Can you hear a difference in Sound between Audio Amplifiers?

[3db]

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.


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).

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.

You appear to be contradicting yourself in these two paragraphs. If people are relatively insensitive to frequency aberrations, how will they be able to tell differences in components, speakers not with standing.

 

[highfigh]

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.

Ever talk to someone who was in Artillery or worked in a factory without hearing protection? Yeah, some people do that and call themselves 'audiophile', have expensive systems and nice equipment. The one thing they can't do is hear the instruments the way someone with "normal" hearing would. Sure, they hear it through speakers and it may be similar to a live piano, but their acuity at specific frequencies means it's not correct. If enough of the range is gone, it's like someone with normal hearing using a graphic EQ and burying some of the sliders- it sounds like crap + phase shift.

 

[highfigh]

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.

I used to listen to music with the lights off. Granted, the equipment in the system looked really good in the dark, but it was an interesting experience. Now, I just close my eyes. I don't trip over as much furniture, now.

 

[3db]

I used to listen to music with the lights off. Granted, the equipment in the system looked really good in the dark, but it was an interesting experience. Now, I just close my eyes. I don't trip over as much furniture, now.

Nothing like stubbing one's tow on a subwoofer.

 

[Art Vandelay]

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.

No two people hear the same, even if they're the same age and free of any impairments. What is 'normal' to someone is simply a construct of personal experience over time. For people who acquire hearing damage, there's also a 'new normal' over time because their brains correct for the changed sound. This also applies to the gradual ageing process, which reduces our high frequency response to around 12kHz by age 50.

For the same reasons it's possible to get used to the sound of obviously flawed speakers if you listen to them for long enough, and I think this also explains why most people are quite happy with the quality of popular music today, complete with the huge amount of loudness EQ and massive amounts of dynamic limiting etc.

That's not to say that the quest for the perfect speaker is not worthwhile, but it's fair to say that it does make it somewhat questionable.

It's interesting that the same thing hasn't happened to video as it has to audio. Imagine if everything we watched was deliberately color and / or contrast boosted or manipulated, and with noise and other distortions deliberately added for effect. Yet that's pretty much what happens to music, starting at the very first point of production.

 

[PENG]

No two people hear the same, even if they're the same age and free of any impairments. What is 'normal' to someone is simply a construct of personal experience over time. For people who acquire hearing damage, there's also a 'new normal' over time because their brains correct for the changed sound. This also applies to the gradual ageing process, which reduces our high frequency response to around 12kHz by age 50.

I am sure we can agree to that, but as Johnny2Bad explained, that is not really relevant to the topic. Agree with the rest of your post too.

 

[highfigh]

Nothing like stubbing one's tow on a subwoofer.

Or a toe, but I never thought there was much difference in what I kicked and I'm not a connoisseur of pain.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Asking audiophiles if they can tell the difference in amp sound will never get anywhere. That's why this topic is still hot after all these years.

What is the real goal in asking this question? To know if people will buy AVRs or external amps and pre-pros?

I think the main question is, how many people buy amps and separates anyway regardless of what they think about amp sound?

Does it really matter if people think amps sound different or not if most audiophiles buy amps and separates anyway?

Shouldn't the questions be "which amps should you buy?" or "which amps sound the best?"

Do amps from ATI, Parasound, Anthem, McIntosh, Mark Levinson, Lexicon, Cary Audio, etc., sound better than Emotiva or Pro Crown amps or amps inside AVRs?

Does it make sense that a person spends $40K for a B&W or Revel speaker system and power them with Emotiva or Crown Amps?

 

[Bookmark]

"It's interesting that the same thing hasn't happened to video as it has to audio."

Alas, wrong it has/is. All films/video are recorded by differing means and then compressed, colour corrected and adjusted according a particular direction. If someone can mess with it then they usually do

 

[Mikado463]

Do amps from ATI, Parasound, Anthem, McIntosh, Mark Levinson, Lexicon, Cary Audio, etc., sound better than Emotiva or Pro Crown amps or amps inside AVRs?

you betcha

Does it make sense that a person spends $40K for a B&W or Revel speaker system and power them with Emotiva or Crown Amps?

heaven forbid !

 

[Art Vandelay]

"It's interesting that the same thing hasn't happened to video as it has to audio."

Alas, wrong it has/is. All films/video are recorded by differing means and then compressed, colour corrected and adjusted according a particular direction. If someone can mess with it then they usually do

The comparison is not valid because the objectives are totally opposing. When someone messes with video, such as restoring old film it's because they're trying to make the video more accurate or lifelike. Compression isn't analogous to dynamic compression either; That has more in common with lossless audio compression, designed to maximise video quality for a given bandwidth.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

Asking audiophiles if they can tell the difference in amp sound will never get anywhere. That's why this topic is still hot after all these years.

What is the real goal in asking this question? To know if people will buy AVRs or external amps and pre-pros?

I think the main question is, how many people buy amps and separates anyway regardless of what they think about amp sound?

