If all well designed amplifiers are difficult to distinguish

[FennerMachine]

In my searches I came across an amplifier test where they did sound different.

For anyone interested, to help you find it, the test was conducted/reported on by David Carlstrom, Arny Krueger and Larry Greenhill.

 

[Vladimir]

All amps sound the same > All decently made amps sound the same > All decently made amps sound the same when not pushed into clipping > All decently made amps sound the same when not pushed into clipping and when compared level matched to 0.1dB > All decently made amps have indistinguishable sound quality when not pushed into clipping and when compared level matched to 0.1dB > All decently made modern SS amps have indistinguishable sound quality when not pushed into clipping and when compared level matched to 0.1dB > All decently made modern SS amps have indistinguishable sound quality when not pushed into clipping and when compared level matched to 0.1dB, with Naim as exception > All decently made modern SS amps have indistinguishable sound quality when not pushed into clipping and when compared level matched to 0.1dB, with Naim as exception, in a double blind test. *pardon*

Things that make modern decently built SS amps (except for Naim*) sound different even when level matched to 0.1dB in a sighted test:

- Price

- Build quality and bling

- Size and heft

- Interface

- Aesthetics

- Brand and heritage

- Owner's personal history

- Groupthink

- Marketing

- Power

- Input sensitivity

- Embedded tonal filters (hidden from owner) such as loudness contour with the volume attenuation

- Volume imbalance differences with analogue volume pots brand-to-brand, model-to-model even batch-to-batch.

Huh. No wonder they don't 'sound' the same. *wink*

Now, what happens when we throw a blanket over the equipment and someone else operates it randomly?

*Reminder why Naim is a an exception. Naim amps traditionally have low damping factor (in the order of 8 or 15), similar to valve amps and have tonal coloration in the FR and overhanging bass due to lack of electric breaking with large cone drivers. If your speakers have small light cones, with well behaved pistonic work, this may not be a variable.

 

[Vladimir]

In my searches I came across an amplifier test where they did sound different.

For anyone interested, to help you find it, the test was conducted/reported on by David Carlstrom, Arny Krueger and Larry Greenhill.

Yes. The valve amps scored as sounding different to SS amps in the ABX testing. SS amps compared among each other didn't.

Clicky.

 

[SteveR750]

The sample population is questionably low for some of them. That's not to dispute the significance of the test, but the interpretation is using a statistical tool which requires a reasonable sample size. It's also limited to a small number of components, ergo, it cannot necessarily be assumed that the same result applies to all other units of the same design.

 

[FennerMachine]

ARC D120 and CM Labs CM914a are both SS amps. They are different.

 

[SteveR750]

ARC D120 and CM Labs CM914a are both SS amps. They are different.

Ssh. Keep it to yourself, before the men in white coats come a knocking

 

[CnoEvil]

That makes no sense.

If nothing is moved only a single component is changed what then?

Imaging (and soundstage) (imo) are created by the way a recording is miked up (eg. in stereo), and then this illusion is recreated in the home. If your speakers/seating postion are ideal and the image is ruined after you replace a component, then that component has introduced some artifact that has degraded the illusion eg. sloppy, tuneless bass.

Like I said some time ago, I believe the imaging is in the recording, and equipment has to try and preserve it....if it wasn't in the recording, the equipment couldn't recreate it in the first place.

This makes sense to me, even if you don't agree.

 

[SteveR750]

Cno it makes perfect sense. If an amplifier loses detail (distortion / noise floor) then the reflected/ambient sound will be missing, so your ears will not be getting all of the spatial cues that would have been present. That's fine for acoustically recorded music of course. For rock / pop, it's really easy to DI all of the electronic instruments and then add spatial effects at the mix (I can do it using cubase on my PC) which just leaves the singer. It's pretty easy to record anechoically, and then add effects again at the mixdown. "modern" music is manipulated a lot, so the whole hi fi question of reality is largely redundent anyway, other than attempting to hear the same as the mixing engineer did.

In other words, as has always been the recommendation; buy what you like the sound of. If you prefer the sound of a £20k amp over a £1k amp then who is to argue with you? It's your money / ears and the science is largely irrelevant, unless that's the criteria that you wish to use to make you equipment selection. It's a hobby, and therefore how you choose to take part is entirely up to each individual. Personally, I really don't care if a bunch of retired sparkys try to convince me there is no difference, to my ears there clearly is, and I choose to use that in order to make a decision YMMV

I really don't understand the agenda of the some of the newer forum posters, there's an almost evangelical desire to convince people that expensive kit is a complete waste of money.

