Do more expensive amplifiers make a difference?

[Thompsonuxb]

If your ears can detect depth. 3dness, scale, etc. etc. then why can't a couple of good quality omni-directional microphones hooked up to a recording device?

Level matching means ensuring that the two things you're testing are at the same volume. You cannot compare the relative merits of two sounds if one is louder than the other. I would have thought that was obvious :doh:

sorry to drag this back up, but real life...you all know how it is sometimes.

Anyhoo considering CD/file/record/tape data is fixed and source output is fixed......Makkapakka, no - you try recording with a omni-directional mic, then come back here and tell us if it sounds anything like what you hear coming from your speakers, in your room...... prrrft...

And level matching is stupid, if you are testing two devices against each other then you test them to their limits, to the point just before distortion on the very edge of integrity to the point of..... you get the idea. It's this crazy logic that makes me not take these 'hifi' test seriously. How can anyone consider a test valid if the kit is working well within its spec, whats the point?

if you compare say a 200watt Krell with the Cyrus 6a for example what the Krell could do with a pair of speakers will never be known if its limited to the spec of the Cyrus 6a 40watts - and that would be the basis for someone to claim both amps sound the same?......really?

Why you do you think Harbeth have worded their challenge so carefully.

I suppose you must be a troll. I can't believe that someone posting here about these things doesn't understand how our ears work; specifically regarding their sensitivity to different frequencies as in equal loudness curves. Or do you just reject all science?

Er...no, you're the troll & a crap one at that.

and what are you on about, I'm talking about performance and how it can relate to what we hear from our equ this as nothing to do with science, level matching amps IS stupid.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

I can't believe that someone posting here about these things doesn't understand how our ears work; specifically regarding their sensitivity to different frequencies as in equal loudness curves. Or do you just reject all science?

How do you know that scientists fully understand how our hearing works?

David, you and I are on the same wavelength....... :rofl:

 

[chebby]

Yup, but much of what is out there may not be 100% fact. Due to research, there's always something new we're finding out about the universe and its contents. If scientists knew absolutely everything about the human body, there'd be no disease or illness. Or at least, there'd be no incurable diseases.

Yep. You don't know what a scientific theory is.

And just because 'scientists don't know everything' doesn't mean you or I can fill in the gaps with any old nonsense and claim validity for it.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

So playing 1 amp at 40w and 1 amp at 200w will be a good comparison? As for playing at their limits that does not always work either, some amps sounds poor at their max. volume while others sound OK. How about playing them at a normal listening level?

Yes!

Like I said earlier with the top gear anology.

Play a 40w amp at its peek just before distortion and a 200w amp to the same point is the only way you will now how these things truely perform and will show you the difference in their performance. This does not mean you have to play these things at full whack all the time. But you want to see the difference all those exotic components and inspired engineering make then let it drive your speakers.

allow yourself to hear the difference - sitting there level matching what sort of foolishness is that?

'Normal' is personal but for those claiming all amps sound the same then setting proviso limiting the "better" amp - seriously, wake up

 

[davedotco]

Yup, but much of what is out there may not be 100% fact. Due to research, there's always something new we're finding out about the universe and its contents. If scientists knew absolutely everything about the human body, there'd be no disease or illness. Or at least, there'd be no incurable diseases.

Yep. You don't know what a scientific theory is.

And just because 'scientists don't know everything' doesn't mean you or I can fill in the gaps with any old nonsense and claim validity for it.

Quite right, does not have a clue about how science works.

To use David's own analogy, perhaps we should throw out modern medicine because we do not know how "absolutely everything about the human body works".

 

[davedotco]

So playing 1 amp at 40w and 1 amp at 200w will be a good comparison? As for playing at their limits that does not always work either, some amps sounds poor at their max. volume while others sound OK. How about playing them at a normal listening level?

Yes!

Like I said earlier with the top gear anology.

Play a 40w amp at its peek just before distortion and a 200w amp to the same point is the only way you will now how these things truely perform and will show you the difference in their performance. This does not mean you have to play these things at full whack all the time. But you want to see the difference all those exotic components and inspired engineering make then let it drive your speakers.

allow yourself to hear the difference - sitting there level matching what sort of foolishness is that?

'Normal' is personal but for those claiming all amps sound the same then setting proviso limiting the "better" amp - seriously, wake up

Thompson, quite inspired, do keep it up...... :clap:

 

[cheeseboy]

:rofl: thompsonuxb back in his own world where the realms of physics and science bend around his ears Fantastic reading

 

[MakkaPakka]

It's a logical point as one is 'better' but you might as well make your decision based on which amplifier is the most aerodynamic or has the most buoyancy.

