Does anyone know of this challenge?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

outsor@city-net.com wrote:

>On an audio related list I mentioned the cash prize offered here to
>identify wire in a controlled listening test and got the below. Is anyone
>familiar with the person mentioned and his challenge?
>
>"You could be talking of Richard Clark from car audio fame. He did
>the best Mr. Wizard audio presentation ever seen at the Atlanta
>Audio Society.
>
>When I saw the offer first hand it was 10K to tell any amp from
>some cheesy Yamaha amp in a double blind ABX test as many times
>as you would like to try it within reason. I thin Noussien was
>somehow involved in administering one."

Richard has a standing $10,000 challenge to anyone about amp sound. He'll put
up $10k of his own money to anyone who can validate he can "hear" his own
amplifier compared to one that Richard has. The connditions are blind/switched
and Richard gets to equalize his amplifier (this avoids the ringers that have
been intentionally changed.)

The Yamaha integrated amplifier was part of the Sunshine Trials (which I did
proctor) between Steve Zipser anf Steve Maki.

There is also a $5K wire challenge.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <a2Kgc.165684$K91.425151@attbi_s02>,
nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote:

> outsor@city-net.com wrote:
>
> >On an audio related list I mentioned the cash prize offered here to
> >identify wire in a controlled listening test and got the below. Is anyone
> >familiar with the person mentioned and his challenge?
> >
> >"You could be talking of Richard Clark from car audio fame. He did
> >the best Mr. Wizard audio presentation ever seen at the Atlanta
> >Audio Society.
> >
> >When I saw the offer first hand it was 10K to tell any amp from
> >some cheesy Yamaha amp in a double blind ABX test as many times
> >as you would like to try it within reason. I thin Noussien was
> >somehow involved in administering one."
>
> Richard has a standing $10,000 challenge to anyone about amp sound. He'll put
> up $10k of his own money to anyone who can validate he can "hear" his own
> amplifier compared to one that Richard has. The connditions are blind/switched
> and Richard gets to equalize his amplifier (this avoids the ringers that have
> been intentionally changed.)
>
> The Yamaha integrated amplifier was part of the Sunshine Trials (which I did
> proctor) between Steve Zipser anf Steve Maki.
>
> There is also a $5K wire challenge.

Seems like its a no brainer to do just transform into the digital
domain, retard high frequencies by 1 second per octave say and here you
have and amp with the proper frequency response steady state and
obviously different.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 21 Apr 2004 19:53:47 GMT, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:

>In article <a2Kgc.165684$K91.425151@attbi_s02>,
> nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote:
>
>> outsor@city-net.com wrote:
>>
>> >On an audio related list I mentioned the cash prize offered here to
>> >identify wire in a controlled listening test and got the below. Is anyone
>> >familiar with the person mentioned and his challenge?
>> >
>> >"You could be talking of Richard Clark from car audio fame. He did
>> >the best Mr. Wizard audio presentation ever seen at the Atlanta
>> >Audio Society.
>> >
>> >When I saw the offer first hand it was 10K to tell any amp from
>> >some cheesy Yamaha amp in a double blind ABX test as many times
>> >as you would like to try it within reason. I thin Noussien was
>> >somehow involved in administering one."
>>
>> Richard has a standing $10,000 challenge to anyone about amp sound. He'll put
>> up $10k of his own money to anyone who can validate he can "hear" his own
>> amplifier compared to one that Richard has. The connditions are blind/switched
>> and Richard gets to equalize his amplifier (this avoids the ringers that have
>> been intentionally changed.)
>>
>> The Yamaha integrated amplifier was part of the Sunshine Trials (which I did
>> proctor) between Steve Zipser anf Steve Maki.
>>
>> There is also a $5K wire challenge.
>
>Seems like its a no brainer to do just transform into the digital
>domain, retard high frequencies by 1 second per octave say and here you
>have and amp with the proper frequency response steady state and
>obviously different.

