A vision test for an ideal audiophile:

[steve_1979]

The problem with this is that generally, blind tests happen over relatively short periods of time. It takes a much longer time and listening to many different types of music over that time to fully appreciate how a component delivers its result. Simply comparing sound bites isn't good enough.

This is a common mistake that many people make. There is no time limit for for blind comparison tests (with either A/B or ABX). It can be for seconds, minutes, hours or even months if you wanted. There's also no limit to the number or repititions when swapping components over either.

A blind test only means that you don't know which component you are comparing so that you can make a judgement based purely on the sound without anything else biasing your decision.

 

[steve_1979]

Pauln fair enough, but you're painting all 'audiophiles' with the same brush aren't you? They're all subjective? How could I possibly be subjective if I'm going shopping for a speaker, or any other component for that matter, when I'll be parting with cold hard cash? And I've heard some sighted setups which sounded immediately bad, so no amount of blind testing would have changed my mind. Also sometimes dealers, more often than not I might add unless you're walking into high end boutiques, are not equipped or willing to do proper blind tests. They need to provide a pleasant, comfortable, lounge like environment, and few take the time to do this, and you need to be made to feel unhurried. I empathise with them too, cos time is money too. So you 'scientists' on these forums can be incredibly biased too, and are quick to judge, unjustifiably so. Blind or sighted tests are neither hard and fast scientific.

Well, I would say that depends on how you determine exactly what an audiophile is - I believe that's being discussed, or argued about, in another thread. The point I was making is that several well respected "audiophiles", including some high profile hifi journalists, have elected to do blind tests and have failed to distinguish high end equipment from relatively low end gear. There are many such instances on the internet and they have been referenced on this forum many times in the past. It is now the case that "professional audiophiles" will generally not do the tests for fear of being embarrassed.

The problem with this is that generally, blind tests happen over relatively short periods of time. It takes a much longer time and listening to many different types of music over that time to fully appreciate how a component delivers its result. Simply comparing sound bites isn't good enough.

Surely if there are such vast differences as some people (and many reviewers) suggest:

but the MF3si to K3 really was night and day

then a simple blind test would easily highlight such differences? Yet you say it takes many hours of listening to different types of music to discern even subtle differences.

In the past when I have auditioned kit, I have found it extremely hard if not impossiible to actually 'remember' what the previous amp sounded like. Switching back and forward between different speakers or even quickly swapping headphones showed clear differences. Similarly when I've used the foobar abx plug in to compare different versions of the same track (compressed remaster vs original) by switching back and forth between them it's been much easier to tell them apart than when listening to one or the other in isolation. The reason for this, as I understand it from reading up on the subject, is that audio (echoic) memory is very fleeting, only 3 - 4 seconds.

I too find it much easier to tell differences over short time periods rather than long ones.

 

[lindsayt]

How many blind tests, in practise, have allowed the listeners as much time and as many swap-overs as they'd like?

And at how many has the answer been given after a brief single pass through the ABX test? For whatever reason. Politeness. Large number of listeners. Short amount of time available. People managing the test not making it clear that there are no time nor swap-over limitations. etc etc etc.

And, at the end of the day, isn't the object of the hi-fi buying exercise to arrive at a system that each person is happiest with? Is there any evidence to suggest that people who select equipment via blind tests are happier with the their systems than people who select via sighted tests?

And here's a highly hypothetical question. If I were to start out anew in buying hi-fi equipment. And I decided to visit two homes. One where the equipment had been selected via sighted tests and one where the equipment had been selected via blind tests. Which system do you think would be the one that I'd want to then go out and buy for myself?

I suspect, that in reality it'd be really difficult to find someone whose entire system had been selected via blind tests.

 

[pauln]

How many blind tests, in practise, have allowed the listeners as much time and as many swap-overs as they'd like?

And at how many has the answer been given after a brief single pass through the ABX test? For whatever reason. Politeness. Large number of listeners. Short amount of time available. People managing the test not making it clear that there are no time nor swap-over limitations. etc etc etc.

And, at the end of the day, isn't the object of the hi-fi buying exercise to arrive at a system that each person is happiest with? Is there any evidence to suggest that people who select equipment via blind tests are happier with the their systems than people who select via sighted tests?

And here's a highly hypothetical question. If I were to start out anew in buying hi-fi equipment. And I decided to visit two homes. One where the equipment had been selected via sighted tests and one where the equipment had been selected via blind tests. Which system do you think would be the one that I'd want to then go out and buy for myself?

I suspect, that in reality it'd be really difficult to find someone whose entire system had been selected via blind tests.

Actually, I've never bought anything after blind testing, it's always been sighted but I have always found it incredibly difficult and have generally left the shop confused and undecided apart from when I bought headphones. The only thing that's knocked me for six were the Harbeth speakers I heard a couple of years ago. After joining this forum and getting no real answers to my questions I started looking into all this from a more objective viewpoint and read the opinions of Alan Shaw and others and you know what - I saw the light. Their reasoning appealed to me (as an engineer) and satisfactorily explained the difficulties I've had buying kit in the past. You see, I have no interest in constantly changing and upgrading, I just want to buy a system, plug it up and listen to great quality music.

Sadly, a year ago, under great pressure from my wife, I spent £1000 on a soundbar and sold my 20 year old Linn speakers. Big mistake. But I will have those Harbeths one day, probably plugged into an old second hand made in the UK Quad power amp.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Blind tests are overrated in my opinion. I often listen to music in the dark.

Getting confused here - blind testing means not knowing what you're listening to, turning the lights out or closing your eyes is not the same thing.

I know what blind tests are, but as I said if someone wants a Bose, he or she will buy a Bose, and as another poster stated here, sighted tests are perfectly reasonable to anyone with a degree of objectivity, all my auditions have been sighted and I don't think my decisions would have been any different otherwise.

Many have said the same but have always come unstuck when doing proper blind tests. They then come up with excuses such as the "stress" of taking such a test somehow affects their hearing. Some audiophiles continue to believe that they can listen objectively and overide any bias - I find that quite amusing given that normally they loathe objectivity and bang on about how it's all subjective.