I (like most people in this thread I imagine) am only interested in whether there's any discernible difference between two devices used at domestic listening levels.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

:rofl: thompsonuxb back in his own world where the realms of physics and science bend around his ears Fantastic reading

Expand on that Cheeseboy.....how does what I say go against the norm in real world terms?

You have your 40w 500pound amp driven to its peek just before distortion you have your 200w 2000pound driven in the same way, do you think they'll sound the same through a pair of quality speakers. Do you believe scale, imaging, depth, harmonics etc will be the same.

c'mon, tell me how this is in my own world - tell me why my physics and science differs from everyone elses.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

It's a logical point as one is 'better' but you might as well make your decision based on which amplifier is the most aerodynamic or has the most buoyancy.

I (like most people in this thread I imagine) am only interested in whether there's any discernible difference between two devices used at domestic listening levels.

Then like was said before, you may aswell buy the cheapest set you can get................. :roll:

 

[cheeseboy]

Expand on that Cheeseboy.....how does what I say go against the norm in real world terms?

you constantly refuse to listen to or engage in any discussion when your magic ears are called in to question. Only to come back with the lines about how you can hear the difference so it must be true, even though you acknowledge that your ears are fallible, you seem to want to trust them...

You have your 40w 500pound amp driven to its peek just before distortion you have your 200w 2000pound driven in the same way, do you think they'll sound the same through a pair of quality speakers. Do you believe scale, imaging, depth, harmonics etc will be the same.

Doesn't matter what I believe, because you can *hear* the difference.

c'mon, tell me how this is in my own world - tell me why my physics and science differs from everyone elses.

Just re-read most of the threads you've contributed in, and as before, people have pointed out to you many many times that you refuse to believe in things like Expectation bias, which has been proven scientifically.

Look, if your ears at that good, go and seek out James Randi and do his testing prize, then come back and tell us what the deal is, but at the moment people come along with reasoned arguments and nine times out of ten you just say "rubbish, I can hear the difference and I won't do any of the online things that prove my ears are fallible because I know what I hear, even though I know that when I move my head things sound different, it must be the cables" etc, and repeat ad infinitum.

Like I say, go seek out the prize and prove what you say.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Expand on that Cheeseboy.....how does what I say go against the norm in real world terms?

you constantly refuse to listen to or engage in any discussion when your magic ears are called in to question. Only to come back with the lines about how you can hear the difference so it must be true, even though you acknowledge that your ears are fallible, you seem to want to trust them...

You have your 40w 500pound amp driven to its peek just before distortion you have your 200w 2000pound driven in the same way, do you think they'll sound the same through a pair of quality speakers. Do you believe scale, imaging, depth, harmonics etc will be the same.

Doesn't matter what I believe, because you can *hear* the difference.

c'mon, tell me how this is in my own world - tell me why my physics and science differs from everyone elses.

Just re-read most of the threads you've contributed in, and as before, people have pointed out to you many many times that you refuse to believe in things like Expectation bias, which has been proven scientifically.

Look, if your ears at that good, go and seek out James Randi and do his testing prize, then come back and tell us what the deal is, but at the moment people come along with reasoned arguments and nine times out of ten you just say "rubbish, I can hear the difference and I won't do any of the online things that prove my ears are fallible because I know what I hear, even though I know that when I move my head things sound different, it must be the cables" etc, and repeat ad infinitum.

Like I say, go seek out the prize and prove what you say.

What the he,,,,,!!? Look at the post I've been involved with and what?

Lets take this post post for example a man is asking do more expensive amps make a difference, I say yes they do they will control your speakers in a way cheaper budget amps will not. Regardless if you like the sound they produce or not, thats personal to each individual - bottom line is you'll get what you pay for.

In the past I have openly challenged members to get together and have a simple comparisson test, yes it may not be practical but I know my points would be proven correct if we did come together this as nothing to do with magic ears but fact

Stereo is an illusion, its two boxes producing sound fed to them, yet they can produce a 3d image with tangible presence before you. I know its an illusion but I can enjoy it for what it is without needing to understand the science behind it I therefore will aknowledge differences in components, cables I have no problem with that.

alot thats written on the net is guff you want to believe knowing what you yourself can hear for yourself....good luck with that.

Just to close on this, there was a thread the other week were in an article some bloke claimed he could get two different amps to sound the same, remember it - it transpires in this article that he gutted one amp more or less replaced all its inards to achieve this task and it was accepted by the author as a success.....I mean it was considered a success, and accepted by some.

Look, Cheeseboy, this is a forum, its entertainment, its not life or death - like everyone else I just contribute to it, c'mon, theres no need for this hostility.

 

[davedotco]

What the he,,,,,!!? Look at the post I've been involved with and what?

