Can you hear a difference in Sound between Audio Amplifiers?

[highfigh]

The 2130 had incredible stereo sensitivity @ 50dB quieting, but it major benefits was its better selectivity very important in a metroplitan area and its quartz-lock tuning assuring precise center channel tunning. By the late 70s, the USA market was dominated by receivers, demand for components and separate tuners was minimal so 2130 sales were small.

Just my $0.02..

What about Phase Linear, SAE, SoundCraftsman and the Japanese companies like Sony/Sony Audio Lab, Yamaha, Sansui, JVC and others that made separates? I worked for a stereo store that sold a lot of separates/integrated amps in a city where these were very popular. While MKE doesn't represent the whole country (fortunately), I knew others in many cities who sold these in similar numbers.

I hated the receiver specs race. It was annoying and a lot of bad equipment resulted from it. It didn't help that the audio press was using terminology that wasn't well-understood by their audience.

 

[M Code]

What about Phase Linear, SAE, SoundCraftsman and the Japanese companies like Sony/Sony Audio Lab, Yamaha, Sansui, JVC and others that made separates? I worked for a stereo store that sold a lot of separates/integrated amps in a city where these were very popular. While MKE doesn't represent the whole country (fortunately), I knew others in many cities who sold these in similar numbers.

I hated the receiver specs race. It was annoying and a lot of bad equipment resulted from it. It didn't help that the audio press was using terminology that wasn't well-understood by their audience.

Where are those component brands today..
Myself..
I like separates but the market sales in North America back then went to receivers, just like today..
Most people don't have the space, knowledge or $ budget to use separates, besides finding a local brick/mortar AV specialist today is a major challenge as they concentrate on the very high end separates...

Just my $0.02..

 

[Johnny2Bad]

This is not testing sound quality nor sound differences. And yet you say you have an example of how amps can sound different while this is an example of amps sounding the same and listener having changes in his/hers perception. Which should further promote measurement and not listening, since this is further proof you shouldn't always trust your ears. (With one exception of having the screen so close that you can't make it out anymore which should shield your ears to an extent.)

If being very generous, I could say this measures the starting point and further limens where visual stimuli starts affecting the acoustical stimuli.

You do work very hard in pushing this, I give you that. I just don't quite understand why. What do you stand to lose/gain by all of this? For example, this thread is not about listening vs. measuring at all. It's just about whether you can hear a difference.

Imagine if all audiophiles took your advice and started making their decisions by listening alone, how do you see that world as better? What goals could be met? How would it improve the world of hi-fi?

So far it's just making more room to fool inexperienced listeners. A lot of gear can sound good for as long as it takes to make the sale to an idle buyer.

I sure as hell heard the difference when I switched from a borrowed NAD to my second hand Yamaha. Until this day I didn't get the sound of that NAD and I wanted to as it was very pleasing. I came as close as possible by bypassing everything I could bypass. This further underlines what this and similar threads already pointed out; the difference, yes, but is it a result of the amplification section on its own and not preamp or any postamp parts, given that amplification section is not being pushed? Hardly by what we know so far, but most of us are wide-eyed for new input.

In the mean time I learned something about laid-back mids of the NAD's, so, again, it was not the matter of the amp-section itself.

It is testing your ability to discern subtle differences.

I can easily hear differences if I move the screen of my laptop a half inch. I can also discern differences in file format. But if someone cannot hear subtle differences with changing the laptop's screen reflection of the built-in speakers (and they are definitely not High Fidelity) or isn't interested in discovering if they can hear differences in digital file formats, they are unlikely to agree that you can hear differences in Power Amplifiers.

I don't care what the results are and don't expect anyone to post them; it's for individuals to discover for themselves for their own enlightenment.

 

[3db]

It is testing your ability to discern subtle differences.

I can easily hear differences if I move the screen of my laptop a half inch. I can also discern differences in file format. But if someone cannot hear subtle differences with changing the laptop's screen reflection of the built-in speakers (and they are definitely not High Fidelity) or isn't interested in discovering if they can hear differences in digital file formats, they are unlikely to agree that you can hear differences in Power Amplifiers.

I don't care what the results are and don't expect anyone to post them; it's for individuals to discover for themselves for their own enlightenment.