 

[Jota180]

The point is, by far the biggest factor in sound difference is the choice of speaker in room. Amps, while there may be a difference when played within their envelope, not clipping and volume matched, that difference is negligible when compared to speakers. That's the point of these tests, to show that the difference is so little it's nigh on impossible to tell them apart when you can't see which amp is powering the speakers.

 

[Jota180]

Cno it makes perfect sense. If an amplifier loses detail (distortion / noise floor) then the reflected/ambient sound will be missing, so your ears will not be getting all of the spatial cues that would have been present. That's fine for acoustically recorded music of course. For rock / pop, it's really easy to DI all of the electronic instruments and then add spatial effects at the mix (I can do it using cubase on my PC) which just leaves the singer. It's pretty easy to record anechoically, and then add effects again at the mixdown. "modern" music is manipulated a lot, so the whole hi fi question of reality is largely redundent anyway, other than attempting to hear the same as the mixing engineer did.

In other words, as has always been the recommendation; buy what you like the sound of. If you prefer the sound of a £20k amp over a £1k amp then who is to argue with you? It's your money / ears and the science is largely irrelevant, unless that's the criteria that you wish to use to make you equipment selection. It's a hobby, and therefore how you choose to take part is entirely up to each individual. Personally, I really don't care if a bunch of retired sparkys try to convince me there is no difference, to my ears there clearly is, and I choose to use that in order to make a decision YMMV

I really don't understand the agenda of the some of the newer forum posters, there's an almost evangelical desire to convince people that expensive kit is a complete waste of money.

Distortion and noise floor of modern amps (the past few decades) is beyond human hearing while the amp is not pushed into clipping. The point people are trying to make is any difference is negligible when amps are level matched and not run into clipping.

If people are regularly running their amp into clipping then they've simply bought the wrong amp.

 

[TrevC]

I don't understand why so many people don't like the fact that so many quality amplifiers with excellent performance can be obtained relatively cheaply. Perhaps it's snobbishness, who knows? The Ferrari and XR3 comparison is ludicrous, unless you think a Ferrari is an XR3 dressed up as a Ferrari.

 

[SteveR750]

well, it's true on the basis you don't listen to an amp on its own. Keep everything else the same however, and whether the amp does sound different, or the interaction with the speakers is the difference is altering the sound is moot. It was pretty obvious even to a blind person that my system sounded very different when I changed the amplifier. It was not a cable / mains plug level of change either. The science suggested it should (assuming that Bent Holter isn't completely spouting BS), and the subjective experience confirms it. It's arguable that creating the scientific expectation drives the aural response, but I simply don't believe that a hallucination can be that comprehensive. If I'm wrong, then I might as well start taking crystal meth.....

 

[Vladimir]

ARC D120 and CM Labs CM914a are both SS amps. They are different.

Oops. My bad. I haven't checked that page for a while and I forgot about the SS vs SS with e-stats.

Here is the comment under that table with results:

For the ARC vs. CM Labs, a Janus cartridge in a Magnepan Unitrac arm on a Linn Sondek LP12 turntable fead an MX10a Audio Standards headamp driving a CM Labs CM901a preamp. The speakers were Acoustat MK121-2 full range electrostatics. These speakers required a great deal of power and the Audio Research D120 was unstable when clipped, which proved audible. For more detail on this test see the Carlstrom, Krueger, and Greenhill article listed on the ABX periodicals page.

One of the amps was clipping due to the fact they were using electrostats for the tests. This was to show that power is a significant factor of differences in performance between amps. If they had both of the amps playing without clipping, the differences would (should) be inaudible like with other SS amps.

Always read the fine print.

 

[SteveR750]

I don't understand why so many people don't like the fact that so many quality amplifiers with excellent performance can be obtained relatively cheaply. Perhaps it's snobbishness, who knows? The Ferrari and XR3 comparison is ludicrous, unless you think a Ferrari is an XR3 dressed up as a Ferrari.

Like most consumer goods, there are gems at every price point, surrounded by a lot of over dressed dross. Whilst it's true that not everything with a high price is necessarily good, neither does it infer it's not better. I found that to be the case with the Dacmagic plus. I listened to several in my own system, and even a £1k qute was marginally better, but certainly not worth paying the extra for over the DM. There is undoubtedly a large element of shiny box syndrome, I mean the new Technics range looks like it should be a world beater, you cannot beat VU / Power meters as a means of adding perceived VFM.

 

[Vladimir]

Under controlled conditions modern SS amps are more similar than appart in sound quality. In everyday use they are very different to us regular Joe consumers.

When a medication proves to make no positive change under controlled lab conditions, but to the patient they feel like they do... What is this phenomena called again? Someone remind me please.

