Does Everything Make a Difference?

[Analog Scott]

Your

No kissing here just noting from what era your position derives.

Ha! You will come to Switzerland then with all those amps? You are qualified to set up a fair test? Doubtful at best.

yep and yep and well worth $10K. So are we on? We can start working out the details right away.

BTW. I notice there was no further comment on the herd mentality…finally concede your definition was flawed? Also, who or what were you claiming was herd mentality? You never clarified…guess you meant horn/SET in error, or?

No further comment because it had become silly. Even by the standards of what this thread had become

 

[morricab]

yep and yep and well worth $10K. So are we on? We can start working out the details right away.


No further comment because it had become silly. Even by the standards of what this thread had become

Yes, sad you made the thread what it became.

 

[Analog Scott]

Yes, sad you made the thread what it became.

So is that a no? You won’t take the easy $10K? You aren’t even going to come up with an excuse?
I knew you wouldn’t do it. But what is your excuse for no excuse?

 

[wil]

My uncle had a B3 when I was way too young to realise just how good it was.

Am a big fan of all the above, especially Jimmy Smith, and also Dr Lonnie Smith and Shirley Scott… such an iconic keyboard rock and jazz instrument.

And Al Kooper, with the B2 on “Like a Rolling Stone” — the heart and soul

 

[PeterA]

why don’t we just cut to the chase. Audibly transparent amplifiers are easy enough to demonstrate and have been demonstrated many times. All you need are bias controlled level matched listening tests.

In a thread about everything making a difference, I’m curious about how you would conduct this test of 10 audibly transparent amplifiers.

Please name specifically what 10 amplifiers you would select and what speakers they would drive to prove in a double blind test that they all sound the same.

 

[PYP]

I could use the 'n' word but certain people would p*ss on the floor. ;->

It is very difficult to describe what one is hearing, but maybe easier to describe the effect on one's perception.

For example, I was listening to Carless Love by Madeleine Peyroux. [For those that care: this was streaming via Qobuz/Roon; 44/16 bit; Rounder Records] My wife came by since she couldn't identify the singer. She said it sounded like Billie (she is on a first-name basis with many musicians/vocalists) but clearly wasn't. I responded that previously I didn't like Madeleine (now I'm using first names too) because I assumed she was imitating a voice pattern and I prize singers who have a distinct voice that is natural (sorry, put on your galoshes) to them. But listening to this album, surprisingly wonderful sound at 44/16, I understood that this was her real voice. That got me very interested in the recording engineer. Something was happening in this recording (or was it my mood that evening, or both?) that had changed my perception of the vocalist.

The recording engineer was Helik Hadar (a little research indicates he works well with female vocalists) and Bernie Grundman did the mastering (needs no introduction).

So, describing the album as sounding live (I wasn't there but it is very present in the listening room) or natural does not help explain the experience, which is really what I would want to convey to another music lover. The rest isn't very relevant. Meaning, the medium is not the message (sorry Marshall).

 

[Ron Resnick]

As an atheist I have a very different opinion on large migrations due to imagination.

This is an analogy which may not be apposite, but I give credit for a powerful point nonetheless.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Audible transparency is when the input signal is audibly indistinguishable from the out put.

This is going to wind up circular.

The objectivist crowd is going to say "if you think you heard a difference between two amps then one or both of the amps is not audibly transparent." The subjectivist crowd is going to say "we heard a difference between two transparent amps so the definition or the premise, or both, is flawed."

The objectivist position here rests upon the simplistic view that if the amplifiers cannot be identified in quick blind testing, then the differences reported are imagined.* In the subjectivist world this dog won't hunt.

*In another thread, to solve this never-ending listening test methodology disagreement, I advocated for designing a protocol which would satisfy both sides: some kind of a long-term listening comparison which somehow would remain blind to the listener.

 

[Geoffkait]

Of course, there’s a rather high probability the amplifiers in question, whatever they are, sound equally bad. Or perhaps varying degrees of bad.

 

[PYP]

Marx had a profound understanding of the group dynamic. No, not Karl. Groucho:

I sent the club a wire stating, "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER".

• Telegram to the Friar's Club of Beverly Hills to which he belonged

 

[Kingrex]

It’s a function of posters starting out saying on point stuff and after a few hundred posts of increasingly chest puffy stuff and attached familiar distortions and then in running out of the same ole arguments switching over into tit for tat cut and paste responding only to point to where others are wrong rather than trying to come to any kind of new increased understanding instead.

So that it won’t end it then creates an audio forum Groundhog Day audiophile AI möbius loop that now recalls and reassembles all previous posting stances and responses from every other similar thread that’s ever been read before… the course of which becomes increasingly emotionally widening content loops to act out the tired senescence of the argument and mirror the standard answers in the death spiral of the (insert title here) ritual audiophile debate dance and the inevitable increasing hurtling response speed and indignity of the responses.

Spoiler alert. Early debate civility and rationality spirals out eventually crashing into an ugly melodrama of ad hominemania and thread closure… pause… system reset. We’re not there yet.

The worst part is, there a lot of people who might have become friends or at least excited to gather with at shows. Instead its people you avoid or feel uncomfortable around.

 

[hopkins]

This is going to wind up circular.