Does it really matter if people think amps sound different or not if most audiophiles buy amps and separates anyway?

Shouldn't the questions be "which amps should you buy?" or "which amps sound the best?"

Do amps from ATI, Parasound, Anthem, McIntosh, Mark Levinson, Lexicon, Cary Audio, etc., sound better than Emotiva or Pro Crown amps or amps inside AVRs?

Does it make sense that a person spends $40K for a B&W or Revel speaker system and power them with Emotiva or Crown Amps?

I think you make a good point, if inadvertently. A decade ago, the premium brands you mentioned were a step above pro audio amps and some others. Today, firms like Emotiva have introduced some very good gear. That didn't exist in the past. Sure, there were always "bargains", but the list was short. Not so anymore.

You appear to be contradicting yourself in these two paragraphs. If people are relatively insensitive to frequency aberrations, how will they be able to tell differences in components, speakers not with standing.

Do you think frequency response is the critical specification in components, or amplifiers in particular? I find it's the other characteristics that define a given component's ... especially an amplifier's ... "sound". After all, if we can judge one criteria to be "solved" with power amps, it's probably frequency response in the audio band. Maybe if you're referring to frequency response above the audio band which indirectly affects performance below 20 KHz (a fast slew rate in the audio band often is in effect an above-20KHz signal) I might agree.

 

[Bookmark]

I am sorry if you failed to understand the actual comparision I made, which you wrongly seem to think is vaild for sound only.

Any audio/video representation is a catalogue of decision choices and any personal preference is an inherent bias. The capture, reproduction and the ability to differentiate is always limited by one own ability to perceive. No one has perfect hearing or perfect ocular reception and it differs between individuals and degrades over time, is perhaps something we can agree on.

We could agree a set of approximations/"Standards" and use those as a guide for future comparisions, however they will always be limited by our own failings and should never be considered to be definitive. What you see as blue or red, what you hear as middle C or G might be agreed, however neither of us can ever know for sure it is actually the same.

You make your choices and if you are content, then that is all that is required. Some may spend 10s of thousands persuing an illusion of perfection and others may spend a tenner and be more than happy. Consensus is simply the wisdom of fools and should never be used as a rod to force conformity. Just agree to differ and leave it at that.

 

[3db]

I think you make a good point, if inadvertently. A decade ago, the premium brands you mentioned were a step above pro audio amps and some others. Today, firms like Emotiva have introduced some very good gear. That didn't exist in the past. Sure, there were always "bargains", but the list was short. Not so anymore.


Do you think frequency response is the critical specification in components, or amplifiers in particular? I find it's the other characteristics that define a given component's ... especially an amplifier's ... "sound". After all, if we can judge one criteria to be "solved" with power amps, it's probably frequency response in the audio band. Maybe if you're referring to frequency response above the audio band which indirectly affects performance below 20 KHz (a fast slew rate in the audio band often is in effect an above-20KHz signal) I might agree.

I dont think FR is the only critical specification in HIFI components and speakers nor did I ever say that. Far from it. However in your paragraphs that I pointed out previously, there is a contradicition.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

r5

I am sorry if you failed to understand the actual comparision I made, which you wrongly seem to think is vaild for sound only.

Any audio/video representation is a catalogue of decision choices and any personal preference is an inherent bias. The capture, reproduction and the ability to differentiate is always limited by one own ability to perceive. No one has perfect hearing or perfect ocular reception and it differs between individuals and degrades over time, is perhaps something we can agree on.

We could agree a set of approximations/"Standards" and use those as a guide for future comparisions, however they will always be limited by our own failings and should never be considered to be definitive. What you see as blue or red, what you hear as middle C or G might be agreed, however neither of us can ever know for sure it is actually the same.

You make your choices and if you are content, then that is all that is required. Some may spend 10s of thousands persuing an illusion of perfection and others may spend a tenner and be more than happy. Consensus is simply the wisdom of fools and should never be used as a rod to force conformity. Just agree to differ and leave it at that.

So you feel "perfect hearing" is required to discern audio component Sound Quality? I disagree.

There is, by the way, a standard that humans are expected to meet in order to be medically described as "normal" hearing. There is no such standard as "perfect" hearing. Some hear better than the standard, just as some have better than 20:20 vision. Yet even those who cannot meet "normal" hearing still expect a quality "dry" recording* of a singer and guitar to sound, on reproduction, as that same singer and guitar as they heard it at the session.

* In Recording Engineering and Mastering parlance, "a dry mix" means without effects, and "wet" is with effects processing.

I dont think FR is the only critical specification in HIFI components and speakers nor did I ever say that. Far from it. However in your paragraphs that I pointed out previously, there is a contradicition.

I believe you read a contradiction, I see none. Toole shows in his research that given two loudspeakers, one with smooth response and one with many small dips and rises that, when averaged, are identical to the first example, people prefer the first. Yet both sound even in frequency response in-room, and both are described as sounding "good". It's phycoacoustic vs acoustic. Also note that I said "relatively insensitive", not "insensitive" ... , relatively, versus, say, high order harmonic distortions, which we are sensitive to in much smaller % than FR deviations.

