Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article .com, Andre
Jute wrote:
The present position is that we take someone's word for the THD and IMD
numbers, we take it once for the entire design and many manufacturing
runs of that particular amp, we make a few spotchecks (sometimes, more
often not), most people don't know how to take the measurements. Thus
this discredited system which predicts nothing hangs on the word of
engineers, often a single engineer. It is equally valid when addingg
another system of predictive judgement, this one based on culture, to
have qualified persons of cultivated taste who have heard the
orchestras, who have been in the halls, who have heard the musicians
play the music in the venue, make the judgement once on behalf of
everyone else. The method is the same; all that differs is that a
different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now
makes the call.

I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers. Who do you think
invents, designs, builds and maintains the equipment without which
broadcasting and home audio would not exist at all? What on earth makes
you think that possession of technical knowledge puts a person into a
different "class" (your choice of word), where they are devoid of
"culture" (your choice again)? What do you imagine guides these
"uncultured" people in their decisions when they are designing the
equipment that is used by everybody else, including those who consider
themselves "cultured" but would not know where to begin? Try designing the
equipment for a broadcasting or recording system on the basis of "culture"
but using no technical knowledge and see how far you get.

Rod.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article , Rob
wrote:

Anecdotally, I agree with your consideration of AV electronics. One of
the key characteristics of valve amps I've used (mainly class A PP) is
the sense of 3D soundstage. I've never been able to recreate that with
SS - the closest (but nowhere near) is through electronic 'concert
hall'/spatialiser settings on SS amps.

The problem here is that there a various 'possible' explanations for what
you report. Until such time as someone does some appropriate experimental
tests to distingush between them, we can't really tell which of those
'explanations' someone might suggest may be the 'reason' for what you
report.

So, for example, on possibility is microphonics as someone else has already
suggested.

Another possibility is that the amps you prefer produce an altered
frequency response which changes the perceived direct/reverberant levels.

No doubt there would be other possibilities.


My experience is problematic in two ways:

1) I have no evidence to support my views beyond similar experiences
described by others. I can't *measure* the effect. Indeed, I've never
done anything approaching a DBT largely because switching between
amplifiers is not straightforward. This is something I'm going to think
about in the not too distant future - I'd happily trade the valves for
an efficient/cheap SS if it did the job ...

The distinction to make is between 'evidence' that you believe you hear
some effect, and 'evidence' that this belief is for any specific 'reason'.
What you report is evidence that you believe you hear the effect. In the
absence of any contrary evidence on that point, we can take seriously the
idea that you *do* hear what you report. However to proceed beyond that
point would require other 'evidence' of more appropriate and specific
kinds.

2) Evidence elsewhere that suggests there is no difference in real world
sound amplification - the Quad example given by Dave Plowman being a
case in point, and considered elsewhere in your original. Simply can't
explain that ... wish I was there :-)

Not quite. :-) The 'evidence' from the tests carried out and reported in
HFN/WW that you refer to was to the effect that no-one could reliably
distinguish between *the amplifiers used in the tests* under the
*conditions of the tests*. This does *not* mean that "there is no difference
in real world sound amplification" as a statement with no qualifiers. It
would be quite possible to make an amp that sounded 'different' to others
by ensuring it differed in some significant respect.So this all depends
on the case at hand.

e.g. A) You might compare an amp that was seriously current limiting in use
with one that was not.

e.g. B) You might compare two amps with wildly different frequency
responses in use.

The point of the test was explained at the time by PJW and others. Alas, it
may be that people have simply forgotten what he actually said at the time.

FWIW I will have a go at asking HFN if they will agree to a copy of the
relevant material being put on the web. Then people could refer to it, and
read it for themselves.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:



I think that the explanation is fairly simple:- The Quad tests were
done with a Quad II valve, and 303 and 405 SS. All three amplifiers
perform to a level that is below the threshold of audibility for
frequency response errors, noise and distortion, consequently will
sound the same into the load they were presented with at the tests
(Yamaha NS1000). This will be true of any amplifiers who's performance
below the audibility threshold. I don't think there is any mystery
there.

Actually, I and some others found the results of the 'Quad' test quite
interesting at the time. This was for two reasons.

1) That although the three amps were all 'Quad' designs, their specs in
terms of things like frequency response *on load* were different. (Indeed,
in the later tests organised by Colloms this particular point came in for
some scrutiny. Yet the second set of tests also produced evidence that the
listeners could not tell one amp from another in the tests.)

2) That all along PJW was confident that people would *not* be able to tell
the difference despite (1) and the loud claims of reviewers before the
event that thy would be able to do so. People may nowdays forget that PJW
spent many a long year involved with developing the amps, and other kit,
and was also an keen amateur musician. He did listen to the equipment and
was a stern critic. Yet he held no sympathy for the claims of the reviewers
which the tests refuted.

The later 'Colloms' test was even more interesting as it used an even
wider spread of amplifier types, and more demanding conditions of test,
yet gave similar results to the 'Quad' test.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article , Roderick
Stewart wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:


1) I have no evidence to support my views beyond similar experiences
described by others.

This doesn't necessarily mean the measurements are wrong, or that your
listening experience is wrong. It could be simply that the appropriate
measurements have not yet been made.

