Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

Is there a noticeably audible difference between two level matched solid state amps under controlled

  • Yes... I believe a notable difference can be heard.

    Votes: 139 48.6%
  • No... I do not believe there is any audibly significant difference.

    Votes: 147 51.4%

Can we really hear a difference between amps?

179K views 835 replies 96 participants last post by  jonathonsmith 
#1 ·
Can we really hear a difference between two amps?

More specifically... between two amps that have been level matched in a controlled listening test. We are not talking about amps that have been modified or are driven beyond their reasonable limits.

What a crazy and completely worn out question... I know, I know, but I figured why not have a bit of fun with it anyway.

Naturally our ZERO TOLERANCE FORUM RULES are going to apply as they ALWAYS do! So... if you are one of those who simply cannot have a sensible discussion on a hot and debated topic... STAY FAR AWAY from this thread. :D

Consider the following link and quoted articles:

LINK: Science and Subjectivism in Audio

Any amplifier, regardless of topology, can be treated as a “black box” for the purpose of listening comparisons. If amplifiers A and B both have flat frequency response, low noise floor, reasonably low distortion, high input impedance, low output impedance, and are not clipped, they will be indistinguishable in sound at matched levels no matter what’s inside them. Of course, some of the new “alphabet soup” topologies do not necessarily satisfy those conditions.

I really believe that all this soul-searching, wondering, questioning, agonizing about amplifiers is basically unproductive and would be much more rewarding if applied to loudspeakers instead. For various reasons that I have discussed in the past, people are more willing to change amplifiers than loudspeakers. That’s most unfortunate because a new and better loudspeaker will change your audio life but a new amplifier will not.

—Peter Aczel, Editor & Publisher, The Audio Critic
There has been a lot of hot chatter on the E-mail circuit over the past couple of months about the Steve Maki and Steve Zipser challenge in Miami. I thought you would appreciate a complete recount of the events. Zipser, a high-end salon owner, had issued a challenge that he would pay the airplane fare of any interested party who wanted to see him prove he could hear the differences between amplifiers.

On Sunday afternoon, August 25th, Maki and I arrived at Zipser's house, which is also Sunshine Stereo. Maki brought his own control unit, a Yamaha AX-700 100-watt integrated amplifier for the challenge. In a straight 10-trial hard-wired comparison, Zipser was only able to identify correctly 3 times out of 10 whether the Yamaha unit or his pair of Pass Laboratories Aleph 1.2 monoblock 200-watt amplifiers was powering his Duntech Marquis speakers. A Pass Labs preamplifier, Zip's personal wiring, and a full Audio Alchemy CD playback system completed the playback chain. No device except the Yamaha integrated amplifier was ever placed in the system. Maki inserted one or the other amplifier into the system and covered them with a thin black cloth to hide identities. Zipser used his own playback material and had as long as he wanted to decide which unit was driving the speakers.

I had matched the playback levels of the amplifiers to within 0.1 dB at 1 kHz, using the Yamaha balance and volume controls. Playback levels were adjusted with the system preamplifier by Zipser. I also determined that the two devices had frequency response differences of 0.4 dB at 16 kHz, but both were perfectly flat from 20 Hz to 8 kHz. In addition to me, Zipser, and Maki, one of Zip's friends, his wife, and another person unknown to me were sometimes in the room during the test, but no one was disruptive and conditions were perfectly quiet.

As far as I was concerned, the test was over. However, Zipser complained that he had stayed out late the night before and this reduced his sensitivity. At dinner, purchased by Zipser, we offered to give him another chance on Monday morning before our flight back North. On Monday at 9 a.m., I installed an ABX comparator in the system, complete with baling-wire lead to the Yamaha. Zipser improved his score to 5 out of 10. However, my switchpad did develop a hang-up problem, meaning that occasionally one had to verify the amplifier in the circuit with a visual confirmation of an LED. Zipser has claimed he scored better prior to the problem, but in fact he only scored 4 out of 6 before any difficulties occurred.

His wife also conducted a 16-trial ABX comparison, using a 30-second phrase of a particular CD for all the trials. In this sequence I sat next to her at the main listening position and performed all the amplifier switching functions according to her verbal commands. She scored 9 out of 16 correct. Later another of Zip's friends scored 4 out of 10 correct. All listening was done with single listeners.

In sum, no matter what you may have heard elsewhere, audio store owner Steve Zipser was unable to tell reliably, based on sound alone, when his $14,000 pair of class A monoblock amplifiers was replaced by a ten-year old Japanese integrated amplifier in his personal reference system, in his own listening room, using program material selected personally by him as being especially revealing of differences. He failed the test under hardwired no-switching conditions, as well as with a high-resolution fast-comparison switching mode. As I have said before, when the answers aren't shared in advance, "Amps Is Amps" even for the Goldenest of Ears.