 

[3db]

r5


I believe you read a contradiction, I see none. Toole shows in his research that given two loudspeakers, one with smooth response and one with many small dips and rises that, when averaged, are identical to the first example, people prefer the first. Yet both sound even in frequency response in-room, and both are described as sounding "good". It's phycoacoustic vs acoustic. Also note that I said "relatively insensitive", not "insensitive" ... , relatively, versus, say, high order harmonic distortions, which we are sensitive to in much smaller % than FR deviations.

That's exactly my point. If people are "insensitive" or "not senstitive" to small frequency aberations, there is no way people will be able to tell in a blind listening tests the differences between amps who are designed to handle the same load in the same room and well within their power delivery envelope. Slew rates don't enter into the equation until you begin approaching the limits of the amplifier and most amps will have slew rates high enough to make the affects undetectable. Toole also has shown the inaccuracy of hearing memory and that the accuracy is only good for a couple of minutes at best. To preserve hearing memory accuracy in a test, the switching between/among amps would have to be less than a couple of minutes. Yet, there are these ridiculous claims of how much tighter bass is and transparent the midrange, blah blah when people wired out the old amp for the new (takes longer than a couple of minutes) let alone level match the outputs. The same BS also runs rampant with the cable/interconnect crowds. Audiophiles rather believe in pixie dust than science and the industry as a whole takes advantage of the nieve golden ear audiophile.

 

[Bookmark]

"So you feel "perfect hearing" is required to discern audio component Sound Quality? I disagree." At no point did I suggest this, so therefore we are actually, in fact, in agreement.

Which Studio/location is used, the mike you use, which type, where it is positioned, which pre amp, if necessary you use, which desk and monitors you use, which take you select, the storage medium, sample rate and bit depth, are just some of the many, many choices which have a bearing on the "dry" mix and no it is not the same as you "being in the room" and simply listening. You are not an impartial listener, but neither is the captured result, since it is the consequences of dozens pre-arranged choices. What you do after the initial capture, splicing multiple takes, clipping, editing, re-pitching, Eq-ing, filtering, etc also has an impact taking it further from the origin. The exact same process is also true in video/film production. None of which concludes that the "original" is the best/superior result of the outcome, simply a base from which to start.

Whilst we endeavor for a semblance of consistency by selecting from a limiting selection and controlling what is controllable, no two takes will ever be the same. The final result we actually consume is in part, selected by our bias of other peoples numerous choices/bias which we find pleasing/appropriate. Similarly our homes are filled with the hardware/Software which are other peoples choices that we find pleasing and obviously could afford.

I do not feel perfect hearing is required for anything, or for that matter perfect vision. All judgments are inherently subjective and "perfect" is an aspiration not a criteria for enjoyment or consumption. Preferring A over B is simply a choice/bias and in no way precludes an alternative view. My cat has better hearing than either of us but he doesn't get the credit card when a new toy is in the offing

Yamaha ns10, famously panned, incredibly bad hifi speakers, pretty much universally used in mixing studios for decades, says a lot... "The thing is if it sounded good on those monitors, then it was going to sound good on most things," Alan Moulder

 

[killdozzer]

It's interesting that the same thing hasn't happened to video as it has to audio. Imagine if everything we watched was deliberately color and / or contrast boosted or manipulated, and with noise and other distortions deliberately added for effect. Yet that's pretty much what happens to music, starting at the very first point of production.

I like what you write up to a point, but couldn't disagree more about video. You should just try to equate loudness and high-res, to grasp the dimension of visual sensory overload that is sign o' times. Hardly anything is so distorted like visual data. Which makes sense if you read Martin Jay and the turn to visual type of philosophy that deals in perception. Ears are yesterday. You could write pages on one nature documentary in regards to prosthetic role of camera that moved from a microscope type of moderator mitigating the knowledge and experience and thus ontology in the age of kinooko that is not within the reach of a bare eye, to today's "beyond eye candy" type of visual vibrator enhancing the ocular orgasm as if we were all Pavlovian pigeons.

Or, if you want the short version, this is as natural as Pamela Anderson's tits:

 

[M Code]

For the majority of people seeing the differences for video processing and/or sources is easier to differentiate than audio.. Even if the component has video pass-through, quite frequently their internal circuits changes something in the video stream either color balance, contrast or brightness...

Just my $0.02...

 

[mtrycrafts]

.... Toole shows in his research that given two loudspeakers, one with smooth response and one with many small dips and rises that, when averaged, are identical to the first example, people prefer the first. ...

What smoothing are you implying? The graph is smoothed to 1/3 octave or those small dips and rises are EQed out and both measure the same with the same octave measurement and plot, say 1/24th or better?
Averaging a plot graph does not affect the fr of the speaker.