Lets take this post post for example a man is asking do more expensive amps make a difference, I say yes they do they will control your speakers in a way cheaper budget amps will not. Regardless if you like the sound they produce or not, thats personal to each individual - bottom line is you'll get what you pay for.

In the past I have openly challenged members to get together and have a simple comparisson test, yes it may not be practical but I know my points would be proven correct if we did come together this as nothing to do with magic ears but fact

Stereo is an illusion, its two boxes producing sound fed to them, yet they can produce a 3d image with tangible presence before you. I know its an illusion but I can enjoy it for what it is without needing to understand the science behind it I therefore will aknowledge differences in components, cables I have no problem with that.

alot thats written on the net is guff you want to believe knowing what you yourself can hear for yourself....good luck with that.

Just to close on this, there was a thread the other week were in an article some bloke claimed he could get two different amps to sound the same, remember it - it transpires in this article that he gutted one amp more or less replaced all its inards to achieve this task and it was accepted by the author as a success.....I mean it was considered a success, and accepted by some.

Look, Cheeseboy, this is a forum, its entertainment, its not life or death - like everyone else I just contribute to it, c'mon, theres no need for this hostility.

Point of order Thompson.

I assume you are referring to the Carver challenge, in which case you are wrong in fact.

The amplifier was not "gutted" in any way, in fact the design and the circuit was not changed at all. Some component values were changed so that the amplifier was 'voiced' to sound the same as the reference using a 'nulling' technique.

 

[BigH]

Look, Cheeseboy, this is a forum, its entertainment, its not life or death - like everyone else I just contribute to it, c'mon, theres no need for this hostility.

So why did you say: "Er...no, you're the troll & a crap one at that."

Thats entertainment!

 

[Thompsonuxb]

What the he,,,,,!!? Look at the post I've been involved with and what?

Lets take this post post for example a man is asking do more expensive amps make a difference, I say yes they do they will control your speakers in a way cheaper budget amps will not. Regardless if you like the sound they produce or not, thats personal to each individual - bottom line is you'll get what you pay for.

In the past I have openly challenged members to get together and have a simple comparisson test, yes it may not be practical but I know my points would be proven correct if we did come together this as nothing to do with magic ears but fact

Stereo is an illusion, its two boxes producing sound fed to them, yet they can produce a 3d image with tangible presence before you. I know its an illusion but I can enjoy it for what it is without needing to understand the science behind it I therefore will aknowledge differences in components, cables I have no problem with that.

alot thats written on the net is guff you want to believe knowing what you yourself can hear for yourself....good luck with that.

Just to close on this, there was a thread the other week were in an article some bloke claimed he could get two different amps to sound the same, remember it - it transpires in this article that he gutted one amp more or less replaced all its inards to achieve this task and it was accepted by the author as a success.....I mean it was considered a success, and accepted by some.

Look, Cheeseboy, this is a forum, its entertainment, its not life or death - like everyone else I just contribute to it, c'mon, theres no need for this hostility.

Point of order Thompson.

I assume you are referring to the Carver challenge, in which case you are wrong in fact.

The amplifier was not "gutted" in any way, in fact the design and the circuit was not changed at all. Some component values were changed so that the amplifier was 'voiced' to sound the same as the reference using a 'nulling' technique.

naaah the amp was gutted he even changed the PSU which prompted me to raise a thread how important is the PSU.....

Bottom line the amp was modified.quite alot too.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Look, Cheeseboy, this is a forum, its entertainment, its not life or death - like everyone else I just contribute to it, c'mon, theres no need for this hostility.

So why did you say: "Er...no, you're the troll & a crap one at that."

Thats entertainment!

LOL.....

 

[steve_1979]

...I don't know exactly what Harbeth was specifying when it said level matching but in most tests that are carried out (like on the matrix site) the only level matching is the volume.

Yes it's the volume levels of the two amplifiers that Harbeth was referring to.

This can roughly be done by ear but to do it accurately you would need to use a voltmeter and to make sure that the output of both amplifiers is exactly matched.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

...I don't know exactly what Harbeth was specifying when it said level matching but in most tests that are carried out (like on the matrix site) the only level matching is the volume.

Yes it's the volume levels of the two amplifiers that Harbeth was referring to.

This can roughly be done by ear but to do it accurately you would need to use a voltmeter and to make sure that the output of both amplifiers is exactly matched.

Yep and depending on how said amps volume is attinuated it could cripple one... stupid test.

 

[BigH]

...I don't know exactly what Harbeth was specifying when it said level matching but in most tests that are carried out (like on the matrix site) the only level matching is the volume.