Tom Nousaine
Cary, IL
Richard Clark $10,000 Amplifier Challenge FAQ

by Tom Morrow

Written 6/2006


The Richard Clark Amp Challenge is a listening test intended to show that as long as a modern audio amplifier is operated within its linear range (below clipping), the differences between amps are inaudible to the human ear. Because thousands of people have taken the test, the test is significant to the audiophile debate over audibility of amplifier differences. This document was written to summarize what the test is, and answer common questions about the test. Richard Clark was not involved in writing this document.

The challenge


Richard Clark is an audio professional. Like many audiophiles, he originally believed the magazines and marketing materials that different amplifier topologies and components colored the sound in unique, clearly audible ways. He later did experiments to quantify and qualify these effects, and was surprised to find them inaudible when volume and other factors were matched.

His challenge is an offer of $10,000 of his own money to anyone who could identify which of two amplifiers was which, by listening only, under a set of rules that he conceived to make sure they both measure “good enough” and are set up the same. Reports are that thousands of people have taken the test, and none has passed the test. Nobody has been able to show an audible difference between two amps under the test rules.
This article will attempt to summarize the important rules and ramifications of the test, but for clarity and brevity some uncontroversial, obvious, or inconsequential rules are left out of this article. The full rules, from which much of this article was derived, are available here and a collection of Richard's comments are available here.

Testing procedure


The testing uses an ABX test device where the listener can switch between hearing amplifier A, amplifier B, and a randomly generated amplifier X which is either A or B. The listener's job is to decide whether source X sounds like A or B. The listener inputs their guess into a computerized scoring system, and they go on to the next identification. The listener can control the volume, within the linear (non-clipped) range of the amps. The listener has full control over the CD player as well. The listener can take as long as they want to switch back and forth between A, B, and X at will.

Passing the test requires two sets of 12 correct identifications, for a total of 24 correct identifications. To speed things up, a preliminary round of 8 identifications, sometimes done without levels or other parameters perfectly matched, is a prerequisite.

Richard Clark normally has CD source, amplifiers, high quality home audio speakers, and listening environment set up in advance. But if the listener requests, they can substitute whatever source, source material, amplifiers, speakers (even headphones), and listening environment they prefer, within stipulated practical limits. The source material must be commercially available music, not test signals. Richard Clark stipulates that the amplifiers must be brand name, standard production, linear voltage amplifiers, and they must not fail (e.g. thermal shutdown) during the test.

Amplifier requirements


The amplifiers in the test must be operated within their linear power capacity. Power capacity is defined as clipping or 2% THD 20Hz to 10kHz, whichever is less. This means that if one amplifier has more power (Watts) than the other, the amplifiers will be judged within the power range of the least powerful amplifier.

The levels of both left and right channels will be adjusted to match to within .05 dB. Polarity of connections must be maintained so that the signal is not inverted. Left and Right cannot be reversed. Neither amplifier can exhibit excessive noise. Channel separation of the amps must be at least 30 dB from 20Hz to 20kHz.

All signal processing circuitry (e.g. bass boost, filters) must be turned off, and if the amplifier still exhibits nonlinear frequency response, an equalizer will be set by Richard Clark and inserted inline with one of the amps so that they both exhibit identical frequency response. The listener can choose which amplifier gets the equalizer.


FAQs:


How many people have taken the challenge?

Richard Clark says over a couple thousand people have taken the test, and nobody has passed. He used to do the test for large groups of people at various audio seminars, and didn't charge individuals to do the test, which accounted for the vast majority of the people who did the test. Around 1996 was the last of the big tests, and since then he has done the test for small numbers of people on request, for a charge ($200 for unaffiliated individuals, $500 for people representing companies).

When did the challenge start?


Sometime around the year 1990. Richard Clark says in a post on 7/2004 that the test with the $10,000 prize started about 15 years ago.

What were the results of the test?


Nobody has ever successfully passed the test. Richard Clark says that generally the number of correct responses was about the same as the number of incorrect responses, which would be consistent with random guessing. He says in large groups he never observed variation more than 51/49%, but for smaller groups it might vary as much as 60/40%. He doesn't keep detailed logs of the responses because he said they always show random responses.

Is two sets of 12 correct responses a stringent requirement?


Yes. Richard Clark intentionally made the requirements strict because with thousands of people taking the test, even random guessing would eventually cause someone to pass the test if the bar was set low. Since he is offering his own $10,000 to anyone who will pass the test, he wants to protect against the possibility of losing it to random guessing.

