Amplifier Sound

[markw]

Whoever said there is no difference between amplifiers?

Those of you who say there is no difference between amplifiers should proceed like this: Buy a pair of speakers you like, find the cheapest integrated amplifier you can find with sufficient power for your liking, buy the cheapest source components available and plug it all together with the RCA's and power cables that come with those new gems. Get a 400' spool of lamp cord to use for speaker cable. Can you believe people pay for wires?! What a scam.

Then, hang it up. Quit thinking about your system. You have everything you'll ever need, because upgrading is just an unmeasurable figment of other people's imagination.

Me? Can't wait to upgrade my interconnects to silver.

I was wondering when the oversimplifications and misstatements would arrive.

Perhaps you should get your ducks in a row before jumping in with statements like this, which were neither made nor implied. As it now stands, you simply look like a ranting looney who can only try (ever so feebly) to make his point by misquoting others. Can you say "straw man"?

 

[miklorsmith]

I didn't quote anyone, so how could I have misquoted? I read the entire thread. The mere fact that a debate is ongoing signifies that some believe there is no difference.

It is only logical that if someone asserts that all amplifiers sound the same, it is necessary to assume that means everything inside the amplifer has no effect on the sound. Your other components and high-end wires are all made of the same stuff, aside from the CD transport, of which just about every player is made of just a few types.

Have I misunderstood the issue? Is the question really indicative of something else not explicitly discussed? Was this just another tired, retread discussion of the pros and cons of DBT?

I'd be happy to defend any of my lunatic rantings had you provided any specificity of where they lie.

 

[markw]

Again, another misquote...

I didn't quote anyone, so how could I have misquoted? I read the entire thread. The mere fact that a debate is ongoing signifies that some believe there is no difference.

It is only logical that if someone asserts that all amplifiers sound the same, it is necessary to assume that means everything inside the amplifer has no effect on the sound. Your other components and high-end wires are all made of the same stuff, aside from the CD transport, of which just about every player is made of just a few types.

Have I misunderstood the issue? Is the question really indicative of something else not explicitly discussed? Was this just another tired, retread discussion of the pros and cons of DBT?

I'd be happy to defend any of my lunatic rantings had you provided any specificity of where they lie.

Now, who ever said simply that "All amplifiers sound the same" as you claim to be arguing against? I don't recall reading this in this thread or anywhere else for that matter and yet, here you are stating it as a fact.

Please point out where this was said. Until then, you're only digging yourself in deeper, as usually happens with subjects of this nature.

 

[miklorsmith]

Jiminy Christmas. Take a chill pill.

First off, the fact you say I've dug myself a hole doesn't make it so. Secondly, there is a theme within the thread at least questioning the matter. I'm not calling anybody out and I haven't quoted anybody.

You haven't weighed in. Just easier to sit back and take pot shots I guess.

 

[markw]

Hey, you're the one making blanket statements.

Nobody else has.

Had you read more carefully from the beginning instead of jumping to the back of the book, you would realize that there is quite a bit more involved than the oversimplified blanket statement you jumped in with.

Now, I'll leave it up to you to see what critical elements of this discussion you left out, either by ignorance or intent. Perhaps then you will realize why I jumped in when I did, which wAs immediately after you.

 

[surveyor]

The DBT has convinced me! Here's my new system.

I'm sold. I also attached my highschool class picture.

 

[Rob Babcock]

I'm sold. I also attached my highschool class picture.

Surveyor, which one are you?

 

[Leprkon]

In any case I'd further argue that certain amps mate particularly well with certain speakers - another subjectivist "heresy". The end result being that some combinations work a particular sonic magic. If the goal is getting laid at the local hooters - well go get 'em and power to you. I've found that fancy stereo equipment doesn't do much for the ladies. .

I personally won;t argue that some amps do mate well with specific speakers. I happen to believe that one.

What I will argue is (and the point you completely skipped over) that a significant investment SHOULD yield significant and blindingly obvious RESULTS. If the results are neither significant nor blindingly obvious, then an investment simply is not justified.

btw.. Hooter's does have great tasting food (try some buffalo shrimp sometime). it ain;t good for ya, but I'll take it over "cuisine" any day...

 

[surveyor]

Surveyor, which one are you?

I'm in the top row, second from the left.
I looked pretty sharp in the day, huh?