Seems like a no-brainer for Richard to do the same with his amp (see
the 'ringer' rules above), and then you're back to square one. There
will always be clowns who'll try to cheat on such a test, but so far
not one single person has been able to *prove* that e.g. a Halcro
sounds better than a Rotel.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/22/04 1:43 PM, in article WuThc.3943$YP5.358919@attbi_s02, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>> Seems like its a no brainer to do just transform into the digital
>> domain, retard high frequencies by 1 second per octave say and here you
>> have and amp with the proper frequency response steady state and
>> obviously different.
>
> Seems like a no-brainer for Richard to do the same with his amp (see
> the 'ringer' rules above), and then you're back to square one. There
> will always be clowns who'll try to cheat on such a test, but so far
> not one single person has been able to *prove* that e.g. a Halcro
> sounds better than a Rotel.

I have found that you need a reasonably flat amp, and given that, the
largest sound difference would be the amount of oomph a speaker needs to
open up.

I had an ARCAM AVR200 powering 2 Thiel 2.4's - and ended up getting another
amp because the current demands of the Theils in the bass region really
needed reenforcement - the low end was kind of boomy and light. With the
extra power (NAD S200) the Thiels really do sound better - and to me, this
is the most probable reason. I don't know about the amplifier's "inherent"
characteristics or anything - but the amount of power required by the
speakers seems to make a difference.

And Tubes do sound different than the solid state amps I have heard -
perhaps it is amp - speaker as a system that makes the difference, no?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>> When I saw the offer first hand it was 10K to tell any amp from
>> some cheesy Yamaha amp in a double blind ABX test as many times
>> as you would like to try it within reason. I thin Noussien was
>> somehow involved in administering one."
>>
> Richard has a standing $10,000 challenge to anyone about amp sound. He'll
> put
> up $10k of his own money to anyone who can validate he can "hear" his own
> amplifier compared to one that Richard has. The connditions are
> blind/switched
> and Richard gets to equalize his amplifier (this avoids the ringers that
> have
> been intentionally changed.)

How about getting some Magnepan 20.1's as the speaker? I am sure that the
differences between low and high power amps would be in sharp relief with
that one, eh?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<WuThc.3943$YP5.358919@attbi_s02>...
> >> Richard has a standing $10,000 challenge to anyone about amp sound. He'll put
> >> up $10k of his own money to anyone who can validate he can "hear" his own
> >> amplifier compared to one that Richard has. The connditions are blind/switched
> >> and Richard gets to equalize his amplifier (this avoids the ringers that have
> >> been intentionally changed.)
> >>
> >> The Yamaha integrated amplifier was part of the Sunshine Trials (which I did
> >> proctor) between Steve Zipser anf Steve Maki.

Ooohhh... thet takes me back to my days reading rec.audio.opinion

> Seems like a no-brainer for Richard to do the same with his amp (see
> the 'ringer' rules above), and then you're back to square one. There
> will always be clowns who'll try to cheat on such a test, but so far
> not one single person has been able to *prove* that e.g. a Halcro
> sounds better than a Rotel.
I presume the test is to prove one sounds different from the other in
repeated blind trials. 'Better' would be hard to quantify.

Hmmm... what are rules on speakers? Something like an Apogee Scintilla
could tax the Yamaha amp into distortion. (depends on the Yamaha amp
in question of course)

I would also have thought some valve amps (low power SETs?) might
sound recognizably different to the Yamaha on repeated trials
particularly with low-impedance speakers.

Or use early Naim amps with something like Transparent cable with its
network circuit and send the Naim into oscillation.

Or how about Redgum amps which are designed with a sharply rising bass
response?

Jeremy

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Regarding the 10 k prise if amps can be differentiated:

"How about getting some Magnepan 20.1's as the speaker? I am sure that
the
differences between low and high power amps would be in sharp relief with
that one, eh?"