However, if the listener is willing to put up their own money for the test as a bet, he will lower the requirements from 12 correct down to as low as 6 correct.

Richard Clark has said “22 out of 24 would be statistically significant. In fact it would prove that the results were audible. Any AVERAGE score more than 65% would do so. But no one has even done that”.”

Do most commercially available amplifiers qualify for this test, even tube amplifiers and class D amplifiers?


Yes. Nearly all currently available amplifiers have specs better than what are required for the test. Tube amplifiers generally qualify, as do full range class D amplifiers. It is not clear whether Richard Clark would allow sub amplifiers with a limited frequency response.

Besides taking Richard Clark's word, how can the results of the test be verified?


Many car audio professionals have taken the test and/or witnessed the test being taken in audio seminars, so there isn't much doubt that the test actually existed and was taken by many people. One respected professional who has taken and witnessed the test is Mark Eldridge. Because the test has been discussed widely on audio internet forums, if there were people who passed the test it seems likely that we would have heard about it. Sometimes there are reports of people who believe they passed the test, but upon further examination it turns out that they only passed the preliminary round of 8 tests, where levels were not matched as closely as for the final test.

How can audio consumers use the results of this test?


When purchasing an amplifier, they can ignore the subjective sound quality claims of marketers. Many amplifier marketers will claim or imply that their amplifiers have some special topology, materials, or magic that makes the sound clearly superior to other amps at all volume levels. Many consumers pay several times more than they otherwise would for that intangible sound quality they think they are getting. This test indicates that the main determinant of sound quality is the amount of power the amplifier can deliver. When played at 150W, an expensive 100W measured amplifier will clip and sound worse than a cheap 200W measured amp.

Does this mean all amps sound the same in a normal install?


No. Richard Clark is very careful to say that amps usually do not sound the same in the real world. The gain setting of an amplifier can make huge differences in how an amplifier sounds, as can details like how crossovers or other filters are set. When played very loud (into clipping), the amplifier with more power will generally sound better than a lower powered amp.

Most people perceive slight differences in amplitude as quality differences rather than loudness. The louder component sounds “faster, more detailed, more full”, not just louder. This perceptual phenomenon is responsible for many people thinking they liked the sound of a component when really they just liked the way it was set up.

I changed amps in my system to another one with the same measured power and I hear a sound quality difference. Does this show that the test results are invalid?


No. Installing a new amplifier involves setting the gains and crossovers, and any slight change you make to those settings is going to affect how things sound.

Is adding an equalizer just a way of “dumbing down” the better amplifier ?


Richard Clark allows the equalizer to be added to whichever amplifier the listener wants. It can be added to the amplifier that the listener perceives as the weaker amplifier . The EQ is most likely to be used when comparing a tube amplifier (which exhibits slight high frequency rolloff) to a solid state amplifier . In that case Richard Clark says he can usually fashion an equalizer out of just a resistor and/or capacitor which for just a few dollars makes the solid state amplifier exhibit the same rolloff as the tube amplifier, and therefore sound the same. If the tube amplifier really sounded better, then modifying the solid state amplifier to sound indistinguishable from it for a few bucks should be a great improvement.

How might allowing clipping in the test affect the results?


It's impossible to know for sure because that would be a different test that has not been done. But Richard Clark seems to think that in clipping, conventional amplifiers would sound about the same, and tube amplifiers would sound different from solid state amplifiers.

Richard Clark reported that he did some preliminary experiments to determine how clipping sounds on different amplifiers . He recorded the amplifier output using special equipment at clipping, 12db over clipping, 18db over clipping, and 24db over clipping. Then he normalized the levels and listened. His perception was that with the same amount of overdrive, the conventional amplifiers sounded the same. With the same amount of overdrive the tube amplifiers sounded worse than the conventional amplifiers . On the basis of that experiment, he said “I believe I am willing to modify my amplifier challenge to allow any amount of clipping as long as the amplifiers have power ratings (actual not advertised) within 10% of each other. This would have to exclude tube amplifiers as they seem to sound much worse and it is obvious”.

If a manufacturer reports false power ratings, will that interfere with the test?


No. The test is based on measured power, not rated power .

Does this mean that there is no audible difference between sources, or between speakers?


No. There are listening tests that show small but significant differences among some sources (for instance early CD players versus modern CD players). And speakers typically have 25% or more harmonic distortion. Most everyone agrees that differences among speakers are audible.

Does the phrase "a watt is a watt" convey what this test is about?


Not quite but close. Richard Clark has stated that some amplifiers (such as tubes) have nonlinear frequency response, so a watt from them would not be the same as a watt from an amplifier with flat frequency response.

Do the results indicate I should buy the cheapest amp?


