Does Everything Make a Difference?

[Analog Scott]

Sorry to repeat, but I think this circularity problem needs to be resolved as a threshold matter before your challenge can proceed.

Not sure where the problem is. The assertion is that a large number of modern SS amps do not audibly distort, color or in any way influence the sound other than to add the power needed to drive the speakers.

It is both directly and indirectly testable.

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."

Small rant before I address your points. The labels “objectivist” and “subjectivist” are simply misused in audiophilia. Harry Pearson of TAS was an objectivist despite being the poster child of the so called “subjectivist camp” While Toole and Olive are subjectivists despite being the poster children of the so called “objectivist camp”

The great divide is not a matter of subjectivism vs. objectivism. It’s a matter of whether or not one is aware of and/or accepts well established scientific understandings of how humans hear, process and remember sound or are not aware of it and/or reject it.

Here is a link to a great video that lays out pretty much everything there is on the issues in play.

Around the 13:00 mark is where it gets to the point. and this really is the true division in audiophilia. And you will see two different responses to this video.

1. It’s not true because________ (fill in the blank)
2. Yup it’s true. That is exactly why we need synchronized, quick switching, level matched double blind tests to reliably determine that actual differences in the sound exist or…. we can rely on established metrics of human hearing thresholds and apply measurements to determine the presence of audible differences.

The message in the video is very clear. It is human nature for us to hear differences where there is no difference in the actual sound if we try to compare an aural memory to real time sound. One either accepts that reality or denies it.

Denial of that reality has sent an entire large subset of audiophiles down a rabbit hole that in some cases leads to $100K speaker cables, 30K power cords and putting blue dots under beverage coasters. (All of those things are actual things in audiophilia. No exaggeration)

Two amplifiers can be sonically transparent and yet one can appear to be slightly more crystalline transparent than the other (for example, McIntosh solid-state versus Einstein OTL on Wilson Audio XVX in one comparison I heard).

When I refer to amps being transparent it means zero audible change to the signal the component is fed. So by definition if you feed the same signal to two different components that are by that definition audibly transparent there will be zero difference in frequency heir sound since neither is changing the audible sound of their input in any way.

If you are using a different definition of “audibly transparent” then we are talking about two different things.

I am talking about zero audible change in any way between a he input and the output other than gain.

Amplifiers can be sonically transparent and, at the same time, they also can sound different in terms of dynamics, speed, tonal balance, tonal emphasis.

Merely declaring "audibly transparent" as the dispositive benchmark doesn't suffice.

If the dynamics or anything else is audibly different between two amps then at least one of them is audibly altering their input signal and is not “audibly transparent” It’s a tautological point.

If you are others have a different understanding of the term then fine, let’s use a different term. But I am talking about not audibly affecting the sound in any way.

 

[PeterA]

Not sure where the problem is. The assertion is that a large number of modern SS amps do not audibly distort, color or in any way influence the sound other than to add the power needed to drive the speakers.

It is both directly and indirectly testable.


Small rant before I address your points. The labels “objectivist” and “subjectivist” are simply misused in audiophilia. Harry Pearson of TAS was an objectivist despite being the poster child of the so called “subjectivist camp” While Toole and Olive are subjectivists despite being the poster children of the so called “objectivist camp”

The great divide is not a matter of subjectivism vs. objectivism. It’s a matter of whether or not one is aware of and/or accepts well established scientific understandings of how humans hear, process and remember sound or are not aware of it and/or reject it.

Here is a link to a great video that lays out pretty much everything there is on the issues in play.

Around the 13:00 mark is where it gets to the point. and this really is the true division in audiophilia. And you will see two different responses to this video.

1. It’s not true because________ (fill in the blank)
2. Yup it’s true. That is exactly why we need synchronized, quick switching, level matched double blind tests to reliably determine that actual differences in the sound exist or…. we can rely on established metrics of human hearing thresholds and apply measurements to determine the presence of audible differences.

The message in the video is very clear. It is human nature for us to hear differences where there is no difference in the actual sound if we try to compare an aural memory to real time sound. One either accepts that reality or denies it.

Denial of that reality has sent an entire large subset of audiophiles down a rabbit hole that in some cases leads to $100K speaker cables, 30K power cords and putting blue dots under beverage coasters. (All of those things are actual things in audiophilia. No exaggeration)



When I refer to amps being transparent it means zero audible change to the signal the component is fed. So by definition if you feed the same signal to two different components that are by that definition audibly transparent there will be zero difference in frequency heir sound since neither is changing the audible sound of their input in any way.