'Proper blind tests'

Are those the ones which employ level matching ?

......lol.

Yes indeed. Otherwise they are meaningless but I don't expect you to grasp the concept. Ignorance is bliss.

You have it the wrong way around.

Name another area were products are tested or compared with like and 'level matched' in any way?.

So I'll say it again -Level matching is nonesense.

If you're going to compare, compare kit without compromise.
To the limits of their respective performance to not do so now that is meaningless.

 

[Laurens_B]

Blind tests are overrated in my opinion. I often listen to music in the dark.

Getting confused here - blind testing means not knowing what you're listening to, turning the lights out or closing your eyes is not the same thing.

I know what blind tests are, but as I said if someone wants a Bose, he or she will buy a Bose, and as another poster stated here, sighted tests are perfectly reasonable to anyone with a degree of objectivity, all my auditions have been sighted and I don't think my decisions would have been any different otherwise.

Many have said the same but have always come unstuck when doing proper blind tests. They then come up with excuses such as the "stress" of taking such a test somehow affects their hearing. Some audiophiles continue to believe that they can listen objectively and overide any bias - I find that quite amusing given that normally they loathe objectivity and bang on about how it's all subjective.

'Proper blind tests'

Are those the ones which employ level matching ?

......lol.

Yes indeed. Otherwise they are meaningless but I don't expect you to grasp the concept. Ignorance is bliss.

You have it the wrong way around.

Name another area were products are tested or compared with like and 'level matched' in any way?.

So I'll say it again -Level matching is nonesense.

If you're going to compare, compare kit without compromise. To the limits of their respective performance to not do so now that is meaningless.

As has been discussed quite a lot of times, people generally prefer something that is slightly louder over something that is slightly less loud. If you would plug in two amplifiers, and one of them is constantly playing +1dB, than we would not really perceive this as being louder, but we would perceive the finer details of the music being more present (because they are a bit louder of course), and this might convince you that this amplifier produced the music with a bit more detail, so you would say that amplifier is the better one.

If we would do this test again, but now the other amplifier is set 1dB louder than the one before, than now suddenly this amplifier MIGHT sound a tad better, because the details are more present. Therefore, you did not actually choose an amplifier because it sounds better, but you happen to choose the louder one consistently. Therefore this extra variable is something to get rid off, to fairly compare two amps.

Concluding, when not level matching, the louder amp would be preferred more often, but not because of it's quality, only because it's a bit louder. This is really as clear as I can put it.

 

[pauln]

Blind tests are overrated in my opinion. I often listen to music in the dark.

Getting confused here - blind testing means not knowing what you're listening to, turning the lights out or closing your eyes is not the same thing.

I know what blind tests are, but as I said if someone wants a Bose, he or she will buy a Bose, and as another poster stated here, sighted tests are perfectly reasonable to anyone with a degree of objectivity, all my auditions have been sighted and I don't think my decisions would have been any different otherwise.

Many have said the same but have always come unstuck when doing proper blind tests. They then come up with excuses such as the "stress" of taking such a test somehow affects their hearing. Some audiophiles continue to believe that they can listen objectively and overide any bias - I find that quite amusing given that normally they loathe objectivity and bang on about how it's all subjective.

'Proper blind tests'

Are those the ones which employ level matching ?

......lol.

Yes indeed. Otherwise they are meaningless but I don't expect you to grasp the concept. Ignorance is bliss.

You have it the wrong way around.

Name another area were products are tested or compared with like and 'level matched' in any way?.

So I'll say it again -Level matching is nonesense.

If you're going to compare, compare kit without compromise. To the limits of their respective performance to not do so now that is meaningless.

As has been discussed quite a lot of times, people generally prefer something that is slightly louder over something that is slightly less loud. If you would plug in two amplifiers, and one of them is constantly playing +1dB, than we would not really perceive this as being louder, but we would perceive the finer details of the music being more present (because they are a bit louder of course), and this might convince you that this amplifier produced the music with a bit more detail, so you would say that amplifier is the better one.

If we would do this test again, but now the other amplifier is set 1dB louder than the one before, than now suddenly this amplifier MIGHT sound a tad better, because the details are more present. Therefore, you did not actually choose an amplifier because it sounds better, but you happen to choose the louder one consistently. Therefore this extra variable is something to get rid off, to fairly compare two amps.

Concluding, when not level matching, the louder amp would be preferred more often, but not because of it's quality, only because it's a bit louder. This is really as clear as I can put it.

Several people have tried to explain this to Thompson before, even attempting to explain the well established principle of equal loudness curves; Thompson, however, lives in a parallel universe called Thompson's world, a world where the normal rules of physics do not apply, only Thompson's rules.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Blind tests are overrated in my opinion. I often listen to music in the dark.

Getting confused here - blind testing means not knowing what you're listening to, turning the lights out or closing your eyes is not the same thing.

I know what blind tests are, but as I said if someone wants a Bose, he or she will buy a Bose, and as another poster stated here, sighted tests are perfectly reasonable to anyone with a degree of objectivity, all my auditions have been sighted and I don't think my decisions would have been any different otherwise.

Many have said the same but have always come unstuck when doing proper blind tests. They then come up with excuses such as the "stress" of taking such a test somehow affects their hearing. Some audiophiles continue to believe that they can listen objectively and overide any bias - I find that quite amusing given that normally they loathe objectivity and bang on about how it's all subjective.

'Proper blind tests'

Are those the ones which employ level matching ?

......lol.

Yes indeed. Otherwise they are meaningless but I don't expect you to grasp the concept. Ignorance is bliss.

You have it the wrong way around.

Name another area were products are tested or compared with like and 'level matched' in any way?.

So I'll say it again -Level matching is nonesense.

If you're going to compare, compare kit without compromise. To the limits of their respective performance to not do so now that is meaningless.

