "you", we have fMRI to show exactly what is happening. You are confusing what is being tested and the purpose of testing.



JoeESP9 said:


> As far as I'm concerned, not using your own gear in your own room invalidates the test from the beginning.


Exactly!! That's where/how you are "hearing" and "listening" to X,Y,Z.
So if you want to ascribe the soundfield to X,Y,Z, then a blind test of X,Y,Z in your home is ideal.
If you want to ascribe the "sound" of X,Y,Z purely to Joes brain, then exactly what is a "test" needed for?



JoeESP9 said:


> I'm a retired EE. I've been taught to think that technical specifications and measurements can explain and describe everything about the behavior of "X" device.


How much perceptual science was in your EE curriculum? There was zero in mine.



JoeESP9 said:


> I was dragged while kicking, screaming and loudly protesting into the things sound different camp by an ex-wife who had a pair of truly golden ears. She could come home from work, stand at the top of the stairs to my basement listening room and declare with absolute certainty that I had changed a pair of cables. She routinely got 19 out of 20 right with an ABX box. She also was able to give me quite a bit of insight as to what she heard and didn't hear from all stereo equipment.


Awesome. Perceptual scientists have been searching the earth for her! Is she available for trained perceptual scientists, none of which remotely involves an EE?



JoeESP9 said:


> She opened up my ears and I've kept them open.


Sure Joe, blame her 



JoeESP9 said:


> I'm certain those small differences are there because over time some things make me listen less and others prompt me to listen more.


I'm certain they are there too! But lacking a solitary shred of evidence ascribing "it" to the equipment, we must default to you.



JoeESP9 said:


> If others can't or don't hear these differences it's not my problem. I'm not trying to convince anyone. In fact, I don't care whether anyone believes this or not.


Another mischaracterization. I don't see a single person stating that they don't believe that Joe hears what Joe hears.



JoeESP9 said:


> If everything sounded the same we'd all be using the same design of inexpensive gear and all our electronics would sound the same. This is not supported by the fact that there is a lot of different gear and people with different preferences. If it all sounded the same there would be no reason for different gear and no one would have any preference.


C'mon Joe, that strawman is long dead. You conveniently ignore the vast amount of differences heard in controlled testing. You suppose there could be a Fletcher-Munson curve if no one can hear differences in blind tests? It's an utterly absurd concept.
Blind tests are perfectly effective at revealing real differences...and they do. They are worthless for imaginary ones. For that we need fMRI!



JoeESP9 said:


> I bought and auditioned a DH Labs Air Matrix IC against the Kimber Silver Streak that I owned and was using. Over a period of several weeks it turned out I liked the DH Labs better than the Kimber. I had no axe to grind and the Kimber was actually more expensive. In fact I wanted the Kimber to sound better. It however turned out not to be the case. I sold all the Kimber (at a big loss) and replaced it with the DH Labs IC's.


Cool. Not really sure what the proves though?



JoeESP9 said:


> If as you say those "small differences" don't exist why do you have any preference for anything?


Umm, I don't say that. Real small and large differences exist in audio equipment and are always testable. All the time. But imaginary ones exist also. However, only one "side" accepts this reality. the other dismisses it.



JoeESP9 said:


> Why do you not use bargain basement gear of some indeterminate type with dime store speaker cables and IC's.


I have before and hundreds of golden ear audiophiles couldn't tell. Because they didn't know. Fact.
But now I simply accept that for some people believing is hearing. Plus, I am not immune, I like cool looking $$tuff . I don't deny my humanity, I relish it! I have fancy cables, amps, you name it. I make zero (soundfield) claims about them, other than, "I like them".

Ok, running out of steam and strawman antidotes. Time for a Newcastle. 
We'll have to get together for one some time Joe.

cheers


----------



## NBPk402

Hey AJ... Have you ever tried Murphys Stout?


