Sign in to follow this  
kernow

'All amps sound the same'

Recommended Posts

SergeAuckland wrote:

And good for them. It doesn't work for me. If I hear a difference, it drives me nuts until I know why and how.

But then, I accept very few things without knowing the whys and hows. My problem certainly.

S.

I can understand that and sympathise to a large degree.

Fortunately you can reach some sort of equilibrium as your theory matches your test results.

Where I have a problem with the oft repeated nature of your posts, is that by instilling doubt you may be upsetting the equilibrium of folk who enjoy their hobby, part of which is an interest in the differences between equipment and making use of such differences to tune their system to their own satisfaction.

I just hope that you don't transfer your own anxieties about hifi to people who were previously quite content.

Cheers, Malcolm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SergeAuckland wrote:

And good for them. It doesn't work for me. If I hear a difference, it drives me nuts until I know why and how.

But then, I accept very few things without knowing the whys and hows. My problem certainly.

S.

No bad principle in the Scientific mind Serge ,however one would hopea mind openenoughtoconsider the possibility that Science has yet to provide an answer for absolutely Everything that manifests itself within our little corporealexistence and that scientists refrainfrom applying the following absolute .

damnant quodnon intelligunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zebra100 wrote:

Ah yes, but could Nigel Kennedy spot a Stradivarius in a blind listeningtesting, say against any other well made violin (made using the same material)?

LOL I would hope he could if he was playing the instrument, unless his eyesight isn't so good these days :D

On a more serious note..........

i_should_coco wrote:

SergeAuckland wrote:
i_should_coco wrote:
SergeAuckland wrote:
guypettigrew wrote:
zebra100 wrote:
Like it or not, all competently designed andtransparentkit, with distortion levels below the audibility of soundwill sound the same. Why this statementcontinues to upset people is beyond me.

Chris

Because the underlying logic behind this would also state that "all kit which sounds the same is competently designed and transpaarent...etc etc".

In other words, all kit which sounds the same, sounds the same.

This is the only truth.

There is no Hi Fi kit on the planet which is perfectlydesigned, perfectly assembled and uses perfect components.

If two amps were built this way, though, then they would, undoubtedly, sound the same.

Or, in other words, the amps which sound the same are an abstract, theoretical construct. One towards which amp designers and component manufacturers continue to struggle.

Guy

But it doesn't need to be perfect, just good enough to be transparent. Once you have transparency, which is trivially easy these days, all such amps must necessarily sound the same. If they don't, then one that doesn't can't be transparent, it must be changing ther sound in some way.

S.

Serge, have you ever measured into a real load, rather than just into resistors? (a serious question).

Yes I have, but not at full power, as I couldn't stay in the same building as a loudspeaker reproducing tone or white noise at high levels. Few loudspeakers can stand 100 watts or so continuous for suffcient time.

What I have done more usefully, is to create a dummy load that had resistive and reactive components that simulated a typical loudspeaker. What I used was a loudspeaker crossover network with resistors and inductorsin place of the drive units. This doesn't simulate the back-emf from a moving driver, but is otherwise quite close.

S.

What were your results? However, I suspect this makes a difference as you're trying to feed energy back into the amplifier, which in the presence of a feedback loop could easily highlight some issues.

I am with Pete on this one. I believe the motor/ generator effect of a moving coil loudspeaker, ( or the large capacitive impact of an electrostatic) have a significant impact on the ability of even the best amplifier to deliver a good sound into a real load. Faced with the complex load presented to the amplifier by the loudspeaker, plus any back emf, then there is good reason to expect different amplifiers of varying designs and construction to most probably deal with the impact of this in a slightly different way. Hence accounting for the belief there is a difference in thesound heard between samples.

Also are we not forgetting the difficult interface with the room the loudspeaker itself has to make. This causes all sorts of resonances and response aberrations that are quite likely to interact with what may be small measured differences between amplifiers on the test bench and make them much larger and significant differencewith real music in real rooms.Hence peoples abilities to hear differences that may be considered by Serge as Small on the bench, but much greater during listening tests. This is why I advocate the use of both measured performance AND listening to choose equipment of all types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TheMooN wrote:

most folk's ,who feel they have enough trust in their own perception

I wouldn't trust my own or anyone else's perception. Avatar in 3D works by fooling your senses. Speedometers are required for a reason, as are odometers, rulers, thermometers etc., etc., etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

gazar wrote:

Mine sounds just like a Golf.:)

'Throws NAD and Rotel amps on the floor in frustration'.......CLUNK!

Yep they do indeed both sound the same and also both sound exactly like a Golf.

;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TheMooN wrote:

SergeAuckland wrote:
And good for them. It doesn't work for me. If I hear a difference, it drives me nuts until I know why and how.

But then, I accept very few things without knowing the whys and hows. My problem certainly.

S.

No bad principle in the Scientific mind Serge ,however one would hopea mind openenoughtoconsider the possibility that Science has yet to provide an answer for absolutely Everything that manifests itself within our little corporealexistence and that scientists refrainfrom applying the following absolute .

damnant quodnon intelligunt

Indeed, but my feeling is that the damning of things they don't understand comes more from subjectivists. This is not just true of HiFi, but of other "unproved" (to be kind) activities like Reiki, homeopathy, most anti-ageing creams, expensive wines which, on blind tasting, do no better than supermarket plonk, and so on.