The objectivist crowd is going to say "if you think you heard a difference between two amps then one or both of the amps is not audibly transparent." The subjectivist crowd is going to say "we heard a difference between two transparent amps so the definition or the premise, or both, is flawed."

The objectivist position here rests upon the simplistic view that if the amplifiers cannot be identified in quick blind testing, then the differences reported are imagined.* In the subjectivist world this dog won't hunt.

*In another thread, to solve this never-ending listening test methodology disagreement, I advocated for designing a protocol which would satisfy both sides: some kind of a long-term listening comparison which somehow would remain blind to the listener.

One reason debates don't get solved is because people don't recognize that they don't have the same listening preferences. Solid state amps find an application in different systems, with different types of speakers, than low power tube amps, for example. These different systems each have their pros and cons. There is no perfect system.

The same problem is occuring with immersive audio. Those who argue for it most vocally insist on saying it is superior, more "accurate". It is simply different.

 

[the sound of Tao]

The worst part is, there a lot of people who might have become friends or at least excited to gather with at shows. Instead its people you avoid or feel uncomfortable around.

The world’s a different place when you just hang out with people and play music and have a good laugh together every now and then. The lens of distortion that reading written stuff all the time about our various niches isn’t a helpful one to view people through all the time… we aren’t just clashing words and ideas, we have our human lightness and even simple smiles people will never read in a post.. especially now that emojis are so frowned on.

 

[Ron Resnick]

One reason debates don't get solved is because people don't recognize that they don't have the same listening preferences.

+1

(Wait, isn't this one of my favorite drums to bang? )

 

[Analog Scott]

In a thread about everything making a difference, I’m curious about how you would conduct this test of 10 audibly transparent amplifiers.

Please name specifically what 10 amplifiers you would select and what speakers they would drive to prove in a double blind test that they all sound the same.

In a real world test it would come down to who wanted to take such a test and what system they would want to use. Then it would come down to practicality. What amplifiers would be available that were not under powered.

Most modern SS amps fit the bill as long as they have enough power to drive the speakers of choice.

The number of amps tested would also come down to what it would take to make the point.

But more so than anything, these tests rest on what audiophiles really want to know. Are you looking for the true answer or are you looking for confirmation of your existing beliefs. That more than anything will dictate any test.

 

[Analog Scott]

This is going to wind up circular.

The objectivist crowd is going to say "if you think you heard a difference between two amps then one or both of the amps is not audibly transparent." The subjectivist crowd is going to say "we heard a difference between two transparent amps so the definition or the premise, or both, is flawed."

The objectivist position here rests upon the simplistic view that if the amplifiers cannot be identified in quick blind testing, then the differences reported are imagined.* In the subjectivist world this dog won't hunt.

*In another thread, to solve this never-ending listening test methodology disagreement, I advocated for designing a protocol which would satisfy both sides: some kind of a long-term listening comparison which somehow would remain blind to the listener.

I think this often comes down to experience with ABX DBTs. Despite the belief that they are weapons against subjectivism when properly designed they are about as sensitive to real audible differences as possible.

Quick switching is your friend. It is the most not way to directly compare actual sound perception to equal sound perception. Otherwise you are always comparing actual sound to a memory of sound. That’s a huge problem.

I can go into details later. I’m on my way out the door. But time synchronized quick switching comparisons are essential.

 

[cjfrbw]

An interesting binaural comparison of room treatments from the 'New Record Day' dude. Use good headphones:

I thought the greatest difference was just putting the furniture in the room, reduced it to damped from echo chamber. The various treatments mas o menor.

 

[Geoffkait]

I think this often comes down to experience with ABX DBTs. Despite the belief that they are weapons against subjectivism when properly designed they are about as sensitive to real audible differences as possible.

Quick switching is your friend. It is the most not way to directly compare actual sound perception to equal sound perception. Otherwise you are always comparing actual sound to a memory of sound. That’s a huge problem.

I can go into details later. I’m on my way out the door. But time synchronized quick switching comparisons are essential.

You can go into details later? You’re on the way out the door? That’s brilliant!

 

[Daverich4]

BTW., it is the same in the pharmaceutical industry. We develop drugs with a given purity and potency. However, what that drug does cannot be determined by measurements alone (such as dissolution testing for tablets). It has to be correlated to clinical results where it is administered to patients. However, it is not even enough to get their blood plasma concentrations. This tells you that yes, the drug dissolved as it was supposed to and yes, it is now circulating in the bloodstream the way you expected, but it STILL doesn't tell you about the efficacy for the given indication. What you then try to do is correlate with technical data so that you gain a bit of predictive power.

From following along with your previous posts I’m not sure why you’re invoking the pharmaceutical industry in support of your views. They are after all, the epitome of double blind testing. The use of the drug being tested vs. placebos is at the heart of their research.

 

[Rexp]

In a real world test it would come down to who wanted to take such a test and what system they would want to use. Then it would come down to practicality. What amplifiers would be available that were not under powered.

Most modern SS amps fit the bill as long as they have enough power to drive the speakers of choice.

The number of amps tested would also come down to what it would take to make the point.

But more so than anything, these tests rest on what audiophiles really want to know. Are you looking for the true answer or are you looking for confirmation of your existing beliefs. That more than anything will dictate any test.

Do you mean power amps?
Please list some you feel sound the same.