Yes it's the volume levels of the two amplifiers that Harbeth was referring to.

This can roughly be done by ear but to do it accurately you would need to use a voltmeter and to make sure that the output of both amplifiers is exactly matched.

Yep and depending on how said amps volume is attinuated it could cripple one... stupid test.

SO you would play 1 at 200w and one at 35W, yes they would sound different, in fact at 200w it maybe quite painful in some rooms, how is that a good comparison. Why not play both at 20W? Or 85db or whatever measurement you want to use?

 

[MakkaPakka]

Yep and depending on how said amps volume is attinuated it could cripple one... stupid test.

I fear you have missed the point of the test. You are trying to work out if X is A or if X is B.

It is nothing to do with which one is better, it is simply to identify if there's a difference between A and B.

 

[steve_1979]

Maybe I should've qualified my (sarcastic) statement with a smiley face - it wasn't direct at you, just to those who think ABX is the only way forward

ABX testing has it's limitations and it won't tell you which sounds the best. However ABX testing is the most reliable method to test whether your ears can hear any difference between two things.

With ABX testing it's worth bearing in mind that just because you may not be able to hear any difference it doesn't necessarily mean there there isn't any difference.

 

[davedotco]

What the he,,,,,!!? Look at the post I've been involved with and what?

Lets take this post post for example a man is asking do more expensive amps make a difference, I say yes they do they will control your speakers in a way cheaper budget amps will not. Regardless if you like the sound they produce or not, thats personal to each individual - bottom line is you'll get what you pay for.

In the past I have openly challenged members to get together and have a simple comparisson test, yes it may not be practical but I know my points would be proven correct if we did come together this as nothing to do with magic ears but fact

Stereo is an illusion, its two boxes producing sound fed to them, yet they can produce a 3d image with tangible presence before you. I know its an illusion but I can enjoy it for what it is without needing to understand the science behind it I therefore will aknowledge differences in components, cables I have no problem with that.

alot thats written on the net is guff you want to believe knowing what you yourself can hear for yourself....good luck with that.

Just to close on this, there was a thread the other week were in an article some bloke claimed he could get two different amps to sound the same, remember it - it transpires in this article that he gutted one amp more or less replaced all its inards to achieve this task and it was accepted by the author as a success.....I mean it was considered a success, and accepted by some.

Look, Cheeseboy, this is a forum, its entertainment, its not life or death - like everyone else I just contribute to it, c'mon, theres no need for this hostility.

Point of order Thompson.

I assume you are referring to the Carver challenge, in which case you are wrong in fact.

The amplifier was not "gutted" in any way, in fact the design and the circuit was not changed at all. Some component values were changed so that the amplifier was 'voiced' to sound the same as the reference using a 'nulling' technique.

naaah the amp was gutted he even changed the PSU which prompted me to raise a thread how important is the PSU.....

Bottom line the amp was modified.quite alot too.

Sorry Thompson, the power supply was not touched, the effect was obtained by comparing the sound of the amplifiers (nulling). At no point was there any attempt to physically duplicate the amplifier, just match it's distortions, frequency response etc, etc.

As I said neither the circuit nor the primary components were changed, the amplifier was simply 'voiced' differently, in fact one of the Carver challenges (there were 2) produced an amplifier that sounded identical to an expensive Mark Levinson amplifier.

This amplifier was later put into production and marketed by Carver at about one tenth of the price of the Levinson.

 

[steve_1979]

Do you actually know what a "theory" means in scientific terms?

It is a little different from the bloke at the bar spouting "I have a theory.........'

That's an interesting point because anyone can come up with any theory about anything.

For a theory to have credibility in science it needs to be backed up by accurate, objective data taken from experiments where the results are consistently repeatable.

 

[Covenanter]

Do you actually know what a "theory" means in scientific terms?

It is a little different from the bloke at the bar spouting "I have a theory.........'

That's an interesting point because anyone can come up with any theory about anything.

However for a theory to have credibility in science it need to be backed up by accurate, objective data taken from experiments where the results are consistently repeatable.

Yep, the point about scientific theories is that scientists have become wise enough to know that new evidence can appear at any time and to call things "Laws" as was once the practice is to make their ideas a hostage to fortune. So it is fair to equate, for example, the Law of conservation of energy and the Theory of Relativity. Both have no current evidence agasint them being true but they were named in different eras.

Chris

 

[DocG]

In fact one of the Carver challenges (there were 2) produced an amplifier that sounded identical to an expensive Mark Levinson amplifier.

This amplifier was later put into production and marketed by Carver at about one tenth of the price of the Levinson.

I read somewhere that it sounded really good, but it was notoriously unreliable... So that's another level where more expensive amps might make a difference.