Preamp shoot-out

[GaryProtein]

Gary,

Just wearing blindfolds/having someone else do the switching for a few tests is not enough to determine with sounds best to you in real life. It determines which sounded better in this moment. Absence of knowledge is not enough to be sure you are making a valid test.

Every time I have asked for the full details and methodology that has been used to carry a blind test and the results analysis I never got an answer. Just vague suggestions to use friends. IMHO, it would be great if we could receive only black boxes without knowing what is manufacturer, specification or price. It would be the proper way to choose, with plenty of time. But it is not practical and no one does it.

The whole point of a blind test is to NOT have the methodology revealed until AFTER you make your choice and the test is completed. If you want to test for a month, that's fine. No one is rushing you. What makes it quicker and easier to decide what you like when you are listening with your ears? Could it be that you know what you are comparing costs $1000 or $100,000?

Anyone see chefs on TV take a taste test with a blindfold and headphones to block out sound? It's amazing how many of them fail miserably at picking out common foods and identifying them correctly. I personally believe that you need to live with and listen to components for awhile in order to make meaningful judgements with regards to which one is *best.* Unless of course that one device is so far superior to the other that it's laughable. I for one would not want to spend my money on buying a component strictly based on a six gun double blind shoot out. I truly think you need to live with a component for a period of time before you can make meaningful judgements of where it stands in your pecking order.

Again, take as much time as you like to decide. You mean if you didn't have any idea what you were listening to you might accidentally pick a common consumer piece over an expensive class A recommended piece on some occasion?

I don't have data to prove it, but I am sure "taste memory" is better than "auditory memory" so I wouldn't doubt that listeners would pick the "wrong" component sometimes.

So basically the stats are rigged from the beginning?

Not at all. In a valid, non-presumptive, unbiased test, you simply pick what sounds best to your ears. If you want to test it for a month, fine, but don't go peeking to see what's inside the black box. Just pick the black box that sounds best.


All branches of science strive for a double blind randomized or at least single blind randomized test in their experiments.

Selecting the "best" preamplifier can be done as in a medical clinical study, of which there are four main types: (1) Double blind randomized trial, (2) Single blind randomized trial, (3) Non-blind trial and (4) Non-randomized trial. For the sake of testing a preamplifier, an inanimate object, both the double blind and single blind tests should give the same results because the preamplifier, as best we can tell, doesn't know it is the subject of a test unless you think it has sentience, and the Non-blind and Non-randomized tests should give the same results because the listener can see the preamplifier being tested, so we are back to the "know what you are listening to" test where you know if it costs $1000 or $100,000 and the "guess what you are listening to" test. In each case you pick what sounds best and you can take as much time as you like to decide.

What part of the blind test isn't fair or reasonable?

 

[Bill Hart]

OK guys, I hand in my arms on this one

You all actually got me curious again about the validity of my conclusion on SE/balanced. The explanation of audioexplorations makes sense, as does the explanation of Steve Williams.
I do have some Cardas converters to be able to connect an XLR cable to an RCA in- and output. This is the way I tested the Lamm L2. No doubt such connectors lead to a loss of signal quality.

Hence, I wll reassess this when I am enabled to make some direct comparisons as all my cables now are with XLR termination. Meanwhile, I do hope the test report may be useful to the wider community although it is nothing more than a one-person's view. If I were to look at evaluations of others only, my system would be looking very different i guess.

cheers.

As I recall the Lamm L2 had XLR outputs but no XLR inputs. I owned one for quite a while, it was very natural sounding, a bit 'dark,' and didn't have terribly deep bass or very illuminated high frequencies, but, at least in my system, it seemed tonally correct and had a very relaxed presentation that made the music flow, in combo with Lamm's ML 2s (which also have an XLR input but isn't a real balanced set-up). It was significantly bettered by the 2d Gen (lithio) Veloce line stage across the spectrum, at least with the DR version of the supertube. The original Veloce had more at the frequency extremes than the Lamm L2, but did not sound as natural in the midrange as the Lamm. I can't really comment on the others.

 

[JackD201]

I wish Lamm would make a two chassis version of the LL1 or a preamp that sounds like the LL1 (and has the same voltage drive) in a two box max configuration. They say they will be introducing new products at more price points to celebrate their 20th anniversary. I hope this is one of them.