As has been discussed quite a lot of times, people generally prefer something that is slightly louder over something that is slightly less loud. If you would plug in two amplifiers, and one of them is constantly playing +1dB, than we would not really perceive this as being louder, but we would perceive the finer details of the music being more present (because they are a bit louder of course), and this might convince you that this amplifier produced the music with a bit more detail, so you would say that amplifier is the better one.?

If we would do this test again, but now the other amplifier is set 1dB louder than the one before, than now suddenly this amplifier MIGHT sound a tad better, because the details are more present. Therefore, you did not actually choose an amplifier because it sounds better, but you happen to choose the louder one consistently. Therefore this extra variable is something to get rid off, to fairly compare two amps.?

Concluding, when not level matching, the louder amp would be preferred more often, but not because of it's quality, only because it's a bit louder. This is really as clear as I can put it.

That's clear but it's still a nonesense.

If you have 2 amps one capable of delivering a clean undistorted 90db @ 1m the other a clean undistorted 45db @1m - which is the better amp?

Point being If you are testing wether or not a better amp can mimic a lesser amp..... Fine.

If comparing to determine which amp is more capable level matching is nonsense.

If testing cables, again without testing the limits of products upper and lower limits included you'll learn nothing about the component you're testing.

Not sure who determined level matching was a default for all hifi comparisons but it's about time it was exposed for the nonsense it is.

I mean if buying a tv - you have a budget of £1000 - would you compare tv's by compromising the contrast levels of a better set with an Aldi's 'special offer' when making a choice.

I know I would not so why apply such logic to hifi when testing any component?

Going loud and staying undistorted is actually part of an amps job.

Think about it.....

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Blind tests are overrated in my opinion. I often listen to music in the dark.

Getting confused here - blind testing means not knowing what you're listening to, turning the lights out or closing your eyes is not the same thing.

I know what blind tests are, but as I said if someone wants a Bose, he or she will buy a Bose, and as another poster stated here, sighted tests are perfectly reasonable to anyone with a degree of objectivity, all my auditions have been sighted and I don't think my decisions would have been any different otherwise.

Many have said the same but have always come unstuck when doing proper blind tests. They then come up with excuses such as the "stress" of taking such a test somehow affects their hearing. Some audiophiles continue to believe that they can listen objectively and overide any bias - I find that quite amusing given that normally they loathe objectivity and bang on about how it's all subjective.

'Proper blind tests'

Are those the ones which employ level matching ?

......lol.

Yes indeed. Otherwise they are meaningless but I don't expect you to grasp the concept. Ignorance is bliss.

You have it the wrong way around.

Name another area were products are tested or compared with like and 'level matched' in any way?.

So I'll say it again -Level matching is nonesense.

If you're going to compare, compare kit without compromise. To the limits of their respective performance to not do so now that is meaningless.

As has been discussed quite a lot of times, people generally prefer something that is slightly louder over something that is slightly less loud. If you would plug in two amplifiers, and one of them is constantly playing +1dB, than we would not really perceive this as being louder, but we would perceive the finer details of the music being more present (because they are a bit louder of course), and this might convince you that this amplifier produced the music with a bit more detail, so you would say that amplifier is the better one.?

If we would do this test again, but now the other amplifier is set 1dB louder than the one before, than now suddenly this amplifier MIGHT sound a tad better, because the details are more present. Therefore, you did not actually choose an amplifier because it sounds better, but you happen to choose the louder one consistently. Therefore this extra variable is something to get rid off, to fairly compare two amps.?

Concluding, when not level matching, the louder amp would be preferred more often, but not because of it's quality, only because it's a bit louder. This is really as clear as I can put it.

Several people have tried to explain this to Thompson before, even attempting to explain the well established principle of equal loudness curves; Thompson, however, lives in a parallel universe called Thompson's world, a world where the normal rules of physics do not apply, only Thompson's rules.

Be fair PaulN.....

We are discussing stuff on the internet, most only Google and the try to impress with the nonsense they read.

Real world practical application seems to get disgarded around here.

Look at it this way they're are not trying to explain the justification to me... No.

I'm trying to explain the fact it's nonsense to them..... :-D

 

[Jota180]

I tell you some of you have a strange perception of how our senses work.

If you set out to fool yourselves its easy to 'fool' your senses - but if acting instinctively with your senses all working as they should, vision, hearing, feel - you'll see your senses, well they're pretty robust.

I play squash and dare I say it to a pretty competitive level.

During a rally seeing and hearing a ball strike from an opponent my reactions are instantaneous anticipating how hard the ball is struck, it's trajectory and how I have to balance and position myself to strike it back all processed within a second. This without thought or second guessing myself.

Its the same with music if one hears an audible difference trust that instinct - all the talk about 'perception bias' etc is nonsense.

If it sounds different it sounds different.

If you really want to see how your senses work go watch a pro tennis match, then consider which sense are being used to give yourself a real idea of how your senses work in real world situations. Walking down the street or doing anything your sense work just like this everyday

Don't convince yourselves your senses cannot he trusted - If you want to over analyse then second guessing yourself does come easy.

Google N-Rays if you also want to see how senses can be influenced by the mind. That our perceptions can be infuenced by our mind and other external things is a scientifically known, demonstrable fact. Placebo's would not work otherwise.

 

[Laurens_B]

Blind tests are overrated in my opinion. I often listen to music in the dark.

Getting confused here - blind testing means not knowing what you're listening to, turning the lights out or closing your eyes is not the same thing.

I know what blind tests are, but as I said if someone wants a Bose, he or she will buy a Bose, and as another poster stated here, sighted tests are perfectly reasonable to anyone with a degree of objectivity, all my auditions have been sighted and I don't think my decisions would have been any different otherwise.

Many have said the same but have always come unstuck when doing proper blind tests. They then come up with excuses such as the "stress" of taking such a test somehow affects their hearing. Some audiophiles continue to believe that they can listen objectively and overide any bias - I find that quite amusing given that normally they loathe objectivity and bang on about how it's all subjective.

'Proper blind tests'

Are those the ones which employ level matching ?

......lol.

Yes indeed. Otherwise they are meaningless but I don't expect you to grasp the concept. Ignorance is bliss.