Are you stating that one can train one's self to be able to be able to hear differences of different types of codec and then use that a basis to to able to detect differences in amplifiers? I still fail to see the relevance because to be able to detect differences in amplifiers, everything but the amplifier must remain the same.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

Are you stating that one can train one's self to be able to be able to hear differences of different types of codec and then use that a basis to to able to detect differences in amplifiers? I still fail to see the relevance because to be able to detect differences in amplifiers, everything but the amplifier must remain the same.

Of course you always only change one variable. What makes you think i suggested doing both at the same time?

To clarify, I am suggesting you can learn if you are sensitive to subtle changes in sonics, and you can train yourself to be so sensitive if you want. Not everyone cares; if the system makes music of some reasonable fidelity, they're happy. Good enough is good enough. Others might be more interested. And if you can hear subtle differences, and perhaps just as importantly choose a preference between them, then maybe you can or will hear differences in Amplifiers (or almost any audio component you might want to evaluate, when in the process of buying something).

There is also a desktop app designed for musicians, called Functional Ear Trainer (free), that will help anyone to easily recognize notes and tones. It's not specific to audio differences, but improving one usually improves the other.

 

[killdozzer]

Of course you always only change one variable. What makes you think i suggested doing both at the same time?

To clarify, I am suggesting you can learn if you are sensitive to subtle changes in sonics, and you can train yourself to be so sensitive if you want. Not everyone cares; if the system makes music of some reasonable fidelity, they're happy. Good enough is good enough. Others might be more interested. And if you can hear subtle differences, and perhaps just as importantly choose a preference between them, then maybe you can or will hear differences in Amplifiers (or almost any audio component you might want to evaluate, when in the process of buying something).

There is also a desktop app designed for musicians, called Functional Ear Trainer (free), that will help anyone to easily recognize notes and tones. It's not specific to audio differences, but improving one usually improves the other.

Wait, wait, wait, this really makes no sense. Oh, and I wouldn't call it enlightenment. Regardless, are you talking about tilting the screen in different positions, like this:

and listening for difference and then using that "training" to hear differences in amps?? And you call this an example of how amplifiers can sound different? You're joking, right? One is turning the speakers away from your ears (nothing subtle about that) and the other is i.e. if using silver wire to make toroidal transformer would make audible difference in sound for anyone other than eargiant. I'm working hard to avoid being offensive, but you're not making it easier.

There's a member here whose nickname is STRONGBADF1, his signature reads; Once you've ruined your reputation, you can live quite freely.

BTW, I grew up with a brother who was so eager to learn how to play a guitar well, that he played 3-4 hours every day (sick or dying) without anyone ever forcing him, and we shared a room. By your standards I could discern between a blue jay and a cardinal if you woke me at midnight. I can't.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
To clarify, I am suggesting you can learn if you are sensitive to subtle changes in sonics, and you can train yourself to be so sensitive if you want. ....

Is there a minimum subtle change that anyone can detect or there is no minimum limit?
If there is, what is that amount?

I wonder why there is a JASA paper on JND thresholds? Why is level matching at .1 dB and not .01?
Is there a phase shift one cannot hear? How about frequency limits? Threshold of detection?

 

[MR.MAGOO]

Nobody can afford a rec'r that's Not Always Dependable.

Is NAD a division of FORD (Fix Or Repair Daily, Found On Road Dead)?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Is NAD a division of FORD (Fix Or Repair Daily, Found On Road Dead)?

LMAO.

 

[highfigh]

Where are those component brands today..
Myself..
I like separates but the market sales in North America back then went to receivers, just like today..
Most people don't have the space, knowledge or $ budget to use separates, besides finding a local brick/mortar AV specialist today is a major challenge as they concentrate on the very high end separates...

Just my $0.02..

I was selling audio in the late-'70s through '88 and those brands were going strong. Then, Sony, Pioneer and others came out with ES, Elite, respectively and whatever the others made- something better was needed because most Japanese manufacturers were making some real crap. Remember the R-series from Sansui? You know the ones- we said "They put the output transistors in to protect the fuses".

Read the posts and threads here- lots of people have separates. It's not the mass market, but if they weren't selling, they wouldn't be available and new companies wouldn't be popping up.

The CI chain has become the place where people buy better quality gear, but it takes time to set it up, demo it, change something and repack it, so we need to charge for out time. Some are willing to pay, many still think that we'll sell for Amazon prices, even though we just spent four hours with them. Well, if we're doing our job, that won't go unpaid, but I think you know what I mean. We carry brands that may not be available in a local B&M and definitely not in a big box and we still get bit because someone will dump it online before the company has a chance to set up their online pricing policies.