No. You should buy the best amplifier for your purpose. Some of the factors to consider are: reliability, build quality, cooling performance, flexibility, quality of mechanical connections, reputation of manufacturer, special features, size, weight, aesthetics, and cost. Buying the cheapest amplifier will likely get you an unreliable amplifier that is difficult to use and might not have the needed features. The only factor that this test indicates you can ignore is sound quality below clipping.

If you have a choice between a well built reliable low cost amp, and an expensive amplifier that isn't reliable but has a better reputation for sound quality, it can be inferred from this test that you would get more sound for your money by choosing the former.

Do home audio amps qualify for the test?


Yes. In the 2005 version of the test rules, Richard explicitly allows 120V amplifiers in a note at the end.

How can people take the test?


They should contact Richard Clark for the details. As of 2006 Richard Clark is reported to not have a public email account, and David Navone handles technical inquiries for him. Most likely they will need to pay a testing fee and get themselves to his east coast facility.

Is this test still ongoing?


As of early 2006 , there have not been any recent reports of people taking the test, but it appears to still be open to people who take the initiative to get tested.

Do the results prove inaudibility of amplifier differences below clipping?


It's impossible to scientifically prove the lack of something. You cannot prove that there is no Bigfoot monster, because no matter how hard you look, it is always possible that Bigfoot is in the place you didn't look. Similarly, there could always be a amplifier combination or listener for which the test would show an audible difference. So from a scientific point of view, the word “prove” should not be used in reference to the results of this test.

What the test does do is give a degree of certainty that such an audible difference does not exist.

What do people who disagree with the test say?


Some objections that have been raised about the test:

  • Richard Clark has a strong opinion on this issue and therefore might bias his reports.
  • In the real world people use amps in the clipping zone, and the test does not cover that situation.
  • Some audible artifacts are undetectable individually, but when combined with other artifacts they may become audible as a whole. For instance cutting a single graphic EQ level by one db may not be audible, but cutting lots of different EQ levels by the same amount may be audible. Maybe the amps have defects that are only audible when combined with the defects from a particular source, speaker, or system.
  • Some listeners feel that they can't relax enough to notice subtle differences when they have to make a large number of choices such as in this test.
  • There is a lack of organized results. Richard Clark only reports his general impressions of the results, but did not keep track of all the scores. He does not know exactly how many people have taken the test, or how many of the people scored “better than average”.
  • If someone scored significantly better than average, which might mean that they heard audible differences, it is not clear whether Richard Clark followed up and repeated the test enough times with them to verify that the score was not statistically significant.
Is there one sentence that can describe what the test is designed to show?

When compared evenly, the sonic differences between amplifiers operated below clipping are below the audible threshold of human hearing.

Links


Note from the author

I wrote this Summary/FAQ because I found that many of the people who disagreed with Richard Clark about the challenge simply didn't have the whole story on the challenge. I originally thought the challenge was flawed even after I read the rules a few times, but after reading lots of comments from Richard Clark, my objections were answered and now I believe that understanding the challenge is a very useful tool for learning what is audible and what isn't. I have no relationship with Richard Clark and have never communicated with him except that I've read his public postings about the challenge. If anyone finds typos or factual errors in this document please contact me.
I have leaned towards the camp of not being able to hear any significant difference between almost any two amps out there when played at moderate levels on the typical speaker system, unless there is something wrong with one or the other amp that might cause it to color the sound.

Granted... a low-end receiver may well have an issue driving a system of certain electrostatic speakers... or speakers with low sensitivity, especially if pushed to higher levels. There are going to be exceptions, but for the sake of this discussion, let's say we are using a pair of Klipsch RF-62 II speakers with a sensitivity of 97dB @ 2.83V / 1m ... or perhaps the Duntech Marquis speakers that Zipser was using above at 92db.

I have owned processor/amp combos and/or receivers from Sony, Denon, Sunfire, McIntosh, Adcom, NAD, Onkyo, Earthquake, Anthem, Rotel, Lexicon, Emotiva (and probably others I cannot remember) powering Snell B-Minors, Klipsh Forte, PSB Image, SVS, JBL, Boston Acoustics, VMPS RM30's, MartinLogan Ascents, ML Spires and recently the older ML Prodigy mains with a Theater center and Ascent surrounds powered by Emotiva XPA-1's and an Onkyo 906 Receiver. Currently (updated January 2104) I run an Onkyo 5509 with an Emotiva XPR-5 with MartinLogan Montis, Stage X and Motion 12's. The most significant difference I ever heard was moving to the Martin Logan speakers. NOTHING had EVER made anywhere close to a difference in sound as did the MartinLogan speakers. I thought at one time that my NAD receiver had more of a soft sound (maybe "warmer" as some will state the description), but was told (never did verify it with NAD or via measurements) that NAD intentionally setup their receivers with a rolled off high-end. However, I have heard significant differences in speakers. I have also performed A/B testing between several amps and have not found any differences outside of clipping and/or distortion.