 

[BluesDaddy]

One of biggest problem in DBT testing and one that keeps the professionals wary is one of the human mind: Aural memory is exceedingly short. The brain adapts quickly to incoming signals from the ears. As the professionals acknowledge, differences between, say, two interconnects are slight. Their comparisons never are between a Sony receiver and a Mark Levinson amp because, like I said, c'mon.

Actually, this is exactly backwards. The reason why DBT is so critical is because aural memory is so short. Claiming to be able to compare the "sound" of an amp to one heard 6 months ago is simply ludicrous (much less the "sound" of a cable).

Also, IIRC, the Stereo Review DBT back in the late 80s (am I remembering correctly?) pitted a mid-priced receiver against some high-end amps. The golden eared subjectivists could tell the difference, much less pick which one sounded "better".

This is NOT to say all amps perform the same. That is stupid and no one has written that.

 

[mtrycrafts]

To the staff members of Audioholics:
Do all amps sound alike?
Does the DBT information discussed in this series of posts hold water?
Please let the staff members answer my question?

Respectfully,

Surveyor

Not directed to me but no one is saying "all" amps sound the same. There are DBT results that show differences. How about 'competently' designed one?

 

[mtrycrafts]

That's the idea, Chris. But I'd amend it to say "not commonly measured", not "non-measurable". My hypothesis is that the current state of audio science is missing something - not that the thing itself is unknowable. I'm getting into deep waters here - I'm just an audiophile who stumbled on this site while looking for info about HT receivers (a topic new to me) and found myself getting into the middle of an age-old arguement. I'm not the one to blaze the resolution - but I will attempt some blind testing to see if my sacred cows are easily slaughtered.

The current state of audio science is missing nothing. Just because you don't see all the measurement criteria you can think of published, doesn't mean the audio science is lacking. Most are not important.

You should read all the links here. Doug Self is not a slouch, a crackpot, etc, but is published in JAES.

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/ampins.htm

I am impressed that you will try to attempt some DBT. I have a friend who writes or used to for audiophile paper. He would not listen under such condition: What will I tell the readers if I cannot hear differences- was hgis response.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

Not directed to me but no one is saying "all" amps sound the same. There are DBT results that show differences. How about 'competently' designed one?

I was just going to say that! Let's see if I can get this across to even the slowest here:

"All amps sound alike" is an ignorant or willful oversimplification and distortion of the scientific position on this question. What is true is that all modern, competently-designed, solid-state amps will sound alike. This means: 1) flat frequency response, 2) distortion below the generally accepted threshold of audibility, 3) low noise, 4) high input impedance and 4) low output impedance. (If I've forgotten something Chris will no doubt jump in!) And, of course, as long as the amps are driven at levels for which they were designed.

It follows logically that amplifiers (and other electronic signal paths) that deviate from this standard, like many tube amps and especially single-ended triode amps, will indeed sound different. Some "eccentric" (or incompetent?) solid-state designs might also be both measurably and audibly different. But in all these cases the audible differences are due to measurable pheonomena such as frequency response errors, increased distortion, etc. There is no evidence for an unknown or untestable "x factor".

What the argument is NOT about is comparing (say) a Denon receiver to a Cary single-ended triode amp. Of COURSE they will sound "different", since the Cary has large frequency response irregularities and high THD among other irregularities. Some people prefer that. Hey, different strokes...and a different argument!

But when it is claimed that a Denon and a Krell are "obviously" different in sound even though they measure the same that is where the arguement starts! Such a claim requires evidence. The crux for us "scientific" types is that the arguments for such audible differences have no evidence stronger than anecdote, and that the claimed differences tend to disappear when standard scientific methods like double-blind testing are used to test the assertion.

An observation about double-blind testing. DBT, as I have stated before, is the universally recognized "gold standard" for experimental evidence (science does rely on other kinds of evidence, too) in every scientific discipline. It is amazing to me that a method that is relied upon to test theories and hypotheses about things as complex and arcane as genetics and quantum mechanics, and life-and-death decisions about medicine and drugs, is regarded as inadequate to test a relatively trival matter like the difference between two amplifiers!

 

[mtrycrafts]

NewYorkJosh - I agree with your assessments of this problem and I would take the argument a large step further. Why would anybody concerned enough about HiFi to monitor this forum argue that all amplifiers sound the same? This position is utterly ludicrous, at least for anybody that knows anything about anything.