It would be great if people learned to appreciate the value of a storefront.

 

[highfigh]

Is there a minimum subtle change that anyone can detect or there is no minimum limit?
If there is, what is that amount?

I wonder why there is a JASA paper on JND thresholds? Why is level matching is at .1 dB and not .01?
Is there a phase shift one cannot hear? How about frequency limits? Threshold of detection?

If everyone heard the same within some finite tolerance, like a microphone or other transducer, this would be easier but we don't and once our mind starts to monkey around with our perception, all bets are off.

 

[PENG]

If everyone heard the same within some finite tolerance, like a microphone or other transducer, this would be easier but we don't and once our mind starts to monkey around with our perception, all bets are off.

Sure, I can see that, but then that may be the main reason why some people prefer to stick with measurements and other objective things (e.g. specs). Going by hearing is only good if one has infinite time to seek out the combinations they like most, assuming money is not the issue. Even then, what one finally found his/her preferred gear combo, that same combo may not be the choice of others, so the equipment would be like one of those dogs that can/will only serve one owner.

IMO it is better to go for specs and measurements to ensure the equipment are as neutral/accurate as possible, then one can EQ (or not) the heck out of them to his/her liking. It's a win win..

 

[Johnny2Bad]

Is there a minimum subtle change that anyone can detect or there is no minimum limit?
If there is, what is that amount?

I wonder why there is a JASA paper on JND thresholds? Why is level matching at .1 dB and not .01?
Is there a phase shift one cannot hear? How about frequency limits? Threshold of detection?

It would really be an individual situation. Also it may vary (certain frequencies may change more or less than others). It's not meant to be a graduated score, it's just an easy experiment anyone can try. Plus the equipment is not standardized; use whatever you have on hand.

For level matching you could create a reference tone @ 0dB Full Scale (suggest: 60 Hz, 440 Hz or 1 KHz, but whatever you like) and match levels by measuring with a DMM (AC volts) at the speaker terminal of one speaker (or both, if you're interested in matching L-R, although I don't see that as necessary). You will get much better than 0.1dB resolution that way which is better than the current literature suggests is adequate.

Higher frequencies are desirable but most DMMs are only accurate measuring below 100 Hz, thus the 60 Hz suggestion. Still, even if the meter is less sensitive at the chosen frequency, using the same meter and same speaker might still give a useful value for the purpose. Try what you have; it's an experiment after all.

In any case I find level matching more important when doing direct A/B switching, while listening to a track until you feel you can make a decision (or not) then trying another, it's a bit less critical.

It's probably un-necessary, though, since unlike analog files, an 0dBFS tone with a digital file is the same regardless of the bitrate or bit depth.

 

[MR.MAGOO]

I suppose my old 1997-era Panasonic/Technics receiver sounds different than my current 2013-era Yamaha RX-A1020, however I've not fired up the old one with the SAME speakers to be able to hear if there is a difference.

 

[killdozzer]

Sure, I can see that, but then that may be the main reason why some people prefer to stick with measurements and other objective things (e.g. specs). Going by hearing is only good if one has infinite time to seek out the combinations they like most, assuming money is not the issue. Even then, what one finally found his/her preferred gear combo, that same combo may not be the choice of others, so the equipment would be like one of those dogs that can/will only serve one owner.

IMO it is better to go for specs and measurements to ensure the equipment are as neutral/accurate as possible, then one can EQ (or not) the heck out of them to his/her liking. It's a win win..

This is the exact same conclusion I come to when weighing pros and cons. The only downside I can think of is that this way you might miss some of those good sounding but not good measuring speakers. But I don't see what's the big deal. Whatever you do, you'll miss a great deal of speakers, you can't hear them all.

And I don't actually have a problem recommending this path to someone who tried a couple of properly set up good measuring speakers and didn't like them. It's not written in stone for me.

I just don't see why, even if measurements don't tell the whole story, why would anyone opt for more uncertainty and unpredictability?

 

[PENG]

but most cheap DMMs are only accurate measuring below 100 Hz, thus the 60 Hz suggestion.

ftfy..

 

[PENG]

This is the exact same conclusion I come to when weighing pros and cons. The only downside I can think of is that this way you might miss some of those good sounding but not good measuring speakers. But I don't see what's the big deal. Whatever you do, you'll miss a great deal of speakers, you can't hear them all.