Is it not the desire of the audiophile to have electronic equipment which does not alter the sound?

Your thoughts and comments will be interesting.
 
See less See more
#172 ·
any good amps can recommend? looking for resonable prices..
Hello,
If you could be a bit more specific about your budget, it would greatly help. Also, whether or not you are open to used amplifiers is an important consideration.
Cheers,
J
 
#173 ·
Can we really hear a difference between two amps?

More specifically... between two amps that have been level matched in a controlled listening test. We are not talking about amps that have been modified or are driven beyond their reasonable limits.
In a purely hypothetical sense, on paper, no. Two level matched amplifiers driven within their reasonable limits should amplify the signal the same.

In the real world you have to take into account slew and damping factors, the speakers (load) being used, even the difference between a MOSFET, bipolar and a SET output stage can produce auditory differences. Further, not even two amps of the same identical make and model are necessarily the same. Capacitors are certainly made within a tolerance, not exact, and that goes for all the rest of the components in any relatively complex electronic device. Combine all of the above with the frequencies it's being asked to amplify (no one listens to just 1kHz test tones!) and yes, I believe that differences that can be identified through an ABX are possible. An amplifier's job is simple... amplify an input signal and pass it on to the speakers while changing the signal as little as possible, adding as little coloration/distortion as possible. A perfect amplifier is certainly possible on paper but to the best of my knowledge no one, at any price, has ever made a 100% perfect amplifier. Most come close enough for the human ear to be happy with, but even 99% accuracy is not 100%.

Just my $0.02.
 
#174 ·
Hey, What happened? How did we end up here..., one more time? Oktyabr does a nice job of rationalizing the numbers to say, "similar but not the same". Amplification is the same and without modification one will or can be adjusted to sound similar to almost any other amp.

But one question that has not been asked, "Will the music sound the same from begining to end"? The same nuance, same sustain, same recording Q's, like recorded indoors or outside in an amphitheater. Will I enjoy one more than the other. I mean will I simply want to listen to one more than the other?
 
#175 ·
In a perfect world all amps would sound the same but we are far from that. As was just mentioned no one has made the perfect amplifier, just some do less harm than others so there can be a difference in what we hear between amps.

I know I have heard differences in amps and but the largest difference is in how loud and dynamic they can play without any audible distortion. This was with amps with similar specs as well.
 
#176 ·
I just switched from an minimalist passive pre integrated amp to an AVR. No EQ possible on the integrated nor employed on the AVR. While both sound good, big difference in sound between the two of them.

The AVR is brand new and most likely needs some break in time. Also the AVR signal path is infinitely more complicated than the minimalist amp.
 
#179 ·
I'm just going to make a simple observation, I will not respond to anybody looking to argue to win any point. I hope nobody is insulted. I am not attempting to make anybody wrong. I am saying I have a few thoughts not that I know anything in particular. I am willing to take a good honest look at any point made, including, watch and listen to two amps competing to sound equal or different. I hope two people someday do put together this experiment or something similar.

The $10,000 double blind test. Isn't that where a few especially talented techheads get together and take two amps of anybody's choosing and restrict amp setup with inferior wiring or optimize the amps to sound identical.

First requisite being neither amp is allowed to enhance overcome manufacturing short falls, audio obstacles, or bottlenecks in other words each amp must use inferior wiring and
connections. In other words you cannot use better cables that optimize or free the amp to play sound at its best. Because if you have a superior amp you can restrict its ability to play open and natural music by using an inferior cable.

I say that if I replace wiring to my Denon and continue with moderately priced Kimber Kable cables out to the speakers I can make a Denon AVR sound pretty good. If you use all of the same cabling for any cheap amp the sound will improve but will not equal the Denon improvements.

Or I will use the MIT cables I recently put in storage. I did have these in the AVR loop until I tried Kimber' 8VS. Right out of the box these sounded nice and they keep getting better. These are a nice match for Denon.

At this point I will add one more thought. I don't think the experiment says very much if two amps are taken out of the box and connected with wires that are not broken-in with the amp planned for this experiment. Also, all of the cables should be from a list of recommended cables for the specific amps used.

I do not have $10,000 for the bet. But this is the type of experiment that interests me. That is "How good can a cheap amp sound?"

I know I've steeped on some toes here, but I'm no fool. I do not buy electronics equipment because it looks Kool and not because its the most expensive (obviously) and when I do buy my ego is not so invested that I will not admit a mistake nor continue to use a piece of gear that does not contribute to better sound quality.