If you are using a different definition of “audibly transparent” then we are talking about two different things.

I am talking about zero audible change in any way between a he input and the output other than gain.

If the dynamics or anything else is audibly different between two amps then at least one of them is audibly altering their input signal and is not “audibly transparent” It’s a tautological point.

If you are others have a different understanding of the term then fine, let’s use a different term. But I am talking about not audibly affecting the sound in any way.

You offered to fly to Switzerland to administer a double blind test on Morricab with ten (10) “audibly transparent” amplifiers to prove that he can not tell them apart. You later explained that they would have to be sufficiently powered to drive the speakers. Let us assume you test the amps using his source and speakers. What ten amps would you bring for the test?

 

[Analog Scott]

I’ve got a Sanders Magtech which I had on my Magenepan 20.7s so I’m very familiar with the amp and a mate had a pair of Magtechs he ran as monos into his Magnepan 20.7s. Even just swapping from a stereo to the monos on his rig sounded different to when he was running just one as a stereo Magtech amp.

I’ve heard the Anthem M1s as well, my ex brother in law had this, (we did an AB compare of the two at the time he was buying the M1 second hand). I much preferred the Magtech amp but I’d suggest there are better solid state amps out there than both these. Both these amps are reasonably neutral in balance but neither of them is transparent.

Were the comparisons done double blind and level matched?

 

[Analog Scott]

You offered to fly to Switzerland to administer a double blind test on Morricab with ten (10) “audibly transparent” amplifiers to prove that he can not tell them apart. You later explained that they would have to be sufficiently powered to drive the speakers. Let us assume you test the amps using his source and speakers. What ten amps would you bring for the test?

The offer was not accepted. I would have worked on the list if the offer had been accepted. It would have been based on the speakers and other ancillary equipment to be used. It also would have been based on resources available to me at the time and location of the test. There is absolutely no point in spending any effort on a list of amps that would have been based on actual logistics. Such a list would not serve any other purpose than to facilitate the specific test that was rejected.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Not sure where the problem is.

I see that.

The assertion is that a large number of modern SS amps do not audibly distort, color or in any way influence the sound other than to add the power needed to drive the speakers.

It is both directly and indirectly testable.

The problem, I think, is that you are so convinced of your position you are not understanding the problem.

Small rant before I address your points. The labels “objectivist” and “subjectivist” are simply misused in audiophilia. Harry Pearson of TAS was an objectivist despite being the poster child of the so called “subjectivist camp” While Toole and Olive are subjectivists despite being the poster children of the so called “objectivist camp”

I don't know what definitions you are using here, and I did not know the gentlemen personally, so I'm not in a position to evaluate the propriety of your characterizations.

The great divide is not a matter of subjectivism vs. objectivism. It’s a matter of whether or not one is aware of and/or accepts well established scientific understandings of how humans hear, process and remember sound or are not aware of it and/or reject it.

I totally disagree. This is an example of the circularity I have been talking about.

That is exactly why we need synchronized, quick switching, level matched double blind tests to reliably determine that actual differences in the sound exist or…. we can rely on established metrics of human hearing thresholds and apply measurements to determine the presence of audible differences.

The message in the video is very clear. It is human nature for us to hear differences where there is no difference in the actual sound if we try to compare an aural memory to real time sound. One either accepts that reality or denies it.

Back to square one. Instead of demanding a particular methodological protocol which is inconsistent with the personal experience of many audiophiles, why not design a protocol methodologically satisfactory to you which also satisfies the requirements of the skeptics of "quick switching, level matched double blind tests"?

When I refer to amps being transparent it means zero audible change to the signal the component is fed. So by definition if you feed the same signal to two different components that are by that definition audibly transparent there will be zero difference in frequency heir sound since neither is changing the audible sound of their input in any way.

Unfortunately for your position, this is just not what happens in real life for experienced audiophiles. Different transparent amplifiers sound different, even if by measurements and oscilloscope display there is no apparent change to the signal the component is fed.

How does a sense of sonic "dryness" show up in your amplifier measurements?

Not everything that can be measured matters sonically, and not everything that matters sonically can be measured.

If you are using a different definition of “audibly transparent” then we are talking about two different things.

I am talking about zero audible change in any way between a he input and the output other than gain.