----------



## JoeESP9

ajinfla said:


> That's fine, but once again, you mischaracterise. It's not "me" you disagree with, it's science.
> The science that makes your cel phone work. The science that makes your medicine work. The science that makes your VOIP, HDTV, hearing aids work. Fletcher-Munson, JNDs, Particle Physics, etc, etc.
> *That*, is what you disagree with.
> 
> 
> Absolutely!! How many times must we agree on this for you to state as if we don't?
> ABX prevents volume perception changes, vision perception changes, imagination perception changes, biases perception changes, mood perception changes, etc, etc.
> Of course it changes how you "listen" to music with your ears, eyes, biases, imaginations, moods, volume changes, etc, etc.
> *Again*, we are in 100% agreement here.
> 
> 
> Again, YES!!
> "We" are not under ABX test, *the DUT* is!! The DUT is the amp, pre, whatever.
> For a test of "you", we have fMRI to show exactly what is happening. You are confusing what is being tested and the purpose of testing.
> 
> 
> Exactly!! That's where/how you are "hearing" and "listening" to X,Y,Z.
> So if you want to ascribe the soundfield to X,Y,Z, then a blind test of X,Y,Z in your home is ideal.
> If you want to ascribe the "sound" of X,Y,Z purely to Joes brain, then exactly what is a "test" needed for?
> 
> 
> How much perceptual science was in your EE curriculum? There was zero in mine.
> 
> 
> Awesome. Perceptual scientists have been searching the earth for her! Is she available for trained perceptual scientists, none of which remotely involves an EE?
> 
> 
> Sure Joe, blame her
> 
> 
> I'm certain they are there too! But lacking a solitary shred of evidence ascribing "it" to the equipment, we must default to you.
> 
> 
> Another mischaracterization. I don't see a single person stating that they don't believe that Joe hears what Joe hears.
> 
> 
> C'mon Joe, that strawman is long dead. You conveniently ignore the vast amount of differences heard in controlled testing. You suppose there could be a Fletcher-Munson curve if no one can hear differences in blind tests? It's an utterly absurd concept.
> Blind tests are perfectly effective at revealing real differences...and they do. They are worthless for imaginary ones. For that we need fMRI!
> 
> 
> Cool. Not really sure what the proves though?
> 
> 
> Umm, I don't say that. Real small and large differences exist in audio equipment and are always testable. All the time. But imaginary ones exist also. However, only one "side" accepts this reality. the other dismisses it.
> 
> 
> I have before and hundreds of golden ear audiophiles couldn't tell. Because they didn't know. Fact.
> But now I simply accept that for some people believing is hearing. Plus, I am not immune, I like cool looking $$tuff . I don't deny my humanity, I relish it! I have fancy cables, amps, you name it. I make zero (soundfield) claims about them, other than, "I like them".
> 
> Ok, running out of steam and strawman antidotes. Time for a Newcastle.
> We'll have to get together for one some time Joe.
> 
> cheers


Please! I'm a retired engineer although I'll never really quit working. I spent 10 years working as a Biomedical Engineer at a major teaching and research hospital. I then went back to school to acquire a Masters in Computer Science. I finished my work life as a Network/Software Engineer. My entire life has revolved around science. 

The Fletcher Munson curve has absolutely nothing to do with testing of the sort we're discussing here. Consequently it's not relevant to this discussion.

As I posted earlier; For some reason that escapes me, objectivists think it as their solemn duty to educate the world and other listeners. The thing is we don't agree with you and are not interested in what we think are flawed testing procedures that have no resemblance to real life listening conditions. 

You still haven't addressed my concerns/questions about the relevancy of testing that doesn't in any way resemble how people really listen to music. 

We'll just have to disagree. 

I'm going to do some multitasking and simultaneously watch the opening ceremony for the Winter Olympics and Bill Nye debate some wacko about real science and "creation science". Guess which side I'm on.

Well, Newcastle Ale while not really my thing is IMO quite drinkable. I'm more into Belgians and I'm quite fond of Pilsner Urquell.


----------



## Mike0206

I like beer. When I drink enough of it(not too much) I could care less about the difference in pre amps. I just want to enjoy the music. These debates and tests take so much fun out of the enjoyment of music it's ridiculous. Listen to your system, if you want it to be better then change your speakers or source material as that will make the greatest impact. If you want to notice a difference in Amps and purchase a different one then you will probably notice a difference no matter how negligible it is. It is the way our brains work. Ever seen Brain games? Cool show. Anyways sometimes we just have to be quiet, listen and enjoy without being overly critical. Well, it's time for a Guiness!


