Advice for Beginners - consider this test from an audio club

[Zen Traveler]

6 hours ago, Don Richard said:

23 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

Our preferences don't work the way AB/X testing works. That's so obvious it is silly. 

 

ABX tests for differences, not preferences.

For the record, the quote above is NOT mine even though I am attributed to it.

[Tizman]

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.

[Deang]

From Wiki

 

"Most amplifiers are designed to be linear. That is, they provide constant gain for any normal input level and output signal. If an amplifier's gain is not linear, the output signal can become distorted...Linearity refers to the ability of the amplifier to produce signals that are accurate copies of the input, generally at increased power levels. Load impedance, supply voltage, input base current, and power output capabilities can affect the efficiency of the amplifier."

[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?

[ODS123]

9 minutes ago, Tizman said:

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”?  

 

Go to:  http://tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/ you'll find it defined quite clearly.

 

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

 

[Tizman]

So what is your problem with tube amps?

[Tizman]

Clark sets the bar pretty low.  You set it much higher, and are willing to dismiss certain topologies outright without having heard them.  Quantify your choices and advice to beginners as an Objectivist.  Clark’s criteria include amplifiers that you don’t include.

[ODS123]

18 minutes ago, Tizman said:

So what is your problem with tube amps?

 

So long as they are and remain linear while driving speakers to desired levels I personally think they're fine.  ..But if they sound like S/S then why bother with the hassle/ cost of adjusting/ replacing tubes.

 

[ODS123]

So if you are a believer in the house sound and signature sound concept of amplifier selection, what do you think of this very possible theoretical conversation between a customer and a salesperson at an Audio store. What would you tell the customer?? Yes, this is a straw man, but it's not an unlikely scenario.

 

Cus: “Wow, there are a lot of amplifiers in this room - why so many choices? is it just a difference in how powerful they are?”

 

SP:  “No, it's because they all have their own sound!”

 

Cus:  “Wow, so if I hooked one up after you leave the room could you tell me which is playing without looking when you came back in?

 

SP:  “Well, yes, but it would take time - could be hours, maybe days before the amp would reveal itself through its unique signature and feel. I would know which because each differs in how it connects me emotionally with the music.”

 

Cus: “You mean, you couldn’t just tell me now?  

 

SP:  “No, because your question makes me too uneasy to be receptive to the amps unique signature.”

 

Cus:  "Wow... and what about Cd players?  Those too??

 

SP:  "Yes, those too AND all of your speaker cables and interconnects as well.  ..They all have their own signature. And they all could take a while to reveal their unique strengths to you." 

 

I think most beginners looking for a sound system to enjoy with their existing cd and music file collection could very likely think, “Ok, that seems nutty…I think I’ll just go look at a Bose SoundDeck or a Sonos system.”
 

[Tizman]

Backpeddling time ODS123?  Don’t have to change tubes?  Seriously?  After 51 pages of Objectivist “advice”?

[ClaudeJ1]

4 hours ago, robert_kc said:

Of course, the hotly contested issue is this:  If a modern top-quality recording was recorded and mastered in 24bit/192kHz, will most audiophiles hear a difference between a 24bit/192kHz deliverable (e.g., 24/192 FLAC download or Pure Audio Blu-ray disc) vs. that recording down-sampled to fit on a CD (16bit/44.1kHz).   (A separate question is whether John Q. Public would hear a difference listening via their “big-box store” hi-fi system.)

This conversation has successfully whittled down to the most germane points of focus. So now if we look at Blue Rays Discs as the single medium of DISCussion (I have an Oppo also) of choice, then I am saying there is ZERO difference between 24/96 or 24/192 sampling, and Tomlinson Holman of THX fame agrees with this. My own A/B tests from the same Blue Ray that had both says that with my own EARS, I can't tell the diffence, so my own hearing tells me I agree with Tom Holman AND Mark Waldrep on this SINGULAR issue of 96 vs. 192 sampling on  Audibility, there is NONE, and it's a waste of good storage space, so you can fit more songs on that piece of plastic.

[TubeHiFiNut]

37 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

 

So long as they are and remain linear while driving speakers to desired levels I personally think they're fine.  ..But if they sound like S/S then why bother with the hassle/ cost of adjusting/ replacing tubes.

 

No offense meant but I, for one, am very glad that my SE amps do not sound like solid state amps.

[robert_kc]

1 hour ago, ClaudeJ1 said:

This conversation has successfully whittled down to the most germane points of focus. So now if we look at Blue Rays Discs as the single medium of DISCussion (I have an Oppo also) of choice, then I am saying there is ZERO difference between 24/96 or 24/192 sampling, and Tomlinson Holman of THX fame agrees with this. My own A/B tests from the same Blue Ray that had both says that with my own EARS, I can't tell the diffence, so my own hearing tells me I agree with Tom Holman AND Mark Waldrep on this SINGULAR issue of 96 vs. 192 sampling on  Audibility, there is NONE, and it's a waste of good storage space, so you can fit more songs on that piece of plastic.