You have it the wrong way around.

Name another area were products are tested or compared with like and 'level matched' in any way?.

So I'll say it again -Level matching is nonesense.

If you're going to compare, compare kit without compromise. To the limits of their respective performance to not do so now that is meaningless.

As has been discussed quite a lot of times, people generally prefer something that is slightly louder over something that is slightly less loud. If you would plug in two amplifiers, and one of them is constantly playing +1dB, than we would not really perceive this as being louder, but we would perceive the finer details of the music being more present (because they are a bit louder of course), and this might convince you that this amplifier produced the music with a bit more detail, so you would say that amplifier is the better one.

If we would do this test again, but now the other amplifier is set 1dB louder than the one before, than now suddenly this amplifier MIGHT sound a tad better, because the details are more present. Therefore, you did not actually choose an amplifier because it sounds better, but you happen to choose the louder one consistently. Therefore this extra variable is something to get rid off, to fairly compare two amps.

Concluding, when not level matching, the louder amp would be preferred more often, but not because of it's quality, only because it's a bit louder. This is really as clear as I can put it.

Several people have tried to explain this to Thompson before, even attempting to explain the well established principle of equal loudness curves; Thompson, however, lives in a parallel universe called Thompson's world, a world where the normal rules of physics do not apply, only Thompson's rules.

Be fair PaulN.....

We are discussing stuff on the internet, most only Google and the try to impress with the nonsense they read.

Real world practical application seems to get disgarded around here.

Look at it this way they're are not trying to explain the justification to me... No.

I'm trying to explain the fact it's nonsense to them..... :-D

I understand what you mean. But this only applies when you are testing amps at their power limit. If both amps you are testing are both perfectly able to produce music at the listening levels you like, your reasoning does not apply. So you are right in saying that a more expensive amp will probably be able to play louder without distortion, but if both amps you are testing are able to produce like 95-100dBs without distorting, they sound the same below those levels.

Let's say we are comparing one amp rated 100wpc with another at 120wpc. But without making my ears bleed I listen to music at an average level of 20wpc. When the amps are not level matched, the louder amp will have the listeners preference, because it sounds a tad better because of the +1dB for example. Still, both amps could do this +1dB without distortion, so it says nothing about which amp is better.

If you stay with your reasoning about the better amp can do louder without distortion, this is fine when you are playing around the maximum rating of the amp. But in that case, I would recommend anyone to get a more powerful amp because you want to steer clear from these near-clipping levels in my opinion. The fact that one amp is slightly louder than another, does not mean that the other amp is not able to get that loud without distortion, therefore you changed both amp and volume, which are two variables, which means there is no way of saying whether the perceived difference is caused by the amp or the extra volume. This is why we only change one variable at a time in controlled, testing, you allow two variables to be changed.

Concluding: a LOT of CHEAP amplifiers are able to play distortion free at levels up to ear-bleed levels, depending on speaker efficiency, room size/acoustics and listener preference. Therefore, the argument is that a lot of similar-rating amps sound different with soundstage, timing etcetera, is nonsense. Distortion does not present itself with these parameters. So, just test amplifiers at levels you want to listen, but make sure both amps are then at the same level, you cannot deny that this last part is unimportant.

EDIT: did you or do you ever google the testing people do, and never see people going through great lengths level matching the gear (not only amps)? Never wondered why so many people adopt level matching, you think all those people are nuts and are not intelligent enough to get it?

 

[lindsayt]

I think that level matching is important when you are comparing two components that have a similar level of sound quality.

At some amplification demos, one of them has been so superior to the other that you could play the inferior one at a louder volume and it would still sound worse.

I suppose you could argue that if two components are so similar in overall sound quality that you need to level match them to decide which is better, then the differences are hardly worth bothering about and you might as well stick with the cheaper one, or the one that you prefer the looks of.

 

[Laurens_B]

I think that level matching is important when you are comparing two components that have a similar level of sound quality.

At some amplification demos, one of them has been so superior to the other that you could play the inferior one at a louder volume and it would still sound worse.

I suppose you could argue that if two components are so similar in overall sound quality that you need to level match them to decide which is better, then the differences are hardly worth bothering about and you might as well stick with the cheaper one, or the one that you prefer the looks of.

Of course this is true, but even then level matching is important, just to make sure that you adjust one variable at a time. I don't mean to say that the louder one is always better, but when both are playing within their "comfort zone" or "design parameters", then generally the louder one is preferred. Therefore, level matching is used to omit this ambiguity, because only one variable is adjusted.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Blind tests are overrated in my opinion. I often listen to music in the dark.

Getting confused here - blind testing means not knowing what you're listening to, turning the lights out or closing your eyes is not the same thing.

I know what blind tests are, but as I said if someone wants a Bose, he or she will buy a Bose, and as another poster stated here, sighted tests are perfectly reasonable to anyone with a degree of objectivity, all my auditions have been sighted and I don't think my decisions would have been any different otherwise.

Many have said the same but have always come unstuck when doing proper blind tests. They then come up with excuses such as the "stress" of taking such a test somehow affects their hearing. Some audiophiles continue to believe that they can listen objectively and overide any bias - I find that quite amusing given that normally they loathe objectivity and bang on about how it's all subjective.

'Proper blind tests'

Are those the ones which employ level matching ?

......lol.

Yes indeed. Otherwise they are meaningless but I don't expect you to grasp the concept. Ignorance is bliss.

You have it the wrong way around.

Name another area were products are tested or compared with like and 'level matched' in any way?.

So I'll say it again -Level matching is nonesense.

If you're going to compare, compare kit without compromise. To the limits of their respective performance to not do so now that is meaningless.

As has been discussed quite a lot of times, people generally prefer something that is slightly louder over something that is slightly less loud. If you would plug in two amplifiers, and one of them is constantly playing +1dB, than we would not really perceive this as being louder, but we would perceive the finer details of the music being more present (because they are a bit louder of course), and this might convince you that this amplifier produced the music with a bit more detail, so you would say that amplifier is the better one.?