 

[Jota180]

well, it's true on the basis you don't listen to an amp on its own. Keep everything else the same however, and whether the amp does sound different, or the interaction with the speakers is the difference is altering the sound is moot. It was pretty obvious even to a blind person that my system sounded very different when I changed the amplifier. It was not a cable / mains plug level of change either. The science suggested it should (assuming that Bent Holter isn't completely spouting BS), and the subjective experience confirms it. It's arguable that creating the scientific expectation drives the aural response, but I simply don't believe that a hallucination can be that comprehensive. If I'm wrong, then I might as well start taking crystal meth.....

Sorry but it's erroneous thinking to say you only changed the amp. You can't tell accurately what the levels dB were of both and the time distance between the change is far too long for accurate audio memory. This has all been scientifically proven.

How can you be sure when you wired your new amp in it was level matched with the last one? The only correct way to do a comparison between two amps is to level match them and switch between them in as small a time as possible, instantly preferebly, a fraction of a second at most.

 

[Jota180]

Under controlled conditions modern SS amps are more similar than appart in sound quality. In everyday use they are very different to us regular Joe consumers.

When a medication proves to make no positive change under controlled lab conditions, but to the patient they feel like they do... What is this phenomena called again? Someone remind me please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eh0rAUwZSQ

 

[SteveR750]

well, it's true on the basis you don't listen to an amp on its own. Keep everything else the same however, and whether the amp does sound different, or the interaction with the speakers is the difference is altering the sound is moot. It was pretty obvious even to a blind person that my system sounded very different when I changed the amplifier. It was not a cable / mains plug level of change either. The science suggested it should (assuming that Bent Holter isn't completely spouting BS), and the subjective experience confirms it. It's arguable that creating the scientific expectation drives the aural response, but I simply don't believe that a hallucination can be that comprehensive. If I'm wrong, then I might as well start taking crystal meth.....

Sorry but it's erroneous thinking to say you only changed the amp. You can't tell accurately what the levels dB were of both and the time distance between the change is far too long for accurate audio memory. This has all been scientifically proven.

How can you be sure when you wired your new amp in it was level matched with the last one? The only correct way to do a comparison between two amps is to level match them and switch between them in as small a time as possible, instantly preferebly, a fraction of a second at most.

So, you're seriously suggesting that the only difference between the M2 and the Hegel is how loud they were set? Ergo, in truth then the only difference between the Hegel and my NAD 3130 was volume too?

I posted some links on another thread, Anders from hegel is explaining the low level distortion components that mask low level detail. The circuit topology is very different from the Roksan, so there is a conceivable explantion for sonic differences other than simply SPL matching....

 

[SteveR750]

Under controlled conditions modern SS amps are more similar than appart in sound quality. In everyday use they are very different to us regular Joe consumers.

When a medication proves to make no positive change under controlled lab conditions, but to the patient they feel like they do... What is this phenomena called again? Someone remind me please.

It most definitely aint placebo. I can accept that as rational explanation for the small changes some claim to hear with interconnects, mains conditioners et al, but not this! Are you admitting that your K2 is a placebo purchase also, driven by those shiny toroidal transformers and sexy capacitors??

 

[FennerMachine]

ARC D120 and CM Labs CM914a are both SS amps. They are different.

Oops. My bad. I haven't checked that page for a while and I forgot about the SS vs SS with e-stats.

Here is the comment under that table with results:

For the ARC vs. CM Labs, a Janus cartridge in a Magnepan Unitrac arm on a Linn Sondek LP12 turntable fead an MX10a Audio Standards headamp driving a CM Labs CM901a preamp. The speakers were Acoustat MK121-2 full range electrostatics. These speakers required a great deal of power and the Audio Research D120 was unstable when clipped, which proved audible. For more detail on this test see the Carlstrom, Krueger, and Greenhill article listed on the ABX periodicals page.

One of the amps was clipping due to the fact they were using electrostats for the tests. This was to show that power is a significant factor of differences in performance between amps. If they had both of the amps playing without clipping, the differences would (should) be inaudible like with other SS amps.

Always read the fine print.

If you can find the 30+ year old study you will read that both amps clipped about 1% of the time to get the listening levels they were using.

On 2 of the 3 songs used they could identify the amps, but the other song they could not.

 

[Vladimir]

If you can find the 30+ year old study you will read that both amps clipped about 1% of the time to get the listening levels they were using.

On 2 of the 3 songs used they could identify the amps, but the other song they could not.

Can't seem to find a copy online. I'm just quoting what the person who conducted that test wrote as a summary.

 

[Vladimir]

It most definitely aint placebo. I can accept that as rational explanation for the small changes some claim to hear with interconnects, mains conditioners et al, but not this! Are you admitting that your K2 is a placebo purchase also, driven by those shiny toroidal transformers and sexy capacitors??