HUH??? Where is it written or stated, 'ALL' amps sound the same?
People come to get help in choices decifer the bs, voodoo, myth, urban legend in the real world. Something wrong with that?
Since you asserted "for anybody that knows anything about anything" what can you tell us that is a fact. You may need to cite references, be careful.



This statement requires acceptance of all the following: 1) Cables (all) make no difference; 2) Capacitors, resistors, power supplies and other functional internals are of no sonic consequence; 3) Internal topology is meaningless, solid state, tube, or otherwise (I have a digital-switching amplifier); 4) Construction quality, including soldering, case, and internal wiring, are esoterica; 5) Speaker/amplifier matching is an audiophile justification; and 6) Radio Shack produces the same ultimate product as Krell.

Interesting assertions. Facts please. Evidence please, not inuendos, assertions speculations. Can you support any of this with DBT listening data?


There are doubtless more implicit assumptions not listed above.

I am sure not beyond your imagination.

C'mon, people! Why are you in this hobby if this is what you believ?.

So, one needs to believe as you do then? Why is it a bbelief? Why is it not hard and factual, demonstrable on demand?
Because you cannot.

Your ears don't hear a spectrum graph.

What does it hear or doesn't hear? What does your brain interprets or make up? Be careful how you respond here. Your brain is part of the equasion and it can fill in blanks the way it wants to. Yes, imagine what it wants.
Not what you want to know, is it. Them are the facts.

Measurements aren't everything.

Yep, it isn't. It is an indication of things to come.

The CD player in my garage is 15 years old and basically produces a flat signal from top to bottom. Does it sound the same as the heavily modified player in my main system? Not even close!

Basicall flat signal? What does that mean? .1dB? .5dB? What? What bandwidth?
Maybe your heavily modified player is euphonic on purpose in which case it is reflected in the specs? Maybe if you conduct a credible DBT between the two, you may not like the answers? Who knows? Without a credible, bias controlled comparison, you will never know for sure, just guessing and speculating.

I defy any of the "Don't tell me what you hear without backup data" people to even explain what measurements they might attribute to the sense of ease, dimension, and clarity of any fine component.

All subjective evaluations, no reference. ambiguous.

Setting up a true DBT for anything is exceptionally difficult.

So you say.

Equalizing the variables, especially without degrading the signal path, is critical but nearly impossible.

Not always neede. Interesting, it was done for the past 25+ years with not much problems. You don't like the answers?



One of biggest problem in DBT testing and one that keeps the professionals wary is one of the human mind:

What? Why are you not concerned about this in sighted listeing? Obviously you are not concerned as you only make it an issue with DBT listeing. Why?
Same concern applies no matter how you listen. Straw man excuse. Bogus issue.

Aural memory is exceedingly short. The brain adapts quickly to incoming signals from the ears.

What? How is this not an issue in sighted listining? How are you exempt from this concern?
Just between you and me, anpother bogus excuse as you have the same issue in a sighted listeing.

As the professionals acknowledge, differences between, say, two interconnects are slight.

Oh? Where is this acknowledgement? Please cite sources. Speculations are just that.

Their comparisons never are between a Sony receiver and a Mark Levinson amp because, like I said, c'mon.

How about an old Yamaha and a $15K Pass Aleph 1.2?

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=501fl6$ac3@oxy.rust.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups?q=sunshine+stereo+yamaha+abx+nousaine&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=501fl6%24ac3%40oxy.rust.net&rnum=1

What were you saying???
Where are your citations???

Regardless of what component is under discussion, they're all made of the same basic parts. If it's true for amps, your other components should be subject to your same theory. Amps, CD players, preamps, what's the difference?

You are right, they are in the same boat, LOL. This happens to be an amp discussion.



I guess speaker selection must be the only thing that makes any difference in any system.

And your room acostics. Rather simple. Some make it difficult or their belief system is up in smoke.


Those of you who say there is no difference between amplifiers should proceed like this: Buy a pair of speakers you like, find the cheapest integrated amplifier you can find with sufficient power for your liking, buy the cheapest source components available and plug it all together with the RCA's and power cables that come with those new gems. Get a 400' spool of lamp cord to use for speaker cable. Can you believe people pay for wires?! What a scam.

Why? One cannot have a preference for one over the other not based in the sound??? Of course they can have preferences? Why cannot I prefer a Sony, or a Yamaha, Or a Krell??? I can prefer what I choose to prefer, right?