If we would do this test again, but now the other amplifier is set 1dB louder than the one before, than now suddenly this amplifier MIGHT sound a tad better, because the details are more present. Therefore, you did not actually choose an amplifier because it sounds better, but you happen to choose the louder one consistently. Therefore this extra variable is something to get rid off, to fairly compare two amps.?

Concluding, when not level matching, the louder amp would be preferred more often, but not because of it's quality, only because it's a bit louder. This is really as clear as I can put it.

Several people have tried to explain this to Thompson before, even attempting to explain the well established principle of equal loudness curves; Thompson, however, lives in a parallel universe called Thompson's world, a world where the normal rules of physics do not apply, only Thompson's rules.

Be fair PaulN.....

We are discussing stuff on the internet, most only Google and the try to impress with the nonsense they read.

Real world practical application seems to get disgarded around here.

Look at it this way they're are not trying to explain the justification to me... No.

I'm trying to explain the fact it's nonsense to them..... :-D

I understand what you mean. But this only applies when you are testing amps at their power limit. If both amps you are testing are both perfectly able to produce music at the listening levels you like, your reasoning does not apply. So you are right in saying that a more expensive amp will probably be able to play louder without distortion, but if both amps you are testing are able to produce like 95-100dBs without distorting, they sound the same below those levels.

Let's say we are comparing one amp rated 100wpc with another at 120wpc. But without making my ears bleed I listen to music at an average level of 20wpc. When the amps are not level matched, the louder amp will have the listeners preference, because it sounds a tad better because of the +1dB for example. Still, both amps could do this +1dB without distortion, so it says nothing about which amp is better.

If you stay with your reasoning about the better amp can do louder without distortion, this is fine when you are playing around the maximum rating of the amp. But in that case, I would recommend anyone to get a more powerful amp because you want to steer clear from these near-clipping levels in my opinion. The fact that one amp is slightly louder than another, does not mean that the other amp is not able to get that loud without distortion, therefore you changed both amp and volume, which are two variables, which means there is no way of saying whether the perceived difference is caused by the amp or the extra volume. This is why we only change one variable at a time in controlled, testing, you allow two variables to be changed.

Concluding: a LOT of CHEAP amplifiers are able to play distortion free at levels up to ear-bleed levels, depending on speaker efficiency, room size/acoustics and listener preference. Therefore, the argument is that a lot of similar-rating amps sound different with soundstage, timing etcetera, is nonsense. Distortion does not present itself with these parameters. So, just test amplifiers at levels you want to listen, but make sure both amps are then at the same level, you cannot deny that this last part is unimportant.

EDIT: did you or do you ever google the testing people do, and never see people going through great lengths level matching the gear (not only amps)? Never wondered why so many people adopt level matching, you think all those people are nuts and are not intelligent enough to get it?

Lol.....yes and yes to your edit. It's a get out of jail free card.

Not sure why there is a need to think in extremes either - ie must turn amp up to max or down to min ignoring the full range of the amp?

I'm talking about using Amps within their operating parameters.

An amp rated at 85watts designed to a budget of £200 pounds compared to an amp with 45watts designed to a £2000 budget.

It's not about loudness it's about control of speaker, stability of signal supply etc.

As I've said before these things are designed to a given spec - if comparing components then let's compare them.

You want a BMW M3 for example would you accept a 900cc Nissan Micra is just as good because you're told you can only accelerate to 60mph in 20secs because that's all the micro can do..... Hence they must perform the same?

From every angle level matching makes no sense. Should have been dismissed when that clever boffin first tried to introduce it.

 

[Laurens_B]

Blind tests are overrated in my opinion. I often listen to music in the dark.

Getting confused here - blind testing means not knowing what you're listening to, turning the lights out or closing your eyes is not the same thing.

I know what blind tests are, but as I said if someone wants a Bose, he or she will buy a Bose, and as another poster stated here, sighted tests are perfectly reasonable to anyone with a degree of objectivity, all my auditions have been sighted and I don't think my decisions would have been any different otherwise.

Many have said the same but have always come unstuck when doing proper blind tests. They then come up with excuses such as the "stress" of taking such a test somehow affects their hearing. Some audiophiles continue to believe that they can listen objectively and overide any bias - I find that quite amusing given that normally they loathe objectivity and bang on about how it's all subjective.

'Proper blind tests'

Are those the ones which employ level matching ?

......lol.

Yes indeed. Otherwise they are meaningless but I don't expect you to grasp the concept. Ignorance is bliss.

You have it the wrong way around.

Name another area were products are tested or compared with like and 'level matched' in any way?.

So I'll say it again -Level matching is nonesense.

If you're going to compare, compare kit without compromise. To the limits of their respective performance to not do so now that is meaningless.

As has been discussed quite a lot of times, people generally prefer something that is slightly louder over something that is slightly less loud. If you would plug in two amplifiers, and one of them is constantly playing +1dB, than we would not really perceive this as being louder, but we would perceive the finer details of the music being more present (because they are a bit louder of course), and this might convince you that this amplifier produced the music with a bit more detail, so you would say that amplifier is the better one.

If we would do this test again, but now the other amplifier is set 1dB louder than the one before, than now suddenly this amplifier MIGHT sound a tad better, because the details are more present. Therefore, you did not actually choose an amplifier because it sounds better, but you happen to choose the louder one consistently. Therefore this extra variable is something to get rid off, to fairly compare two amps.

Concluding, when not level matching, the louder amp would be preferred more often, but not because of it's quality, only because it's a bit louder. This is really as clear as I can put it.

Several people have tried to explain this to Thompson before, even attempting to explain the well established principle of equal loudness curves; Thompson, however, lives in a parallel universe called Thompson's world, a world where the normal rules of physics do not apply, only Thompson's rules.

Be fair PaulN.....

We are discussing stuff on the internet, most only Google and the try to impress with the nonsense they read.

Real world practical application seems to get disgarded around here.

Look at it this way they're are not trying to explain the justification to me... No.

