Tizman

Good old Wiki. That said, there is no such thing as a perfectly linear amplifier. So, ODS123, what qualifies as “a modern amp that is engineered to be linear”? At what point does an amp’s non-linear behaviour disqualify it from being “a modern amp that is engineered to be linear”, and how do you quantify this objectively?

By definition, objective viewpoints require quantification. ODS123 needs to quantify his objective viewpoint. Not quantifying it invalidates his viewpoint as an objective one and makes it a subjective one.

Putting emphasis on the speakers purchased when beginning in the audio hobby is not a new idea or news in any way. In fact, ODS123 got that right 391 days ago.

ODS123: My above post is repeated from a few pages back. Please do enlighten us with a response. Here it is again so you don’t miss it. Specs please...

Okay ODS123. Please define exactly what linear means. You keep saying it, but it would be useful to define it in terms of specs. Given your claims that all modern amps that are engineered to be linear sound the same, at what point is an amp no longer “a modern amp that is engineered to be linear”? If you are going to give advice to newbies, you need to define what you mean.

That is pretty awesome.

Okay ODS123. Please define exactly what linear means. You keep saying it, but it would be useful to define it in terms of specs. Given your claims that all modern amps that are engineered to be linear sound the same, at what point is an amp no longer “a modern amp that is engineered to be linear”? If you are going to give advice to newbies, you need to define what you mean.

To any beginners still reading this thread, don't listen to ODS123. He will advise you to buy poor quality electronics to feed your new Klipsch speakers, but he doesn't use these crappy components himself. This is 100% true. If you want a nice quality amplifier on the cheap that will sound great, check out the Amp Camp Amp kit designed by Nelson Pass. In my experience, and as a person who does hear differences between amplifiers, the ACA is a fantastic bargain. I feel this is true despite having a definite preference for single ended triode amplifiers with my Klipsch speakers. The ACA looks and sounds great. Especially for the money.

Please. Don’t shut down the thread until ODS123 does his comparison of the Sony and the Mac. I really want to see ODS123 say “My McIntosh sounds exactly the same as my Sony reciever”. Isn’t it day 389 of ODS123 not damaging his speakers with water or dinging them while moving them up a flight of stairs?

Why don’t you ask him exactly what he means? Semantics aside, his posts in this thread paint a pretty clear picture. I really want to hear how his proposed double blind test between a basic Sony receiver and his Mac amp turns out. That is what he means, by the way, by amps sounding the same.

glens: There you go. I missed “not driven to distortion”. Sorry.

. ODS123 has said that all “modern linear” amplifiers sound the same. Repeatedly.

Despite his repeated shouts of “Subjectivist!”, ODS123 is in fact the biggest subjectivist in this thread. His subjective, preconceived beliefs, and the predispositions that are the result of them, affect his perception of reality so much that he is incapable of objectivity. That is the irony of his content.

How does one test for “no difference” anyway? If, like ODS123, you are predisposed to hear “no difference” you are likely to say “no difference” whether you are listening to the same system or two different ones. His observations are skewed by his predispositions. Look at all his posts everywhere. His observations are effectively useless and have no value due to his obvious, repeated and consistent expression of his predisposition (fervour is probably a better word) to not hear a difference. How can the opinions of someone so fixated that he ignores and discounts the observations of others in this forum, audio equipment designers, etc. have any value? Also, for some unknown reason, the guy who thinks everything sounds the same has followed a fairly typical upgrade path that many normal audiophiles follow. Why do so if everything sounds the same?

I might add that test referred to in the first post, which is a dumb test, indicated that 24 of 38 people had a preference for one sample over the other. So 63% of the subjects indicated a preference. It doesn’t really matter which system they chose. They chose one over the other. This indicates a perceived difference between the two systems with 63% of subjects. Add to this the very real possibility of a certain percentage of the group of people who are members of an “audio club” being predisposed to choose “no difference”, which skews the result in that direction. In this thread, there are folks that claim to hear differences and those that don’t. This will result in a predisposition to pick one system or “no difference”. Just look at ODS123. Does anyone believe that ODS123 would ever pick a system if he was put to the test, as opposed to sticking to his mantra of “no difference”?

There is that. It should probably be part of every ABX test. Especially when the test samples are small. Small, as in a one person ABX.

It's not going to help them. Might feel good though. Soak it in some water first so that its mushy and flexible.

Apparently this happened in 1967. Every development since then has been insignificant and not required. Sorry Mr. Pass...

"time coherence/ alignment, etc." What is this audiophool voodoo? Speaker designers obviously don't understand speaker designing. ODS123 knows better.

This one is my favourite. Complete nonsense. A "previous employee" because he believed Mac built SET amps and got fired?

ODS123 knows better than the gentlemen referred to in this post. He has done the tests required to debunk their claims. Just ask him, and he will tell you what's what.

So you bought three sets of speakers over a period of time, and every time you got your brand new set you did this test? Seriously? That seems very unlikely. Most people would want to hear them immediately, especially if they don't believe that break in has any effect. I think that since this thread is approaching 40 pages, it may be time for another edition of ODS123's greatest hits.

Thanks Mike. A very informative video, and new information to me.

I don’t know that much about Mac tube amp topology, but was under the impression that it was, as Dean mentioned, similar to PP/Ultralinear. I’ll do a bit of research on it, as different topologies interest me. Could you please give us a brief description of the differences for the sake of brevity and clarity in this thread?

I’m pretty sure that if Mac made a SET amp, it would be very good and very, very shiny. But they don’t.