Indeed. It is quite reasonable to take such an idea seriously. It would
only be discarded *if *

A) we found there was a body of relevant evidence that conflicted with it

or

B) it coinflicted with a theory that was well established by some other
evidence

and we decided this made the idea untenable.


So far as I know, there is no such reason to dismiss what Rod has said.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article .com,
Andre Jute wrote:
For a start, your room, unless you live in a church, will not be
big enough accurately to reproduce the lowest bass notes.

Bollox.

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

In article ,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers. Who do you think
invents, designs, builds and maintains the equipment without which
broadcasting and home audio would not exist at all? What on earth makes
you think that possession of technical knowledge puts a person into a
different "class" (your choice of word), where they are devoid of
"culture" (your choice again)? What do you imagine guides these
"uncultured" people in their decisions when they are designing the
equipment that is used by everybody else, including those who consider
themselves "cultured" but would not know where to begin? Try designing
the equipment for a broadcasting or recording system on the basis of
"culture" but using no technical knowledge and see how far you get.

On the nail.

--
*That's it! I‘m calling grandma!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:28:04 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article .com,
Andre Jute wrote:
For a start, your room, unless you live in a church, will not be
big enough accurately to reproduce the lowest bass notes.

Bollox.

Enormous great hairy ones, in fact.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article .com, Andre
Jute wrote:
The present position is that we take someone's word for the THD and IMD
numbers, we take it once for the entire design and many manufacturing
runs of that particular amp, we make a few spotchecks (sometimes, more
often not), most people don't know how to take the measurements. Thus
this discredited system which predicts nothing hangs on the word of
engineers, often a single engineer. It is equally valid when addingg
another system of predictive judgement, this one based on culture, to
have qualified persons of cultivated taste who have heard the
orchestras, who have been in the halls, who have heard the musicians
play the music in the venue, make the judgement once on behalf of
everyone else. The method is the same; all that differs is that a
different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now
makes the call.

I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers. Who do you think
invents, designs, builds and maintains the equipment without which
broadcasting and home audio would not exist at all? What on earth makes
you think that possession of technical knowledge puts a person into a
different "class" (your choice of word), where they are devoid of
"culture" (your choice again)? What do you imagine guides these
"uncultured" people in their decisions when they are designing the
equipment that is used by everybody else, including those who consider
themselves "cultured" but would not know where to begin? Try designing the
equipment for a broadcasting or recording system on the basis of "culture"
but using no technical knowledge and see how far you get.

Rod.

Hear Hear

S.

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On 2006-02-13, Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article .com, Andre
Jute wrote:
The present position is that we take someone's word for the THD and IMD
numbers, we take it once for the entire design and many manufacturing
runs of that particular amp, we make a few spotchecks (sometimes, more
often not), most people don't know how to take the measurements. Thus
this discredited system which predicts nothing hangs on the word of
engineers, often a single engineer. It is equally valid when addingg
another system of predictive judgement, this one based on culture, to
have qualified persons of cultivated taste who have heard the
orchestras, who have been in the halls, who have heard the musicians
play the music in the venue, make the judgement once on behalf of
everyone else. The method is the same; all that differs is that a
different class of person, one of culture rather than a technician, now
makes the call.

I'm tired of this superior attitude towards engineers. ...

It was ever thus. You have to get used to attitudes and behaviours
that are often born out of a lack of understanding. It will be rather
interesting to observe the replies to your point to judge whether
Protagoras (or more accurately some of his later successors) would
approve.

... Who do you think
invents, designs, builds and maintains the equipment without which
broadcasting and home audio would not exist at all? ...

Indeed. Those who question scientific and engineering methods per se seem
to omit consideration of the success of such a way of thinking - as
demonstrated over the centuries.

... What on earth makes
you think that possession of technical knowledge puts a person into a
different "class" (your choice of word), where they are devoid of
"culture" (your choice again)? What do you imagine guides these
"uncultured" people in their decisions when they are designing the
equipment that is used by everybody else, including those who consider
themselves "cultured" but would not know where to begin? Try designing the
equipment for a broadcasting or recording system on the basis of "culture"
but using no technical knowledge and see how far you get.

It is difficult to generalize but most of the successful engineers I
know are also highly cultured people. Indeed, lunch today will be with
an engineering manager friend who plays the clarinet and I look forward
to discussing the programming of a forthcoming concert in which he will
perform. I find that good engineers often have a broader appreciation
of culture than those who claim the title "cultured" for themselves.

--
John Phillips

Do amplifiers sound different?uad
 

On 13 Feb 2006 12:20:07 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:



It is difficult to generalize but most of the successful engineers I
know are also highly cultured people. Indeed, lunch today will be with
an engineering manager friend who plays the clarinet and I look forward
to discussing the programming of a forthcoming concert in which he will
perform. I find that good engineers often have a broader appreciation
of culture than those who claim the title "cultured" for themselves.

I was having a conversation a few months ago with a woman who had just
taken up her first post for a university, and we were talking about
her ambitions for getting a musical group together. I asked her where
in the university she was employed, and she said it was the science
and engineering department. "Oh, well, you've got your orchestra then,
no problem", I said. She told me how amazed she was to find this was
absolutely true - she had never appreciated how closely allied music
is to these disciplines. The musical talent there was far greater than
in any of the arts departments, apart from the music department
itself.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com