I'm trying to explain the fact it's nonsense to them..... :-D

I understand what you mean. But this only applies when you are testing amps at their power limit. If both amps you are testing are both perfectly able to produce music at the listening levels you like, your reasoning does not apply. So you are right in saying that a more expensive amp will probably be able to play louder without distortion, but if both amps you are testing are able to produce like 95-100dBs without distorting, they sound the same below those levels.

Let's say we are comparing one amp rated 100wpc with another at 120wpc. But without making my ears bleed I listen to music at an average level of 20wpc. When the amps are not level matched, the louder amp will have the listeners preference, because it sounds a tad better because of the +1dB for example. Still, both amps could do this +1dB without distortion, so it says nothing about which amp is better.

If you stay with your reasoning about the better amp can do louder without distortion, this is fine when you are playing around the maximum rating of the amp. But in that case, I would recommend anyone to get a more powerful amp because you want to steer clear from these near-clipping levels in my opinion. The fact that one amp is slightly louder than another, does not mean that the other amp is not able to get that loud without distortion, therefore you changed both amp and volume, which are two variables, which means there is no way of saying whether the perceived difference is caused by the amp or the extra volume. This is why we only change one variable at a time in controlled, testing, you allow two variables to be changed.

Concluding: a LOT of CHEAP amplifiers are able to play distortion free at levels up to ear-bleed levels, depending on speaker efficiency, room size/acoustics and listener preference. Therefore, the argument is that a lot of similar-rating amps sound different with soundstage, timing etcetera, is nonsense. Distortion does not present itself with these parameters. So, just test amplifiers at levels you want to listen, but make sure both amps are then at the same level, you cannot deny that this last part is unimportant.

EDIT: did you or do you ever google the testing people do, and never see people going through great lengths level matching the gear (not only amps)? Never wondered why so many people adopt level matching, you think all those people are nuts and are not intelligent enough to get it?

Lol.....yes and yes to your edit. It's a get out of jail free card.

Not sure why there is a need to think in extremes either - ie must turn amp up to max or down to min ignoring the full range of the amp?

I'm talking about using Amps within their operating parameters.

An amp rated at 85watts designed to a budget of £200 pounds compared to an amp with 45watts designed to a £2000 budget.

It's not about loudness it's about control of speaker, stability of signal supply etc.

As I've said before these things are designed to a given spec - if comparing components then let's compare them.

You want a BMW M3 for example would you accept a 900cc Nissan Micra is just as good because you're told you can only accelerate to 60mph in 20secs because that's all the micro can do..... Hence they must perform the same?

From every angle level matching makes no sense. Should have been dismissed when that clever boffin first tried to introduce it.

It's quite surprising and a bit arrogant to think that all the people that go through great depths to level match equipment before testing is nonsense. In what field did you get a MSc degree or PhD in again, that makes you qualified to judge scientific research methods?

Your car analogy is not even an analogy. The fact is, if you compare two amps, and you constantly change another parameter with the switching, there is no possibility of telling which of those parameters actually cause the perceived difference. It's like solving one equation with two unknown variables.

I can do a car analogy that would be more of a comparison:

Let's say we are comparing a BMW 520D with a 530D, to see whether the six cylinder version is more fuel efficient than the four cylinder version. But you say the 530D is faster so it's okay if that one is doing 100mph while the 520D is only doing 60mph. The results give you absolutely no information about the fuel efficiency difference between the two. The 520D is also perfectly capable of driving 100mph, but you are comparing fuel efficiency at different speeds. Analogously you compare two amps, but you allow one of them of being louder when comparing their quality. As I said, if the lesser amp is louder, you might say that one is better (wrongly) just because it is playing louder. So in order to judge the amps on their ability to properly amplify an audio signal, the only variable to be changed is the amp itself, so not the amount of power fed to the speakers. If you want to know which amp can play louder without distortion, then yes of course you should turn them up and see when they distort. But that's a different test.

EDIT: the testing of amps is also just about the claims of two different amps comparing back-to-back sound the same. Not that they are exactly identical. If you would test two amps you say it's okay that the superior one is louder. Fine, you listen to them, you agree that the superior one is superior. Then I come and I turn up the "lesser" amp a few notches (which is okay because we are within design parameters as you agreed), so that it is louder than the superior amp. Now suddenly you feel that the "lesser" amp is sounding better (blind). This shows you that this method does not work for finding the superior amp. You would be constantly choosing the louder one. How would you decide (blind)?

 

[pauln]

It's quite surprising and a bit arrogant to think that all the people that go through great depths to level match equipment before testing is nonsense. In what field did you get a MSc degree or PhD in again, that makes you qualified to judge scientific research methods?

You're wasting your time. It's Thompson you're talking to. If something doesn't fit his world view, it's wrong.

 

[Vladimir]

If Thompson agreed with me, I would be worried. Very worried. Possibly give up driving.

 

[manicm]

There goes Vladimir again painting Cno and others with the 'subjectivist' brush. Back to the topic, blind testing is not the be all and end all of auditioning, and like any other technique, it is not infallible.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Blind tests are overrated in my opinion. I often listen to music in the dark.

Getting confused here - blind testing means not knowing what you're listening to, turning the lights out or closing your eyes is not the same thing.

I know what blind tests are, but as I said if someone wants a Bose, he or she will buy a Bose, and as another poster stated here, sighted tests are perfectly reasonable to anyone with a degree of objectivity, all my auditions have been sighted and I don't think my decisions would have been any different otherwise.

Many have said the same but have always come unstuck when doing proper blind tests. They then come up with excuses such as the "stress" of taking such a test somehow affects their hearing. Some audiophiles continue to believe that they can listen objectively and overide any bias - I find that quite amusing given that normally they loathe objectivity and bang on about how it's all subjective.

'Proper blind tests'

Are those the ones which employ level matching ?

......lol.

Yes indeed. Otherwise they are meaningless but I don't expect you to grasp the concept. Ignorance is bliss.

You have it the wrong way around.

Name another area were products are tested or compared with like and 'level matched' in any way?.

So I'll say it again -Level matching is nonesense.