 

[microstrip]

(...) What part of the blind test isn't fair or reasonable?

Easy question. The constraints created by the practical execution of proper blind tests in high-end systems and the resources needed to carry them. IMHO it is why we never had a full report of a properly carried blind test of any use in the high-end.

 

[MarinJim]

It's this sort of silly nonsensical hype that makes me weary of certain audiophiles.

tb1

Exquezz me for forgetting to put a smiley at the end of my statement. And the Concert Fidelity is the best preamp I have heard in 30 years in this hobby. It is neither silly nor nonsensical.

 

[FrantzM]

Easy question. The constraints created by the practical execution of proper blind tests in high-end systems and the resources needed to carry them. IMHO it is why we never had a full report of a properly carried blind test of any use in the high-end.

As opposed to the sighted tests that are the standard method of evaluating components

 

[GaryProtein]

Easy question. The constraints created by the practical execution of proper blind tests in high-end systems and the resources needed to carry them. IMHO it is why we never had a full report of a properly carried blind test of any use in the high-end.

All you need is two people. One who does the equipment switching and one or as many as you like to do the listening.

It seems quite simple and easy to perform.

Reviewers at Stereophile or Absolute Sound keep their review pieces for months or longer. Nobody is rushing the reviewers.

 

[JackD201]

Just curious Gary, out of all the components in your listening room and living room listed in your signature, how many of these did you evaluate under the protocol you prescribed?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Not in my experience, I've heard no such limitations with fine SE based components. Admittedly, I've heard plenty balanced gear sound excellent, and were indeed better when in balanced mode, but I consider that more of a design initiative than an inherited character of SE as a whole.

To date, the very best systems I've heard in regards to detail retrieval, musical integrity, and dimensional qualities remain SE.

tb1

+++++1.

 

[microstrip]

All you need is two people. One who does the equipment switching and one or as many as you like to do the listening.

It seems quite simple and easy to perform.

Reviewers at Stereophile or Absolute Sound keep their review pieces for months or longer. Nobody is rushing the reviewers.

It seems quite simple and easy but in practice it is not. Consider cables - if you want to evaluate a cable set you have to change typically the speaker cables and two sets of interconnects. You have to switch off the power amplifier, if you use tube equipment it will take a few minutes before the change is done. Do you believe that magazine reviewers have slaves available every time they want to change something?

BTW, I am still waiting for a detailed protocol, even if it is easy and simple.

 

[microstrip]

As opposed to the sighted tests that are the standard method of evaluating components

At less we know their limitations. But we will never know the limitations of the blind tests carried by WBF members as no one ventures to fully describe them

 

[andromedaaudio]

My pre amp is the best no mine is the best ....???
" I challenge you to a pre amp duel may the best pre amp win" , put on your blindfold and go for it

 

[AudioExplorations]

As opposed to the sighted tests that are the standard method of evaluating components

Every single time on audio forums when DBT is brought up it is shot down. Yes they are almost always badly executed and therefore statistically relevant conclusions cannot be drawn from them, but a badly done blind test still gives more valuable insights to sound alone than any sightest test IMO.

 

[microstrip]

Every single time on audio forums when DBT is brought up it is shot down. Yes they are almost always badly executed and therefore statistically relevant conclusions cannot be drawn from them, but a badly done blind test still gives more valuable insights to sound alone than any sightest test IMO.

AudioExplorations,
I would love to hear about the valuable insights that you have experienced in your badly done blind tests.

 

[FrantzM]

At less we know their limitations. But we will never know the limitations of the blind tests carried by WBF members as no one ventures to fully describe them

microstrip

I have describe mine and I do not pretend they are conclusive. The cables test Mike L subjected himself to were described rather well in AVS Forum and the results are still there for your perusal. You make what you want of the methodologies but the read could be an interesting one.

For the record my view is not that there are no differences between electronics. To my ears and even the way I understand things to work there must be. I believe however that our knowledge of the electronics under test or review colors our views. A short review of say three preamps in a well known system but with the knowledge of which preamps under test is removed would have been interesting, although extremely inconvenient to pull off. I am supposing some matching between the components, i-e no low impedance speaker to be driven by a 8 watts SET , etc. I don't see such an experience as beyond the means of some magazine or even Audio Clubs. Whether the magazines would perceive as in their interest to carry it is a different subject.
Back to your thread about preamp shoot-out.