If the dynamics or anything else is audibly different between two amps then at least one of them is audibly altering their input signal and is not “audibly transparent."

Okay, then most high-end amplifiers are not "audibly transparent," because different sonic attributes can be discerned among them.

 

[PeterA]

The offer was not accepted. I would have worked on the list if the offer had been accepted. It would have been based on the speakers and other ancillary equipment to be used. It also would have been based on resources available to me at the time and location of the test. There is absolutely no point in spending any effort on a list of amps that would have been based on actual logistics. Such a list would not serve any other purpose than to facilitate the specific test that was rejected.

so many qualifications. I did not think you would supply a list of 10 audibly transparent amplifiers. Such a list would serve the purpose of telling us what amplifiers you find audibly transparent, given the appropriate load. I’m simply curious to know whether or not I’ve heard any of them. It seems you do not want to have this conversation.

 

[morricab]

so many qualifications. I did not think you would supply a list of 10 audibly transparent amplifiers. Search a list would serve the purpose of telling us what amplifiers you find horribly transparent, given the appropriate load. I’m simply curious to know whether or not I’ve heard any of them. It seems you do not want to have this conversation.

And how would they be predetermined to be “audibly transparent “? Would Analog Scott first do his own double blind tests to select amps with which he couldn’t tell a difference? Would he go strictly on THD measurements and say that anything below X% is inaudible. Obviously, even selecting candidates is fraught with difficulty but AS just glosses over it acting like we are all dumb and don’t know what he means by “audibly transparent “.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Were the comparisons done double blind and level matched?

We weren’t setting out to do dbts but I did however level match and also concealed from my ex brother in law which of the amps was on. He was the main focus as it was his audition, I was just assisting mainly. He took down some listening notes on each of the amps and his observations were fairly spot on from my perspective. We agreed about the qualities but did have different thoughts about what was important.

i swapped them out. I did ABBA as the order because I liked the reference. I remember making a comment about ABBA. He picked out the amp changes correctly. The differences he noted were clearly along the lines of the differences that I was hearing as well.

His preference was for the Anthem M1s which was a good choice for him because he mainly wanted a home theatre setup with occasional background music duties. If he was going for a more refined two channel music based system the Magtech would have been my recommendation as the more nuanced amp. I find it surprising you find these amps sound the same in your system.

 

[Geoffkait]

Analog Scott wrote: “The great divide is not a matter of subjectivism vs. objectivism. It’s a matter of whether or not one is aware of and/or accepts well established scientific understandings of how humans hear, process and remember sound or are not aware of it and/or reject it.”

That‘s gold, Jerry, Gold!!

 

[Ron Resnick]

The great divide is not a matter of subjectivism vs. objectivism. It’s a matter of whether or not one is aware of and/or accepts well established scientific understandings of how humans hear, process and remember sound or are not aware of it and/or reject it.

1) This point rejects subjectivism -- while pretending to understand it.

2) This point presumes conclusively that science understands (and, implicitly, can measure objectively) all of the attributes of human hearing we describe in this hobby. I think this presumption is false.

 

[Geoffkait]

The dreaded controlled blind test rears its ugly head. As if a controlled blind test will settle this question, or any audio question. Look, it’s like the dunking chair used in Salem witch-hunts to determine if a woman accused of witchcraft was a real witch. If the woman dies by dunking in the lake it means she couldn’t have been a real witch, a real witch would survive dunking, you can’t kill a real witch.

 

[sbnx]

AnalogScott said "Not sure where the problem is. The assertion is that a large number of modern SS amps do not audibly distort, color or in any way influence the sound other than to add the power needed to drive the speakers."

Since I was a young audiophile I would read Stereophile reviews. Given my background in science and engineering I was always very interested in the measurement section. I don't think I have ever seen two amplifiers with exactly the same measurements. We have many different measurements such as frequency response -3dB point, Harmonic distortion, Intermodulation distortion, distortion vs power output, stability into low impedance, square wave reproduction, Input impedance, output impedance and problably some I didn't list. Is the assertion that once any given measurement crosses a certain threshold then it no longer matters? If this is not the case then I don't understand the point as since no two amplifiers have exactly the same measurements then we would say we would expect some sonic difference.

And if measured performance was the end-all then why don't all modern SS amps crank up the global feedback to get ever decreasing distortion numbers? My answer to that is because anyone who has experienced this knows it flat out sounds bad.