If you're going to compare, compare kit without compromise. To the limits of their respective performance to not do so now that is meaningless.

As has been discussed quite a lot of times, people generally prefer something that is slightly louder over something that is slightly less loud. If you would plug in two amplifiers, and one of them is constantly playing +1dB, than we would not really perceive this as being louder, but we would perceive the finer details of the music being more present (because they are a bit louder of course), and this might convince you that this amplifier produced the music with a bit more detail, so you would say that amplifier is the better one.?

If we would do this test again, but now the other amplifier is set 1dB louder than the one before, than now suddenly this amplifier MIGHT sound a tad better, because the details are more present. Therefore, you did not actually choose an amplifier because it sounds better, but you happen to choose the louder one consistently. Therefore this extra variable is something to get rid off, to fairly compare two amps.?

Concluding, when not level matching, the louder amp would be preferred more often, but not because of it's quality, only because it's a bit louder. This is really as clear as I can put it.

Several people have tried to explain this to Thompson before, even attempting to explain the well established principle of equal loudness curves; Thompson, however, lives in a parallel universe called Thompson's world, a world where the normal rules of physics do not apply, only Thompson's rules.

Be fair PaulN.....

We are discussing stuff on the internet, most only Google and the try to impress with the nonsense they read.

Real world practical application seems to get disgarded around here.

Look at it this way they're are not trying to explain the justification to me... No.

I'm trying to explain the fact it's nonsense to them..... :-D

I understand what you mean. But this only applies when you are testing amps at their power limit. If both amps you are testing are both perfectly able to produce music at the listening levels you like, your reasoning does not apply. So you are right in saying that a more expensive amp will probably be able to play louder without distortion, but if both amps you are testing are able to produce like 95-100dBs without distorting, they sound the same below those levels.

Let's say we are comparing one amp rated 100wpc with another at 120wpc. But without making my ears bleed I listen to music at an average level of 20wpc. When the amps are not level matched, the louder amp will have the listeners preference, because it sounds a tad better because of the +1dB for example. Still, both amps could do this +1dB without distortion, so it says nothing about which amp is better.

If you stay with your reasoning about the better amp can do louder without distortion, this is fine when you are playing around the maximum rating of the amp. But in that case, I would recommend anyone to get a more powerful amp because you want to steer clear from these near-clipping levels in my opinion. The fact that one amp is slightly louder than another, does not mean that the other amp is not able to get that loud without distortion, therefore you changed both amp and volume, which are two variables, which means there is no way of saying whether the perceived difference is caused by the amp or the extra volume. This is why we only change one variable at a time in controlled, testing, you allow two variables to be changed.

Concluding: a LOT of CHEAP amplifiers are able to play distortion free at levels up to ear-bleed levels, depending on speaker efficiency, room size/acoustics and listener preference. Therefore, the argument is that a lot of similar-rating amps sound different with soundstage, timing etcetera, is nonsense. Distortion does not present itself with these parameters. So, just test amplifiers at levels you want to listen, but make sure both amps are then at the same level, you cannot deny that this last part is unimportant.

EDIT: did you or do you ever google the testing people do, and never see people going through great lengths level matching the gear (not only amps)? Never wondered why so many people adopt level matching, you think all those people are nuts and are not intelligent enough to get it?

Lol.....yes and yes to your edit. It's a get out of jail free card.

Not sure why there is a need to think in extremes either - ie must turn amp up to max or down to min ignoring the full range of the amp?

I'm talking about using Amps within their operating parameters.

An amp rated at 85watts designed to a budget of £200 pounds compared to an amp with 45watts designed to a £2000 budget.

It's not about loudness it's about control of speaker, stability of signal supply etc.

As I've said before these things are designed to a given spec - if comparing components then let's compare them.

You want a BMW M3 for example would you accept a 900cc Nissan Micra is just as good because you're told you can only accelerate to 60mph in 20secs because that's all the micro can do..... Hence they must perform the same?

From every angle level matching makes no sense. Should have been dismissed when that clever boffin first tried to introduce it.

It's quite surprising and a bit arrogant to think that all the people that go through great depths to level match equipment before testing is nonsense. In what field did you get a MSc degree or PhD in again, that makes you qualified to judge scientific research methods?

Your car analogy is not even an analogy. The fact is, if you compare two amps, and you constantly change another parameter with the switching, there is no possibility of telling which of those parameters actually cause the perceived difference. It's like solving one equation with two unknown variables.

I can do a car analogy that would be more of a comparison:

Let's say we are comparing a BMW 520D with a 530D, to see whether the six cylinder version is more fuel efficient than the four cylinder version. But you say the 530D is faster so it's okay if that one is doing 100mph while the 520D is only doing 60mph. The results give you absolutely no information about the fuel efficiency difference between the two. The 520D is also perfectly capable of driving 100mph, but you are comparing fuel efficiency at different speeds. Analogously you compare two amps, but you allow one of them of being louder when comparing their quality. As I said, if the lesser amp is louder, you might say that one is better (wrongly) just because it is playing louder. So in order to judge the amps on their ability to properly amplify an audio signal, the only variable to be changed is the amp itself, so not the amount of power fed to the speakers. If you want to know which amp can play louder without distortion, then yes of course you should turn them up and see when they distort. But that's a different test.

EDIT: the testing of amps is also just about the claims of two different amps comparing back-to-back sound the same. Not that they are exactly identical. If you would test two amps you say it's okay that the superior one is louder. Fine, you listen to them, you agree that the superior one is superior. Then I come and I turn up the "lesser" amp a few notches (which is okay because we are within design parameters as you agreed), so that it is louder than the superior amp. Now suddenly you feel that the "lesser" amp is sounding better (blind). This shows you that this method does not work for finding the superior amp. You would be constantly choosing the louder one. How would you decide (blind)?

C'mon arrogants does not come into this.

I mean who requires a PhD to test hifi?

Look - as I have said before, we are end users, we plug in and play.

We compare not with science but by listening - sure some may want to complicate it 'Talk about placebo' 'psychology' blah blah but really?