And I don't actually have a problem recommending this path to someone who tried a couple of properly set up good measuring speakers and didn't like them. It's not written in stone for me.

I just don't see why, even if measurements don't tell the whole story, why would anyone opt for more uncertainty and unpredictability?

I agree with you at least to a point. As an example, I remember liking the B&M 802D (the 1st generation diamond) a lot but they didn't measure well. They weren't all that bad, but bad on the off axis measurements mainly iirc. As you alluded to, either way is not 100%, just that one should offer higher (much higher imo) degree of certainty of the outcome.

 

[highfigh]

Sure, I can see that, but then that may be the main reason why some people prefer to stick with measurements and other objective things (e.g. specs). Going by hearing is only good if one has infinite time to seek out the combinations they like most, assuming money is not the issue. Even then, what one finally found his/her preferred gear combo, that same combo may not be the choice of others, so the equipment would be like one of those dogs that can/will only serve one owner.

IMO it is better to go for specs and measurements to ensure the equipment are as neutral/accurate as possible, then one can EQ (or not) the heck out of them to his/her liking. It's a win win..

How many audiophiles or sane people who love music actually know, in black & white, how well they hear through the entire audio band? I would bet that most have done a few frequency sweeps and proclaimed their hearing to be "Excellent!", yet they do nothing to fix the acoustics in their rooms.

I used to think it would be a good idea to have customers go in for a hearing test, so their speakers could be matched to their hearing and then, I decided it would be a disaster if anyone else listens to their system in the event that it's tailored to the hearing of someone who has severe deficits.

One thing about speaker audiographs that makes a simple "The response is +/-4dB across the band is that if the +4 of one speaker corresponds to the -4dB of another and the demonstration involves switching between them, something is gonna sound like crap if the widest variations are where humans are most sensitive.

 

[3db]

If everyone heard the same within some finite tolerance, like a microphone or other transducer, this would be easier but we don't and once our mind starts to monkey around with our perception, all bets are off.

You nailed it with the "once our mind starts to monkey around with our perception, all bets are off" and thats the reason why sighted tests are bad. Our hearing maybe all over the map in terms of how we interpret things but its foolish to think that human hearing is more sensitivie then test equipment.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

How many audiophiles or sane people who love music actually know, in black & white, how well they hear through the entire audio band? I would bet that most have done a few frequency sweeps and proclaimed their hearing to be "Excellent!", yet they do nothing to fix the acoustics in their rooms.

I used to think it would be a good idea to have customers go in for a hearing test, so their speakers could be matched to their hearing and then, I decided it would be a disaster if anyone else listens to their system in the event that it's tailored to the hearing of someone who has severe deficits.

One thing about speaker audiographs that makes a simple "The response is +/-4dB across the band is that if the +4 of one speaker corresponds to the -4dB of another and the demonstration involves switching between them, something is gonna sound like crap if the widest variations are where humans are most sensitive.

I don't think that it's particularly relevant how well someone can hear with regard to frequency (within reason). If someone has a dip at x frequency, that person will still hear a piano note a certain way live, and that person should expect to hear that same note at the same level (and it's harmonics, which tells us it's a piano) when reproduced, even if that level is not the same as "normal" hearing. If the response is elevated there, he will still hear it as elevated ... few people, especially people in this hobby, have zero hearing at frequencies below, say 15 KHz, they just have a dip somewhere. They can still hear something, and it's relative to what they expect to hear.

It's *individual* responses when dealing with one person's passion or poison.

It's not the same thing as when we do measurements that represent how well this or that component comes to flat frequency response, insofar as that's a metric that is relevant to "everyone", or more correctly the set of people that are HiFi enthusiasts, or accuracy versus live music or the studio mix. In some cases a flat frequency response is an ideal that is rarely if ever met (loudspeakers). Yet we still find loudspeakers whose sound we enjoy.

We also see this in the current literature, where it's found that even people with "normal" hearing are relatively insensitive to frequency response aberrations; tolerating deviations at levels that would not be tolerated well were they other metrics (high order harmonic distortions, noise level, etc).

One final clarification: I'm not suggesting frequency response is irrelevant, or that speakers with smooth, flat response are not better than those with more ragged measured curves. It's just that a "good" speaker sounds good to people with excellent hearing, and to people with some hearing damage. What you can or can't hear will be the same, live or at home, so for individuals, their particular individual frequency perception won't, or shouldn't, affect their ability to hear differences between components.