 

I understand that your assessment is that there is no audible difference between hi-res recordings delivered at 24bit/192kHz vs. 24bit/96kHz (which are both considered hi-res deliverables).    

 

Based on your experience, do you think that hi-res recordings delivered at 24bit/96kHz sound better than the same recording down-converted to CD (16bit/44.1kHz)?

[Tizman]

1 hour ago, ClaudeJ1 said:

My own A/B tests from the same Blue Ray that had both says that with my own EARS, I can't tell the diffence, so my own hearing tells me I agree with Tom Holman AND Mark Waldrep on this SINGULAR issue of 96 vs. 192 sampling on  Audibility, there is NONE, and it's a waste of good storage space, so you can fit more songs on that piece of plastic.

There is too much attention paid to different DACs and data rates, and not enough on the quality of the source’s output stage.  There is an amp at the output of most line level source components, including DACs, CD players, etc..  This amplifier varies in quality.  Some are bad and some are good.

[mikebse2a3]

Interesting Timing 😄 relative to this thread In “Stereophile February 2019”

 

It’s reported in the First Watt SIT-3 review

that Nelson Pass “uses blind listening and ABX testing to understand how experienced listeners perceive distortions and the roll that distortion might play in helping our brains reconstruct the original musical event.”

 

There is also an interesting article about the Burning Amp gathering and describing Pass experimenting with how 2nd harmonic distortion is perceived in both good and bad ways when added to recordings.

 

I myself believe no amplifier is immune to interactions with its load(ie: loudspeaker) and that is where some find the synergy they are looking for in their systems.

 

miketn

 

[TubeHiFiNut]

5 minutes ago, mikebse2a3 said:

Interesting Timing 😄 relative to this thread In “Stereophile February 2019”

 

It’s reported in the First Watt SIT-3 review

that Nelson Pass “uses blind listening and ABX testing to understand how experienced listeners perceive distortions and the roll that distortion might play in helping our brains reconstruct the original musical event.”

 

There is also an interesting article about the Burning Amp gathering and describing Pass experimenting with how 2nd harmonic distortion is perceived in both good and bad ways when added to recordings.

 

I myself believe no amplifier is immune to interactions with its load(ie: loudspeaker) and that is where some find the synergy they are looking for in their systems.

 

miketn

 

Nice timing on the article.

 

From what I have seen, great designers (like Nelson Pass) use every tool they have at their disposal during the design process - including their ears.

[mikebse2a3]

32 minutes ago, TubeHiFiNut said:

Nice timing on the article.

 

From what I have seen, great designers (like Nelson Pass) use every tool they have at their disposal during the design process - including their ears.

 

Agreed..🙂

[ODS123]

55 minutes ago, TubeHiFiNut said:

Nice timing on the article.

 

From what I have seen, great designers (like Nelson Pass) use every tool they have at their disposal during the design process - including their ears.

 

Yes, I read that too.  "He uses ABX testing to understand how experienced listeners perceive distortion, and the role the that distortion might play in helping our brains reconstruct the original musical event."  Sounds impressive, if a bit nebulous.  So, what was his conclusion?  Do people reliably prefer distortion?  How does this square with other studies on distortion in musical playback??

 

Nonetheless, it's a shame that if he had equipment and experienced listeners in place for his ABX testing he didn't take the opportunity to do blinded AB testing to see if his experienced listeners could reliably distinguish and PREFERRED his newer amp to either previous 1st Watt models or other brand amps.  As I've said before, if it reliably sounds more music-like to a group of people, why not say that in your ads and cite your trial data.

 

In another review, Ayre Acoustics recommends 100-500 hours of break-in time.  This is remarkable to me!   Can you imagine buying any other kind of appliance and reading in the manual that it won't work as well as possible for 500 hours!?

 

 

[richieb]

=== yeah, shame on you Nelson Pass. Maybe one day when you’re finally able to master your craft you’ll be qualified to consult with and learn from Mr. ODS123. 

Told you’all 50 pages was enough — now do you believe me —

[ClaudeJ1]

1 hour ago, mikebse2a3 said:

Interesting Timing 😄 relative to this thread In “Stereophile February 2019”

 

It’s reported in the First Watt SIT-3 review

that Nelson Pass “uses blind listening and ABX testing to understand how experienced listeners perceive distortions and the roll that distortion might play in helping our brains reconstruct the original musical event.”

 

There is also an interesting article about the Burning Amp gathering and describing Pass experimenting with how 2nd harmonic distortion is perceived in both good and bad ways when added to recordings.

 

I myself believe no amplifier is immune to interactions with its load(ie: loudspeaker) and that is where some find the synergy they are looking for in their systems.

 

miketn

 

As always Mike, you are a like a safe port amidst a sea of turbulence! Good post.