Why would anyone need 10 amplifiers to be able to judge this? Assuming we are not talking about a system where the sound is just some disorganized blob then 2 should be plent to demonstrate this. e.g. pick a big 50W class A, no negative feeback design (e.g. Gryphon) and pick a 400W class AB amp that uses negative feedback. Both would easily drive any speaker to a listening level high enough to evalute the sound. The sonic difference would be obvious.

 

[Geoffkait]

Well established

You offered to fly to Switzerland to administer a double blind test on Morricab with ten (10) “audibly transparent” amplifiers to prove that he can not tell them apart. You later explained that they would have to be sufficiently powered to drive the speakers. Let us assume you test the amps using his source and speakers. What ten amps would you bring for the test?

Analog Scott was going to administer the double blind test? Whoa! Red Flag! He who controls the test controls the outcome. This was exactly The Amazing Randi’s ploy, that’s how he never lost a Million Dollar Challenge to audiophiles or dowsers or ghost whisperers.

 

[PYP]

Denial of that reality has sent an entire large subset of audiophiles down a rabbit hole that in some cases leads to $100K speaker cables, 30K power cords and putting blue dots under beverage coasters. (All of those things are actual things in audiophilia. No exaggeration)

I would think anyone who has $100K for speaker cables also has the reasoning power to make up their own mind. Some pursue these kinds of things the way they would buy an expensive watch -- it is a collectible and offers satisfaction beyond the basic use. After all, an expensive watch only provides the time and your mobile phone will be at least as accurate and be easier to see. Can't you see that there are folks who also have fun with finding the best (for them)? If they see an $100 expense as you would a $10 expense, their priorities and choices are likely going to be different. In other worlds, the universe is a large (and ever-expanding, we are told) place.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

I don't think I have ever seen two amplifiers with exactly the same measurements.

...perhaps even two amps of the same model and manufacturer? I have two Luxman m900s that have measured two-degrees (F) different since day-one. Both on same platforms, cabling, distance from other devices, etc. Air circulation should be *very* close to the same. Not specifically what is intended here, but a call-out nonetheless.

 

[morricab]

Well established


Analog Scott was going to administer the double blind test? Whoa! Red Flag! He who controls the test controls the outcome. This was exactly The Amazing Randi’s ploy, that’s how he never lost a Million Dollar Challenge to audiophiles or dowsers or ghost whisperers.

Yeah, I was just waiting for him to ask for my credit card number or tell me he is a Nigerian banker with $25M sitting in an account that he needs help
In retrieving.

 

[Lagonda]

Yeah, I was just waiting for him to ask for my credit card number or tell me he is a Nigerian banker with $25M sitting in an account that he needs help
In retrieving.

You Swiss and your bank fetish !

 

[Analog Scott]

1) This point rejects subjectivism -- while pretending to understand it.

Subjectivism as a philosophy that objective reality does not exist? Yes. But so do the “subjectivists” who insist there are real physical cause and effect elements to all things audio.

Subjectivism in audio in that one’s personal goal is ultimately subjective excellence dictated by personal preferences as opposed to using an objective reference to measure excellence? Certainly not

2) This point presumes conclusively that science understands (and, implicitly, can measure objectively) all of the attributes of human hearing we describe in this hobby. I think this presumption is false.

No such presumption exists. It’s based on several large bodies of research. Research that is always subject to falsification. That’s how science works. Quite the opposite of presumptuous or conclusive.

It’s no different than any other science.

 

[Analog Scott]

I would think anyone who has $100K for speaker cables also has the reasoning power to make up their own mind.

Money does not buy you good sense. The reasoning power bar for merely making up one’s own mind is about as low a bar as can be set.

Some pursue these kinds of things the way they would buy an expensive watch -- it is a collectible and offers satisfaction beyond the basic use. After all, an expensive watch only provides the time and your mobile phone will be at least as accurate and be easier to see.

who buys $100K cables with the idea that they don’t make a physical audible difference? And let’s say you do find one or a couple individuals. Do you not think that some audiophiles have bought these and other expensive cables and power cords believing that these things make a substantial difference? And do you not think that is exactly what the makers are in effect saying?

 

[Analog Scott]

Yeah, I was just waiting for him to ask for my credit card number or tell me he is a Nigerian banker with $25M sitting in an account that he needs help
In retrieving.

You don’t need Nigerian scammers when you have high end audio snake oil salesmen.