----------



## lcaillo

So you are saying we need to put our beer ears on?


----------



## Mike0206

lcaillo said:


> So you are saying we need to put our beer ears on?


 Exactly! Then it won't matter lol


----------



## Savjac

AJ

Why do you care so deeply so as to keep telling me I do not hear what I hear ?
Please put forth all you wish but know this, I cannot change my mind. 
These questions and quotes, coming from a speaker designer especially seem so misplaced. I know you said it is not about you but once again, I ask, how do you voice your product. Fletcher Munson, electronics and no human intervention ?
If there is human intervention, why ? Are you able to hear something that your electronics cannot ?? If so what ?

I think these are easy questions for you, a science man, except the question as to why the need to try and rail against our thoughts and beliefs. Sonnie was clear, he cannot hear a difference, cool, but is there a need to trot out dozens of articles showing someone else s work ? I can counter with excellent articles saying that differences exist and define them accordingly. Why are there so many different products ? Are all the designers nuts or just trying to rip us off ? Why do we need another amp, another DAC, another pre amp another turntable, cartridge or...speaker. We have thousands to choose from now, why make more if things sound so similar...what new ground can be covered that has not been ?


----------



## ajinfla

JoeESP9 said:


> My entire life has revolved around science. .


Yet you forget basic rules of logic (a core EE course) and ignore the entire field of perceptual science.
Strange it seems.



JoeESP9 said:


> The Fletcher Munson curve has absolutely nothing to do with testing of the sort we're discussing here. Consequently it's not relevant to this discussion.


It absolutely does. It was scientific blind testing of soundwaves relevant to human hearing. They had no trouble with people suddenly going deaf because of the test methods and "stress" and every other excuse by folks, who suddenly go deaf when they cant see and know things with their ears.
It's an example among thousands, where perceptual science works just fine....except for audiophiles and music.



JoeESP9 said:


> As I posted earlier; For some reason that escapes me, objectivists think it as their solemn duty to educate the world and other listeners. The thing is we don't agree with you and are not interested in what we think are flawed testing procedures that have no resemblance to real life listening conditions.


Joe, this is a open discussion forum. Where readers get to see the rational, logical, reasoned scientific side _and_ the subjectivist side of the discussion. I realize that the vast majority of Audio sites allow only one side. Places like (appropriately) "Audio Asylum", where "inmates" get to post their daydreams as facts, free of intervention and reality. Discussion of DBT or any science/rationality there is strictly forbidden. I would hope open discussion would be appreciated here. Ok, maybe not by audiophiles .



JoeESP9 said:


> You still haven't addressed my concerns/questions about the relevancy of testing that doesn't in any way resemble how people really listen to music.


I've addressed your "listening" methods several times. I've agreed with what you said several times. Take the time to read my individual responses.



JoeESP9 said:


> We'll just have to disagree.


Absolutely. Folks are free to read each of our viewpoints and decide for themselves. 
Ideal, wouldn't you say?



JoeESP9 said:


> Well, Newcastle Ale while not really my thing is IMO quite drinkable. I'm more into Belgians and I'm quite fond of Pilsner Urquell.


Actually, the best beer I've every had was at LSAF, by a home brewer. Newcastle is just my "default" favorite.
Oddly enough, with my perceptions, I can usually tell if I like the taste of a beer withing the first sip or two. Or at most, after one round. Doesn't take me months or years to develop fatigue or anything like that, while my moods and perceptions change away.
Strange eh? 

cheers


----------



## ajinfla

ajinfla said:


> *Again*, we are in 100% agreement here.
> 
> 
> I'm certain they [sounds Joe hear] are there too!
> 
> 
> I don't see a single person stating that they don't believe that Joe hears what Joe hears.





Savjac said:


> AJ
> Why do you care so deeply so as to keep telling me I do not hear what I hear?


Not sure how to reconcile my statements and what you just wrote.
It just doesn't seem to matter how many times I clearly state, no one disputes that you heard what you heard. That is your perception of X, based on your "listening" methods.
There is no disagreement whatsoever. Yet over and over...