When I buy it is because I read something that made sense and several manufacturers are continuing the dialog in a competition to improve the product or ... . Some new technology I am watching now is "QOL" Audio completion. The more I read about it the more interesting it sounds. The cost on this technology is way to high for my budget. But I digress... .

I am interested in sound quality, I cannot afford to buy without good reason. Later when/if I find a flaw which is inevitable I will adjust to minimize the problem. but I have to remember that I still have room Tx problems that is I need room Tx. What I am trying to say is that if I buy and sound quality is neg impacted I am quick to admit it. The only expectation I have is that the product is exactly as the manufacturer has described and not what I want to believe I heard other people say. I am looking for pure copper wire and connectors. Low resistance and capacitance, inductance is managed and EMI, RFI are minimized..., I'm not sure about anything else except reputation.

"Bottom Line" I'm 61 years old this year and I love music. I listen to recorded music 2,4 sometimes 6 or more hours a day. I want the best sound I can manage to put together. I am always looking for improvements that fit my budget. I would like to buy a single Furutech speaker cable @ $133 per meter and I need 2 meter per speaker but I'm letting the Kimber warm up a little. These cables sound like they are building am inner charge..., then the sound begins to weaken and there is a tin-can/string effect in the upper mids and then it rolls into a couple of minutes of heaven. So I'll wait to see if they open up or become consistent at something. If that happens I might just live with these for awhile and instead buy two boxes of wall Tx. But I'm working/finishing a Telecaster build and I need Nitrocellulose Lacquer before I do anything else.

Enough rambling. Against my better judgement I am putting this out there..., hope you're all having a great spring.
 
#180 ·
The $10,000 double blind test. Isn't that where a few especially talented techheads get together and take two amps of anybody's choosing and restrict amp setup with inferior wiring or optimize the amps to sound identical.
I think it is a bit different than this... but check out the first post story for how they setup that test. It had nothing to do with "trying" to get the amps to sound identical, instead they were trying to hear a difference... and they could not. All they did was level match them, simply because two amps not level matched could indeed have a drastically perceived difference.
 
#181 ·
It had nothing to do with "trying" to get the amps to sound identical, instead they were trying to hear a difference... and they could not.

Well, my first experience with the dialog around "hearing a difference" between any two amps led to many statements. Depending on who you listened to..., I'm the new guy I listened to them all and I found the premise and the discussion kinda fun. But I don't remember anybody jumping at the chance for $10,000. But somebody said one amp is pretty much the same as any other..., speakers are more important. I liked that. At some point somebody challenged me and my Denon to sound different than his amp and he would allow my using the MIT's I had in my system that I thought were working pretty well at the time.

There is part of me that agrees with the idea that one is very much like the next. But , obviously I believe some amps have better bones and you can achieve a higher level of neutral natural open dynamic well damped/controlled sound while other amps may give you vocals but no drums and cymbals or brass improvements (so to speak).
 
#182 ·
And you have hit on the basic problem. All of the opinions on the matter ARE belief. While I agree, there are many amps that are not designed or built as well as we would like and their sound likely reflects that, as an industry we have failed to capture what an amp or any other component "sounds like" adequately in the testing and specifications that we use.

Add to that the fact that what we experience is much more complex than the actual sound, or the actual transfer function of the amplifier, and it is no wonder we get into endless debates on these issues.

I would like to see more controlled research that identifies the differences that people perceive and drills down with testing to discover why they experience what they do. WE would likely find that there are metrics on performance of the equipment that are far better than traditional measurements AND that the perspective and beliefs of the listener have an even greater effect on what is experienced.
 
#183 ·
A very nice take on a technology that is still a young and still improving/changing sound recording and playback technology. My feeling is we don't even have the/a language to describe quantifiable music qualities, recording equipment ideals that reproduces at 100% in playback , recording methods that result in the highest quality playback and the equipment necessary for the highest quality playback of recorded sound. There is no lack of dialogue when talking/writing about digital or analog recordings and playback for profit. That is not a bad thing.

I think also that there are certain requisites necessary for personal satisfaction and professional consistency and in developing this sound reproduction technology. First of all is an ability to hear all of the different parts of music passages. I do not believe perfect pitch is the only type of hearing that provides an ability appreciate music. I would rather have a relative pitch hearing ability (I do Most of the time). To me being able to follow the music is fun and satisfying. But I do wonder what harmonies sound like with perfect pitch..., is listening to music with perfect ears frustrating? You know a guitar string is always loosening..., to be brief. Then it takes constant questioning of my thoughts and expectations to keep an open mind when listening to my music on my system. I have to remind myself to disconnect from critical listening. Because my system does sound good to me at any time I only need to remember to keep an open mind and simply hear/enjoy the music. When I am listening to music as the critic I am listening for for the absence of certain mechanical and electromechanical indicators. Hearing music through a decent system is like watching a movie. In a good movie there is nothing to remind you you are watching a movie. Nothing in the movie takes out of that experience and more importantly the equipment you've invested in contributes to your increased enjoyment of the movie or music system.