Then, hang it up. Quit thinking about your system. You have everything you'll ever need, because upgrading is just an immeasurable figment of other people's imaginations.

Yep, my boomboxes are serving me well.

Me? Can't wait to upgrade my interconnects to silver.

Good for you. Keeps unemploymet down. Maybe those folks at MIT can get a job with that company

 

[mtrycrafts]

Actually, this is exactly backwards. The reason why DBT is so critical is because aural memory is so short. Claiming to be able to compare the "sound" of an amp to one heard 6 months ago is simply ludicrous (much less the "sound" of a cable).

Also, IIRC, the Stereo Review DBT back in the late 80s (am I remembering correctly?) pitted a mid-priced receiver against some high-end amps. The golden eared subjectivists could tell the difference, much less pick which one sounded "better".

This is NOT to say all amps perform the same. That is stupid and no one has written that.

RIGHT ON

Interesting the poster doesn't have these issues in a sighted listeing??? Why would that be exempt from all his concerns? How does that get an exemption from any of his concrens? He didn't address how he handles these issues. He didn't because the issue is the same, he just cannot handle the truth.

Your amp comparison is not that long ago, late 1990s. 3 golde ears failed, on their system, in their room, a high end speaker system and system.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=501fl6$ac3@oxy.rust.net&rnum=1&prev=/groups?q=sunshine+stereo+yamaha+abx+nousaine&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=501fl6%24ac3%40oxy.rust.net&rnum=1

 

[surveyor]

Not directed to me but no one is saying "all" amps sound the same. There are DBT results that show differences. How about 'competently' designed one?

I just do not want people to be misled and go out and purchase an inferior amplifier, and then blame it on DBT misinterpetation that they read here.
I was certainly not clearly understanding what is being stated in the DBT references made before hand.
A poorly designed amp will definitely show it's deficiencies somewhere in the audio spectrum that humans can hear.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm no audio expert. I've been at it a long time though.
I've learned a lot at this site from some very helpfull people.
I would like to pass clear information on to someone say who is new to audio.
Thanks ,
Kelly

 

[mtrycrafts]

I was just going to say that! !

I get up early, from time to time

 

[mtrycrafts]

I just do not want people to be misled and go out and purchase an inferior amplifier, and then blame it on DBT misinterpetation that they read here.
I was certainly not clearly understanding what is being stated in the DBT references made before hand.
A poorly designed amp will definitely show it's deficiencies somewhere in the audio spectrum that humans can hear.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm no audio expert. I've been at it a long time though.
I've learned a lot at this site from some very helpfull people.
I would like to pass clear information on to someone say who is new to audio.
Thanks ,
Kelly

Why would anyone be misled at these boards to go and purchase inferior amps or other components? No one is misleading, some may be misinterpreting what is written.

 

[Dan Banquer]

Differences in Electronic equipment.

The following is a post I put up on other forums: I think this goes to the heart of the issue as to why amplifiers and other assorted electronics can sound so different in different systems. This is not a subject that is talked about much in audio, and is generally avoided.