 

[microstrip]

microstrip

I have describe mine and I do not pretend they are conclusive. The cables test Mike L subjected himself to were described rather well in AVS Forum and the results are still there for your perusal. You make what you want of the methodologies but the read could be an interesting one.

For the record my view is not that there are no differences between electronics. To my ears and even the way I understand things to work there must be. I believe however that our knowledge of the electronics under test or review colors our views. A short review of say three preamps in a well known system but with the knowledge of which preamps under test is removed would have been interesting, although extremely inconvenient to pull off. I am supposing some matching between the components, i-e no low impedance speaker to be driven by a 8 watts SET , etc. I don't see such an experience as beyond the means of some magazine or even Audio Clubs. Whether the magazines would perceive as in their interest to carry it is a different subject.
Back to your thread about preamp shoot-out.

Frantz,

Fine, yours were not conclusive. Mike L ones could be interesting. Reviewers are lazy. If these are the best conclusions with experimental basis we can get to support DBT in WBF, we really should go back to the thread about preamp shoot-out. My time to use the !

 

[steve williams]

I wish Lamm would make a two chassis version of the LL1 or a preamp that sounds like the LL1 (and has the same voltage drive) in a two box max configuration. They say they will be introducing new products at more price points to celebrate their 20th anniversary. I hope this is one of them.

No you don't Jack. If I have enough space in my room for the LL1 Signature so do you

 

[steve williams]

As I recall the Lamm L2 had XLR outputs but no XLR inputs. I owned one for quite a while, it was very natural sounding, a bit 'dark,' and didn't have terribly deep bass or very illuminated high frequencies, but, at least in my system, it seemed tonally correct and had a very relaxed presentation that made the music flow, in combo with Lamm's ML 2s (which also have an XLR input but isn't a real balanced set-up). It was significantly bettered by the 2d Gen (lithio) Veloce line stage across the spectrum, at least with the DR version of the supertube. The original Veloce had more at the frequency extremes than the Lamm L2, but did not sound as natural in the midrange as the Lamm. I can't really comment on the others.

you're correct. As I stated Vlad never IIRC use an XLR input but does use them in the output but as mentioned they are pseudobalanced connections with one of the pins shorted.

 

[ack]

Isn't true balanced design difficult to execute, thinking that it's hard to exactly match the components of the two opposite-phase circuits? Isn't it even harder to match tubes within said circuits? How tight would tolerances have to be to call a true balanced circuit successful and superior to single-ended?

 

[GaryProtein]

Just curious Gary, out of all the components in your listening room and living room listed in your signature, how many of these did you evaluate under the protocol you prescribed?

That's a fair question and the answer is "a few, definitely not all."

BUT, I am not a professional reviewer being paid by "someone" be it a manufacturer or trade magazine to sway or create other's opinions or to generate revenue. I know there are certain things I [and trained people in general] can hear and things they cannot hear [whether they choose to admit it or not] because no one wants to be labelled as having bad ears. I don't want someone to tell me what's happening 60, 70 or 80 dB below the level of program material. That will let me know they never tested themselves, or worse, they're lying, and then I can't believe anything they say. I know I have certain preferences in sound. I have a preference for a slightly darker sound. I don't like sizzle unless I absolutely know it should be there. My gold standard for testing is classical music, mostly orchestral. I expect the instruments to have the timbre and sound of real live instruments, NOT for the recording to necessarily sound "spectacular."

I have blind tested certain components. Obviously, my IRS-V isn't one of them. It's kind of hard to hide. I have blind tested other speakers, cables and pre-amps and power amps. A few before making a purchase and a few for entertainment value afterward. Depending on the components I can tell the difference between some and cannot tell the difference between some others. There is also a difference between "better" and "different." The closer you get to "perfection" the more similar the components are going to sound. You CAN have two different sounding components that respected groups of people will fall in love with. You CANNOT have two different sounding components that are "perfect," "state of the art," or "the best."

It really isn't hard to do a blind test. You just give another person a screwdriver and maybe a cloth to cover a component or two. As long as you can't see what you are listening to, I don't care how you blind the reviewer.

With the exception of my power amps and crossovers, all my components are behind me when I listen.