Two additional personal qualities that contribute to listening/hearing quality is honesty and willingness.

as an industry we have failed to capture what an amp or any other component "sounds like" adequately in the testing and specifications that we use.

.
Honestly I do not believe we have the words to describe a specific quality of sound and the electronics responsible. Just as you say.


"Add to that the fact that what we experience is much more complex than the actual sound, or the actual transfer function of the amplifier,"

Also a good reason their isn't at least one definitive book on the topic. Not for lack of wanting..., sometimes I wonder if we ask the wrong questions.

http://www.bsgt.com/technology-information/about-qol/qol-the-dna-of-sound/

The above link is to BSG Tech. the comapny responsible for QOL sound completion electronics. For $4K you can listen to the complete musical event. What BSG says essentially is electronics reproduces only parts of the musical event. What QOL does is
identifies musical information not available to the listeners ears in normal music replay
but QOL elevates this additional info to listening levels. Like a digital picture all of the info is there even when all you see is a black photo. With digital audio tech hearing all of the audio info should be available and interesting.

Enough said for now.
 
#184 ·
Much of the problem is that for the vast majority of users, both professional and consumer, the quality of most of what we deliver in equipment and produced media is adequate. Digging deeper in uncomfortable for the industry that is highly marketing based on the consumer side, because many of the beliefs that drive the design, marketing, and purchase of products would have to be questioned. As you can see by the direction that these kinds of threads take, people do not take kindly to having their assumptions and beliefs challenged. This is particularly true when suggesting that the knowledge that some possess is based largely upon belief rather than fact. This is true of all sides in these debates.

IMO, Bob Carver had some good ideas, thinking of amplifiers and other devices in terms of transfer functions. His ideas could be taken much farther with the technology that we have today. By using high sampling rates and more advanced statistical and signal processing techniques that were not practical even ten years ago we could ask some much more relevant questions regarding the differences between input and output, and the differences between outputs of various devices with the same input. The relevant questions are not whether there are differences, but what those differences are and what aspects of them are meaningful under which conditions to which users.

Technologies such as the ability to process massive amounts of data on multiple variables, perform extremely high rate sampling, wavelet analysis, and highly complex modelling could be applied very effectively if we really wanted to know the answers to the questions. The problem is that many get offended at the notion that we do not currently know all that we need to know, and many get very uncomfortable with challenges to their perspective or "knowledge."

When the majority is happy with where we are, for one reason or the opposite, it is very difficult to move knowledge forward. We have seen that many times through history. Here, we have people who see the world as round and who believe that the other side sees the world as flat. The problem is that both sides think they are the ones who see it as round.
 
#185 ·
First of all, thank you for your zero tolerance policy. Too bad it's even needed. Sigh.

As for hearing differences in amps the answer is most assuredly 'yes.' Tube amps sound different than most solid state. Solid state usually has more solid, refined and defined bass. On the other hand, tube amps tend to soften some of the harshness in the treble regions. The treble sound in tube amps is softer, more relaxed, more realistic. Tube amp have less defined bass, generally, and can sound a tad tubby. I have no experience with the hybrids so I can't comment.

My experience with amps includes Dynaco, Heathkit, Crown, Emotiva, McIntosh, Krell, Yamaha, JVC, Sony, Arcam, Teac, Marantz and others I can't recall. Some are indistinguishable from some others, to be sure. In general, youse gets what's you pays for. That's a pretty good general rule, but it's not always the case.

Over the years I have learned that most people don't know how to listen, really listen. In most cases it is simply not important to them so they tend to be less discerning. In many cases differences can be small and affect only a limited audible frequency range. Some amps I've heard have such a luscious midrange that slight deficiencies don't seem to matter as much.

I could go on and on but I won't. In summary, there *are* distinct sonic differences in many amps, preamps, processors, tuners, and receivers, IMHO. But the point to be made is that if you can't hear the differences then they either don't exist, don't matter, or the listener doesn't have a trained ear. This latter point is no small issue to many audiophiles, naturally.
 
#187 ·
Tube amps sound different than most solid state... The treble sound in tube amps is softer, more relaxed, more realistic.
I would have to say that tube amps in general are less realistic sounding because of the distortion they add. So I would say that the treble in a tube may sound more pleasing, but not more realistic.