GROUNDING PRACTICES IN CONSUMER AUDIO

As many of us have observed over the years grounding practices in consumer audio have for many of us been a frustrating experience. Compatibility/Synergy are consistently major issues, as well as safety, reducing ground loops, noise and interference. Designers are equally frustrated by this problem. Some of us wish it would go away and others attempt to deal with as best as we know how. There does not appear to be much of any standardization that I, and many others are aware of. Many of us who work in the electronics industry outside of audio who have observed the posts from audiophiles, designers and dealers scratch our heads in near disbelief.
The following is not only an outline for reducing these problems, but a wake up call to this end of the industry. The following is for the application to consumer unbalanced audio, and could well be a possible outline for positive discussion and direction. It is also a way to use Earth Ground to our advantage instead of a problem.
Chassis Grounding:
The following is a technique used in instrumentation for low frequency applications.
The chassis will be earth grounded via the earth ground at the three-prong outlet. The audio signal ground contained in the chassis is not connected to the chassis ground. This will require the design to be electrically isolated from the chassis ground which is easily solved by using nylon stand offs to mount pc boards and isolated bulkhead RCA jacks. (I am going to break this rule later on but bear with me for the moment). The above forces the design to be star grounded at the return of the power supply, which is always good practice to reduce noise and ground loops. However, this does leave the present configuration susceptible to interference from the inputs. This interference can be reduced by the using a simple common mode ac line filter at the AC input and using either a well shielded coax or microphone cable at the line level input. This configuration also poses an additional problem due the fact that we now have two different grounds with two different potentials. In the past I have observed this problem when using a certain brand of rotary switch for a volume control. The rotary switch was not well isolated internally and had enough of a leakage current so that noise was developed when it was used. Moving to a different vendor with higher isolation devices corrected the problem. I have not observed any problem with standard switches for on off applications or anything similar.
I have applied this technique to basic audio chain of equipment consisting of an outboard DAC, line level pre amp, and power amps using the chassis and grounding design I outlined above. The transport that I presently use is a modified consumer device and is equipped with a two-prong plug. The system also has an FM tuner and an old pre amp that is used as a phono pre amp. Both of these devices are standard consumer issue with a two-prong plug. I have observed no compatibility issues with the older style units.
As I outlined earlier I am going to break this rule at one point. The line level pre amp now has a connection from the return of the line stage pre amp power supply to the chassis of the unit. I have now connected earth ground to the analog “center point of the system.” This did not cause a ground loop at all, and to be more precise, for CD playback the inherent ground loops that are typical for unbalanced circuitry simply disappeared. The FM tuner and the old pre amp appear to be unaffected by the center point earth ground. A welcome addition was that the rotary switch that had a leakage problem because of the two different potential levels described earlier no longer had the problem due to center point earth ground.
The use of the system center point earth ground for low frequency applications has been in the textbooks for at least 30 some odd years and has been applied to other low frequency applications. Applied at this level to a simple chain of audio playback equipment. CD playback now has reduced hum and hiss to levels more akin to balanced design than unbalanced design. Playback of FM tuner and Phono pre amp remains unaffected.
One thing that has surprised me relates to the issue of low frequency applications. I was expecting to find problems with the digital portion of this playback chain. I have not found one to date but I think this needs to be investigated further when time allows.
A note to all of the tweakers who read this: I am not recommending any changes to existing designs; in fact I would discourage it.
To DIY folks: You may wish to rethink some of your present chassis/grounding schemes.
To the rest of the industry; this is a subject that not only deserves discussion but an active participation to reach acceptable standards.
The grounding system described above will not address the problem of toroidal transformers mechanically vibrating due to either DC on the AC lines or as I have observed on occasion, low frequency oscillations.
Dan Banquer
R.E. Designs

 

[miklorsmith]

Good stuff! If we're arguing, let's argue in a positive and constructive manner.

Mtrycrafts, your tailored rebuttals are interesting to me. My statements are not a product of being new to audio - I've been active in audio gear and music acquisition for 20 years. However, I have never been a scientist in said pursuit.

The severity of my statements is wholly related to my own, unscientific experiments. My test is simply after I try a new part/accessory/wire/voodoo, do I hear a difference? Some of my unscientific experiments have been resounding successes - Walker SST on cables and applied inside stereo components is a no-brainer. Spikes under my speakers/sub and homemade roller blocks under my components likewise.

I have had good luck with updating my cables from cheapies to some that are made much better.

Others have been failures. A video tape demagnitizer has been cited to clarify reproduction of CD's and a mat on top of the CD is reported to quiet the noise floor. I have not noted that either of these make any audible difference to me, though I'm still trying them out since they are readily available.

Each change, better, worse, or just different, has been incremental. Only a very few things have been revelatory. My really nice preamp is in the shop. Bringing out the old one is a sore disappointment. Same when I had to bring the old CD back from the garage. Harsh, gritty, bright, digital.

My euphonic and unscientific brain is nonetheless analytical. I listen very carefully to see whether the last alteration has brought improvement. I try to be objective. At the end of the day however, the exercise for me is directed at the enjoyment of music. This personal and self-serving approach to my own system has wrought an immensely pleasing sound, on somewhat of a budget.

I am not an expert on DBT. In fact, I know very little about it. However, based on my lifetime's experience with Hi-Fi, I consider a failure to hear differences in amplifiers an implication of the testing methodology or the human brain itself. Of the articles I've read mentioning aural memory, my recollection is that it is on the order of seconds, not months. Since I'm not a scientist, I don't have to back any of this up with data. See? Much easier. If this forum is "Philosophers and Wisemen", I guess I fit into the former category.

Much as the religious believer would say - faith does not require proof, yet I believe.