I had a more powerfull, better built and more shiny amp before the K2BT. No sound quality difference that I noticed or even bothered listening for with the downgrade TBH. If it didn't need refurbishing and servicing I would have kept the HK6900 and not buy the K2BT. I didn't even audition the Kandy. I simply ordered one.

If I try to hear differences, I will hear them. If I watch too many horror movies, I start to think ghosts may exist in my basement and not dare to visit it at night, despite being an adult. I heard many times differences between amps, cables, power conditioners, even software that didn't exist and laughed at myself for doing so. I still do. Sometimes I think I pushed a button in my DSP settings and hear a change but few seconds after, I notice the button wasn't pushed at all (bloody mouse).

Big deal.

If you think you are immune from placebo, you might as well wear Wonderwoman costume and call yourself Superman. If it's that important to you, yes Steve, amplifiers are very very different and the more you pay, more sound quality you get. Simples.

It doesn't matter if the Earth revolves around the Sun, as long as we all agree (minus few dissidents) that it's the other way round.

 

[Frank Harvey]

There's also the fact that you can add red food colouring to white wine then put it in the same bottle as a red and people will think they're drinking a red. This has been done before you ask! To wine 'experts' no less.

Put a high price tag on something and many people automatically think one thing - quality, but it aint necessarily so.

Human beings are so easily fooled and yet far too many think they are immune to such tricks but in reality these tricks just play on the way the human brain works.

Aaah, this again. If you deceive people, they will fall for things. If you tell a bunch of wine tasters that one of the four bottles of wine in front of them is a white with food colouring, they then have a better chance of detecting that there actually is a bottle of white in their midst. What if you told them that there was a botlle of white with food colouring, but there actually wasn't, there were just four bottles of red? I'm sure because it has been planted in their mind that one of them IS a white, they will chose the one they think is, and may not even detect they're all reds. I generally prefer red myself, and if you gave me a white with food colouring in and told me it was red, I'd take your word for it and drink it. Whether I'd think it was more like a white, I don't know. One thing is for sure, if you gave me two bottles of white, and one was filled with p*ss, I'd know.

Yes, we can be tricked, but we have more chance of being tricked when we are not aware there is a trick present.

How many people can reliably tell the difference between the two cola brands? And if you secretly just gave them the same brand twice, would they know?

 

[SteveR750]

It most definitely aint placebo. I can accept that as rational explanation for the small changes some claim to hear with interconnects, mains conditioners et al, but not this! Are you admitting that your K2 is a placebo purchase also, driven by those shiny toroidal transformers and sexy capacitors??

I had a more powerfull, better built and more shiny amp before the K2BT. No sound quality difference that I noticed or even bothered listening for with the downgrade TBH. If it didn't need refurbishing and servicing I would have kept the HK6900 and not buy the K2BT. I didn't even audition the Kandy. I simply ordered one.

If I try to hear differences, I will hear them. If I watch too many horror movies, I start to think ghosts may exist in my basement and not dare to visit it at night, despite being an adult. I heard many times differences between amps, cables, power conditioners, even software that didn't exist and laughed at myself for doing so. I still do. Sometimes I think I pushed a button in my DSP settings and hear a change but few seconds after, I notice the button wasn't pushed at all (bloody mouse).

Big deal.

If you think you are immune from placebo, you might as well wear Wonderwoman costume and call yourself Superman. If it's that important to you, yes Steve, .amplifiers are very very different and the more you pay, more sound quality you get.

It doesn't matter if the Earth revolves around the Sun, as long as we all agree (minus few dissidents) that it's the other way round.

Where did I say this? Go back and read again! I said that price is not necessarily a guide to quality, which means cheap does no more mean high quality as does expensive. Some are better than others, and are at different prices. If you seriously are asking me to believe that they all sound the same whatever the price, in my room, at my listening levels then you're ready for the asylum! You'll be telling me next that there is no difference between a Marshall and a Vox

Why did you not buy a much much cheaper amp then? The K2 is way overpriced if they all sound the same.

 

[Vladimir]

Where did I say this? Go back and read again! I said that price is not necessarily a guide to quality, which means cheap does no more mean high quality as does expensive. Some are better than others, and are at different prices. If you seriously are asking me to believe that they all sound the same whatever the price, in my room, at my listening levels then you're ready for the asylum! You'll be telling me next that there is no difference between a Marshall and a Vox .

Better as in quality (special watts) or quantity (more watts) or both?

Why did you not buy a much much cheaper amp then? The K2 is way overpriced if they all sound the same.

Cheaper, as powerfull and not for PA use. Any recommendations that are easily obtainable worldwide? *scratch_one-s_head*