Savjac said:


> Please put forth all you wish but know this, I cannot change my mind.


I know. This isn't about you. It's simply open discussion about audio. Why take it personally?? :scratch:
When we mostly agree?



Savjac said:


> These questions and quotes, coming from a speaker designer especially seem so misplaced. I know you said it is not about you but once again, I ask, how do you voice your product.


Correct. If you wish to Red herring, Ad Hominem, Smokescreen, Shift the goal posts, etc, etc, etc. any argument away from the original, then the natural progression is to shift to the arguer.



Savjac said:


> Fletcher Munson, electronics and no human intervention ?
> If there is human intervention, why ? Are you able to hear something that your electronics cannot ?? If so what ?


I use the scientific method to design. Upon completion, I listen purely for pleasure. It's worked so far.
I can imagine hearing things mics can't "see", but fMRI can, just like every other human, including (unbeknownst to them), "audiophiles".



Savjac said:


> I think these are easy questions for you, a science man, except the question as to why the need to try and rail against our thoughts and beliefs. Sonnie was clear, he cannot hear a difference, cool, but is there a need to trot out dozens of articles showing someone else s work ?


Rail?? I'm enjoying a cordial audio open discussion. Why you find this so unenjoyable....:huh:
There is no need for a rationalist to redo established, verified science, any more than to reinvent the wheel (btw, Fletcher Munson has been updated before). So no, I don't run JNDs for FR, nuclear fission experiments, etc.
The neighbors might object .



Savjac said:


> I can counter with excellent articles saying that differences exist and define them accordingly.


Please do! That would further the discussion. Remember, as a rationalist, I am open to valid science that sheds new light. Happens all the time! I keep up with all that, which is precisely why I can quote. But I'm always seeking new valid scientific knowledge. I'd love for you to show us these scientific articles for discussion. Do they relate to preamps?



Savjac said:


> Why are there so many different products ? Are all the designers nuts or just trying to rip us off ? Why do we need another amp, another DAC, another pre amp another turntable, cartridge or...speaker. We have thousands to choose from now, why make more if things sound so similar...what new ground can be covered that has not been ?


Preferences.
And for the thousandth time, it's entirely possible to make DACs, preamps, TTs, etc, that sound different in controlled _or_ informal listening. All measurable.

cheers


----------



## Savjac

Cool, thanks AJ 

It's funny you know, I am presently in the ER for and with my wife and somehow all these things seem so far off the horizon. Maybe there is a lesson for me here, don't take audio reproduction so serious because it's not. Once back home when the emergency has been handled and I can be nurse jack in comfortable surroundings, I agree it may be best to provide examples and others can try to duplicate. 

But for now, the cheerful waiting room. All should be well.


----------



## chashint

Hope all will be well with you and your family.


----------



## JoeESP9

ajinfla said:


> Oddly enough, with my perceptions, I can usually tell if I like the taste of a beer withing the first sip or two. Or at most, after one round. Doesn't take me months or years to develop fatigue or anything like that, while my moods and perceptions change away.
> Strange eh?
> 
> cheers


I don't think that's odd at all. I can get a pretty good idea about the taste of a given beer from the aroma alone.


----------



## ajinfla

Savjac said:


> Cool, thanks AJ
> 
> It's funny you know, I am presently in the ER for and with my wife and somehow all these things seem so far off the horizon. Maybe there is a lesson for me here, don't take audio reproduction so serious because it's not. Once back home when the emergency has been handled and I can be nurse jack in comfortable surroundings, I agree it may be best to provide examples and others can try to duplicate.
> 
> But for now, the cheerful waiting room. All should be well.


Audio banter online should be the least of your concerns. My best wishes to you and your wife, I hope she has a speedy recovery.

cheers

p.s. I'll tell Mike you said hello, I'm sure he'll send best wishes also


----------



## tonyvdb

Hey Jack, I also wish a speedy recovery to your wife. 

On a side note things sound very different after the wax has been removed from your ears, if you have not done so within the last couple years I highly recommend it. A much cheaper solution than upgrading gear.


----------



## Savjac

Thank You for the kind words, things seem a bit better now, well hopefully on the mend.


----------

