Black Friday 2025 is here: follow our liveblog for the latest!
You're right of course about Belt and the fact that his peculiar devices are poles apart from amplifier design, but the basic principle mentioned by Gordon Holt holds true for both - we filter what we perceive through our senses via all our previous experiences/preferences/preconceptions, often subconsciously, and in truth none of us can claim to be truly objective, because we are not instruments. I've seen this so often in the taste/smell field (where double-blind testing and statistical analysis is the norm, even in the case of expert panels).There's a world of difference between Peter Belt's woo-woo nonsense and how the different ways in which amplifiers are designed might affect their sound. An article on the former doesn't illuminate the latter.
(It's also worth stressing that I had no preconceptions about differences between how the Arcam and MF amps would sound, so there was no scope for 'hearing what I wanted/expected to hear.')
That's a fairly low level of respect, I would suggest! I think you've made this view clear - there really is no need to keep saying it.I respect that you heard what you heard, even if I suspect that it has no basis in reality.
When I've had the lid off power and (in particular) preamps, I am struck by how full the boxes are. The CDP is mostly air in its big box, but the amps are chock-full. Not that I had seen this when I got them and made my mind up about how they sounded.I doubt any 2 amplifiers sound the same, considering the many types available and all the components in the signal path.
LOL.When I've had the lid off power and (in particular) preamps, I am struck by how full the boxes are. The CDP is mostly air in its big box, but the amps are chock-full. Not that I had seen this when I got them and made my mind up about how they sounded.
EDIT - thought occurs that we are off topic, but as the original post is about a lot of vague stuff, I think that's probably acceptable.
No disrespect or low level of respect intended. We each hear what we hear, and we are happy with what we hear. From experience, I am aware of the dangers of hearing what is actually not there. I am perfectly happy for purchasers of Peter Belt devices to hear improvements, provided that I'm not expected also to hear themThat's a fairly low level of respect, I would suggest! I think you've made this view clear - there really is no need to keep saying it.
In a word, yes. It seems to me thast a properly-designed amplifier working with its design limits will do its job of making a little noise into a big noise. So we'll leave it at that.Is it really so hard to believe that they don't all sound identical?
Agreed. It’s not just closing your eyes though. The whole trick when closing your eyes is to not only forget that the speakers are there in order to focus on where the instruments are placed and where sounds emanate from, but also to not be drawn to the boundaries of your room. Psychologically, if you see your walls, the sound will generally fall within those walls - if you can forget you’re in your room and forget the walls exist, it’s surprising just how much bigger the soundstage can be. Only problem is, one little noise in the room and you’re pulled out of that zone - complete silence is required (other than the music).
It makes sense that your sense of hearing could be heightened by closing your eyes.I have to say that when I do close my eyes listening to music it is true you forget the constraints of the room. The sound when closed does not seem to come from the speakers but more from across the space in front. When opening my eyes the sound goes back to the speakers.