I expect that most with a scientific mind will continuously search for answers, and not just accept what the collective wisdom of magazines and internet fora tell them.

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ultrawomble wrote:

TheMooN wrote:
most folk's ,who feel they have enough trust in their own perception

I wouldn't trust my own or anyone else's perception. Avatar in 3D works by fooling your senses. Speedometers are required for a reason, as are odometers, rulers, thermometers etc., etc., etc.

Phssss , I very much doubt that yourequire the audio equivalent of 3D glasses stuffed into your ears in order for your brain tointemperate the harmonics of an audio waveform as reproduced via two disparate 0.1% THD amplifiers .

Neither do I require the assistance of speedometers , odometers , rulers , thermometeres etc;etc;etc ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SergeAuckland wrote:

I expect that most with a scientific mind will continuously search for answers, and not just accept what the collective wisdom of magazines and internet fora tell them.

S.

So do I Serge , I would love tohave this widely reported phenomenon explained one way or the other .

However I feel you are insulting the intelligence of the many whotrust their ownpersonal experiences by inferring they are allvictims ofsomeone else's machinations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TheMooN wrote:

SergeAuckland wrote:
I expect that most with a scientific mind will continuously search for answers, and not just accept what the collective wisdom of magazines and internet fora tell them.

S.

So do I Serge , I would love tohave this widely reported phenomenon explained one way or the other .

However I feel you are insulting the intelligence of the many whotrust their ownpersonal experiences by inferring they are allvictims ofsomeone else's machinations.

I agree. In a court of law anecdotal evidence is taken into account alongside that of the expert witnesses to present a more complete understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TheMooN wrote:

SergeAuckland wrote:
I expect that most with a scientific mind will continuously search for answers, and not just accept what the collective wisdom of magazines and internet fora tell them.

S.

So do I Serge , I would love tohave this widely reported phenomenon explained one way or the other .

However I feel you are insulting the intelligence of the many whotrust their ownpersonal experiences by inferring they are allvictims ofsomeone else's machinations.

Sorry to be pedantic, but I may be implying they're victims. They may infer what I'm implying.

However, I don't think I'm doing either. What I am doing , is pointing out that personal experiences are just that, personal. They have no validity outside of the individual. If someone wants to believe something, that's fine, but it doesn't become a truth until proven. In court, something can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, or even on the balance of probability. That's not good enough for science, where something has to be proven absolutely, for every observer, and repeatable by others.

This is what all the fuss about MOND is about, those that say that dark energy is unnecessary if Newtonian Dynamics were very slightly different once. Newton's Laws have remained as Laws for a very long time, as every bit of experimental evidence maintains their truth, subject of course to modification by relativity, which Newton could know nothing about.

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SergeAuckland wrote:

This is what all the fuss about MOND is about, those that say that dark energy is unnecessary if Newtonian Dynamics were very slightly different once. Newton's Laws have remained as Laws for a very long time, as every bit of experimental evidence maintains their truth, subject of course to modification by relativity, which Newton could know nothing about.

S.

Thus new theories supercede previous ones and explain observed effects. Newton's Laws *aren't* Laws - they are simply and approximation as relativity showed.

But this discrepancy in the precession of the perihelion in Mercury's orbit was observed before Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity. Astronomers just didn't know how to account for it - their current theory could not describe it.

Edit: didn't read your post correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SergeAuckland wrote:

TheMooN wrote:
SergeAuckland wrote:
I expect that most with a scientific mind will continuously search for answers, and not just accept what the collective wisdom of magazines and internet fora tell them.

S.

So do I Serge , I would love tohave this widely reported phenomenon explained one way or the other .

However I feel you are insulting the intelligence of the many whotrust their ownpersonal experiences by inferring they are allvictims ofsomeone else's machinations.

something can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, or even on the balance of probability. That's not good enough for science, where something has to be proven absolutely, for every observer, and repeatable by others.

S.

Quite so ,And you have consistently failed to provide Irrefutable evidence thatwhat you are stating is an Incontrovertible and Universal Law .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TheMooN wrote:

SergeAuckland wrote:
TheMooN wrote:
SergeAuckland wrote:
I expect that most with a scientific mind will continuously search for answers, and not just accept what the collective wisdom of magazines and internet fora tell them.

S.

So do I Serge , I would love tohave this widely reported phenomenon explained one way or the other .

However I feel you are insulting the intelligence of the many whotrust their ownpersonal experiences by inferring they are allvictims ofsomeone else's machinations.

something can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, or even on the balance of probability. That's not good enough for science, where something has to be proven absolutely, for every observer, and repeatable by others.

S.

Quite so ,And you have consistently failed to provide Irrefutable evidence thatwhat you are stating is an Incontrovertible and Universal Law .

Because it's not a Law, it's a theory. A theory based on a certain amount of experimental evidence published in various journals over the years, and, yes, a certain amount of personal experience, which, however, isn't acceptable as evidence as it wasn't done with sufficient rigour.

A theory lives or dies on experimental evidence. So far, I have seen none in favour of the contrary view other than anecdotal evidence.

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer

If the differences in sound for amps can be explained by the problems of driving a real world loudspeaker then.............................................

All pre-amps sound the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

bigfool1956 wrote

All pre-amps sound the same.

Oh noooooooooooooooooo.......................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.