Some amps I've heard have such a luscious midrange that slight deficiencies don't seem to matter as much.
I wouldn't want an amp that has a luscious midrange, I would want an amp that reproduces the recorded audio the most accurately.
This brings up the difference of listening preference for people. There are people like me that believe a good amp is one that reproduces audio accurately, then there is my dad (and possibly you?) that believes a good amp is one that sounds good.
Neither belief is wrong.
 
#186 ·
Lucky for you you threw your thoughts into the pot late at night. I hope you will hold on through the day tomorrow. Several people may/will challenge your position..., you may even get the $10K challenge. If they get an email notice, you can expect questions. I agree with much of your premise and reasoning.
When the dust settles maybe we'll get back to this. I need sleep

Oh..., Welcome to HTS. After 5 posts this site opens up to you as far as communication. There are some very knowledgeable people here and many have direct experience as well. Should be fun.
 
#191 · (Edited)
I concur!!! My thoughts exactly.

IHO, here is what I think is the order of sound being affected from greatest to smallest assumiing amps and music sources are solid state.

Speakers & Room Acoustics 98.0%
Amps/Receivers,DVD/BluRay 1.8%
Cables/Intercconects 0.2%


If a turntable is involved... Speakers and room drop down to 85%, turntable/cartridge 13% and the rest remains unchanged.
 
#194 · (Edited)
The only caveat I'd throw in there is some people enjoy the characteristics of highly speaker inefficient designs - large dome tweeters, even a dome midrange... plus small woofers, acoustic suspension designs etc. which necessitate a dedicated amp for maximum performance. Many, if not most speakers are efficient enough that almost any modern AVR's amp will drive them... but the flip side is some highly inefficient designs also sound really good (OK I'm thinking of the Image Concept 200's I used to own, personal bias lols).

Often these 'inefficient' speakers are bookshelf speakers, it's just plain easier to make a large, efficient speaker. The good news is that incredibly powerful amps are no longer incredibly expensive - my recent experience with a Behringer iNuke 6000DSP was a real eye opener, it seems impossible something could be so light, so cheap, blow out nothing but cool air... and yet pump over a kilowatt per channel RMS into 8 ohms. In the end I chose a Crown XTi-2002 because I do think amps sound a tiny bit different from each other and I also think Crown amps sound particularly great. Is it psycho-acoustics? Could I pick them out in a DB test? I don't know for sure. I think I could pass the DB test - hopefully I'll have an opportunity to participate in such a test someday soon.
 
#195 ·
"Garbage in, garbage out" your sound will only be as good as the weakest link its not just about the amp but every piece of gear in the loop.
 
#196 ·
Of course you can hear a difference, well maybe not everyone. I have heard amps that sound a good deal alike, My Lux and Max example, and have heard amps that sound unlike another amp (Mac and Hafler) in the rack. I mean how can they not, they have dozens if not hundreds of different components, differing topoligies, different designs and are oft times voiced by the manufacturer. How could we have so many different amps in our homes if they did not. We would only need one or two.

Do all cars handle the same while going 60 mph through the mountains in southern Tennessee. No way, yet they all seem to have a similar purpose when they were made. Can we say that all twins are the same...maybe from a DNA point of view, but not personality wise. Does a Class T amp sound like a Class A amp...not likely.

Yes the arguments can be made that while working in their comfort zone many sound similar, but that was not the question. It was black and white. Can we hear a difference and that has to be answered with an ultimate yes imo. I see I am in the minority and that is cool, those that do not hear a difference should be quite happy with anything on the shelf.
 
#199 ·
Do all cars handle the same while going 60 mph through the mountains in southern Tennessee. No way, yet they all seem to have a similar purpose when they were made.
Analogies are will get you so far, but eventually break... like cars.

So when driving around southern TN, can you tell what brand battery your car uses without looking? Do you find that the battery affects handling or sound more?

This is, after all, the source of electricity for all your car does... kinda like an amp.
 
#198 ·
If you consider the topology or design of an amplifier then yes there will of course be differences and many of them sonic ones. Most notably a solid state to digital switching to tube amplifier comparison is noticeable on the same speaker.

One of the problems is level matching if one were to perform a comparison A/B test. Even 1db of a level deviation may be noticeable and ti would also depend on the load they were driving (speakers).

I agree with may who have stated that speakers will make the most difference in creating a sound. As a past salesman in A/V I alsways tried to guide my cusotmers into picking speakers 1st and explaining to them that more $ should be spent on the speakers then the media player or receiver/amplifier.

Yes emphatically I would say there is a different sound from different amplifiers. Can we hear it? Well it all depends on the individual.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top