(WHF compare kit, actually most publications compare kit without any 'science' whatsoever)

All the science/R&D is completed by the test bench stage.

It's already been said - many are not affected by pretty colours or cost when listening.

As for the car anology fuel can be calculated easily enough regardless of speed once we have a formula in place.

But performance, ride, comfort is the equivalent of how an amp drives, separates and sounds.

Again, loudness is not the be all. It's performance across its range that's the measure.

Your edit is skewed, again it's not about loudness but performance, delivery.

Listen to your system - just listen and then think about it.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

It's quite surprising and a bit arrogant to think that all the people that go through great depths to level match equipment before testing is nonsense. In what field did you get a MSc degree or PhD in again, that makes you qualified to judge scientific research methods?

You're wasting your time. It's Thompson you're talking to. If something doesn't fit his world view, it's wrong.

...... *ROFL*

 

[Laurens_B]

It's quite surprising and a bit arrogant to think that all the people that go through great depths to level match equipment before testing is nonsense. In what field did you get a MSc degree or PhD in again, that makes you qualified to judge scientific research methods?

You're wasting your time. It's Thompson you're talking to. If something doesn't fit his world view, it's wrong.

It seems to be the case. I'll let it go.

 

[lindsayt]

I think that level matching is important when you are comparing two components that have a similar level of sound quality.

At some amplification demos, one of them has been so superior to the other that you could play the inferior one at a louder volume and it would still sound worse.

I suppose you could argue that if two components are so similar in overall sound quality that you need to level match them to decide which is better, then the differences are hardly worth bothering about and you might as well stick with the cheaper one, or the one that you prefer the looks of.

Of course this is true, but even then level matching is important, just to make sure that you adjust one variable at a time. I don't mean to say that the louder one is always better, but when both are playing within their "comfort zone" or "design parameters", then generally the louder one is preferred. Therefore, level matching is used to omit this ambiguity, because only one variable is adjusted.

I don't agree that level matching is important when you have an amplifier that is so clearly superior to the other one.

If the inferior amplifier sounds worse when it's played a bit louder (and still below clipping levels) than the better amplifier and it sounds worse when played a bit quieter than the better amplifier then I would say that the case has been proven and there is no need whatsoever to do a level matched test.

 

[Laurens_B]

I think that level matching is important when you are comparing two components that have a similar level of sound quality.

At some amplification demos, one of them has been so superior to the other that you could play the inferior one at a louder volume and it would still sound worse.

I suppose you could argue that if two components are so similar in overall sound quality that you need to level match them to decide which is better, then the differences are hardly worth bothering about and you might as well stick with the cheaper one, or the one that you prefer the looks of.

Of course this is true, but even then level matching is important, just to make sure that you adjust one variable at a time. I don't mean to say that the louder one is always better, but when both are playing within their "comfort zone" or "design parameters", then generally the louder one is preferred. Therefore, level matching is used to omit this ambiguity, because only one variable is adjusted.

I don't agree that level matching is important when you have an amplifier that is so clearly superior to the other one.

If the inferior amplifier sounds worse when it's played a bit louder (and still below clipping levels) than the better amplifier and it sounds worse when played a bit quieter than the better amplifier then I would say that the case has been proven and there is no need whatsoever to do a level matched test.

Very true, but that only holds if that specific situation is the case, indeed, when the lesser amplifier is louder and still sounds worse. BUT, when the lesser amp is louder, and sounds better, it gives you no information about which amp is superior. Also, when the superior amp is louder, and sounds superior, that still does not conclude anything. So, level matching solves this for all situations. Therefore it is always beneficial to have them level matched in order to draw meaningful conclusions.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

I think that level matching is important when you are comparing two components that have a similar level of sound quality.

At some amplification demos, one of them has been so superior to the other that you could play the inferior one at a louder volume and it would still sound worse.

I suppose you could argue that if two components are so similar in overall sound quality that you need to level match them to decide which is better, then the differences are hardly worth bothering about and you might as well stick with the cheaper one, or the one that you prefer the looks of.

Of course this is true, but even then level matching is important, just to make sure that you adjust one variable at a time. I don't mean to say that the louder one is always better, but when both are playing within their "comfort zone" or "design parameters", then generally the louder one is preferred. Therefore, level matching is used to omit this ambiguity, because only one variable is adjusted.

I don't agree that level matching is important when you have an amplifier that is so clearly superior to the other one.

If the inferior amplifier sounds worse when it's played a bit louder (and still below clipping levels) than the better amplifier and it sounds worse when played a bit quieter than the better amplifier then I would say that the case has been proven and there is no need whatsoever to do a level matched test.

Very true, but that only holds if that specific situation is the case, indeed, when the lesser amplifier is louder and still sounds worse. BUT, when the lesser amp is louder, and sounds better, it gives you no information about which amp is superior. Also, when the superior amp is louder, and sounds superior, that still does not conclude anything. So, level matching solves this for all situations. Therefore it is always beneficial to have them level matched in order to draw meaningful conclusions.

You're dodging the issue.....

Rubbish is rubbish loud will not magically transform it.

In real world application this is the case.

Again if you have 2 amps one has excellent control of the speakers in use the other not so much.

Turning the lesser amp up will not change this difference between the 2 amps.

An amp can play low and still sound better than a rubbish amp playing loud.

I recall my home audition of the Audiolab 8200a - it sounded superb turned down low. When turned up the sound fell apart (May have been a faulty unit)

Point is if I did not test its 'performance' at various levels and had level matched it to my Yamaha.

I might have bought it!

 

[Jota180]

Thomson, you're not only missing the point, you're missing it by a universe sized margin. The point of level matching is to remove a variable that may, MAY, skew the reviewers perception. Throwing arguments like 'if one amp is clearly superior to another at any volume' is all well and good, for that amp and the one you're comparing it against although to be really sure you'd have to adjust the levels of respective amps up and down. Or, you could level match, remove the volume variable and judge their merits.

It has been demonstrated by peer reviewed studies that many people perceive greater volume to be preferential, or to 'sound better' than the same song played at a quieter level.