Probably not, one of the stipulations is that the amp be used within it's
designed range. Power draw enough to cause one amp audible distress would
violate that. I think it is expressed as x percent of clipping for x
amount of time not to be exceeded.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:11:41 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On 4/22/04 1:43 PM, in article WuThc.3943$YP5.358919@attbi_s02, "Stewart
>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>There
>> will always be clowns who'll try to cheat on such a test, but so far
>> not one single person has been able to *prove* that e.g. a Halcro
>> sounds better than a Rotel.
>
>I have found that you need a reasonably flat amp, and given that, the
>largest sound difference would be the amount of oomph a speaker needs to
>open up.

Irrelevant, since both amps are required to operate *below* clipping,
hence it doesn't matter which is more powerful.

>And Tubes do sound different than the solid state amps I have heard -
>perhaps it is amp - speaker as a system that makes the difference, no?

No, it's the microphony and non-linearity of tube amps............ :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 03:52:31 GMT, everyones_shadow@yahoo.com.au
(Jeremy) wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<WuThc.3943$YP5.358919@attbi_s02>...
>> >> Richard has a standing $10,000 challenge to anyone about amp sound. He'll put
>> >> up $10k of his own money to anyone who can validate he can "hear" his own
>> >> amplifier compared to one that Richard has. The connditions are blind/switched
>> >> and Richard gets to equalize his amplifier (this avoids the ringers that have
>> >> been intentionally changed.)
>> >>
>> >> The Yamaha integrated amplifier was part of the Sunshine Trials (which I did
>> >> proctor) between Steve Zipser anf Steve Maki.
>
>Ooohhh... thet takes me back to my days reading rec.audio.opinion
>
>> Seems like a no-brainer for Richard to do the same with his amp (see
>> the 'ringer' rules above), and then you're back to square one. There
>> will always be clowns who'll try to cheat on such a test, but so far
>> not one single person has been able to *prove* that e.g. a Halcro
>> sounds better than a Rotel.

>I presume the test is to prove one sounds different from the other in
>repeated blind trials. 'Better' would be hard to quantify.

Correct, but of course you cannot make a pronouncement on 'better', if
you can't tell a difference.

>Hmmm... what are rules on speakers? Something like an Apogee Scintilla
>could tax the Yamaha amp into distortion. (depends on the Yamaha amp
>in question of course)

Irrelevant, as the amps are used *below* the clipping point - so you
*can* compare a 5-watt SET to a 1,000 watt pro-audio amp - up to 4
watts.
>
>I would also have thought some valve amps (low power SETs?) might
>sound recognizably different to the Yamaha on repeated trials
>particularly with low-impedance speakers.

That's possible, but I don't know if it's been tried. Besides, do you
know any SETs that are flat from 20Hz to 20kHz? :-)

>Or use early Naim amps with something like Transparent cable with its
>network circuit and send the Naim into oscillation.

Dead amps don't count! :-)

>Or how about Redgum amps which are designed with a sharply rising bass
>response?

Amps are required to be level-matched to +/- 0.1 dB across the audio
band. That sort of basic cheating has nothing to do with the claims
made by 'high end' amp manufacturers.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 22 Apr 2004 23:55:15 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> Richard has a standing $10,000 challenge to anyone about amp sound. He'll
>> put
>> up $10k of his own money to anyone who can validate he can "hear" his own
>> amplifier compared to one that Richard has. The connditions are
>> blind/switched
>> and Richard gets to equalize his amplifier (this avoids the ringers that
>> have
>> been intentionally changed.)
>
>How about getting some Magnepan 20.1's as the speaker? I am sure that the
>differences between low and high power amps would be in sharp relief with
>that one, eh?

The amps are required to operate *below* clipping. No one is
suggesting that you can't hear differences due to one amp running out
of power.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote in message news:<a2Kgc.165684$K91.425151@attbi_s02>...
> outsor@city-net.com wrote:
>
> >On an audio related list I mentioned the cash prize offered here to
> >identify wire in a controlled listening test and got the below. Is anyone
> >familiar with the person mentioned and his challenge?
> >
> >"You could be talking of Richard Clark from car audio fame. He did
> >the best Mr. Wizard audio presentation ever seen at the Atlanta
> >Audio Society.
> >
> >When I saw the offer first hand it was 10K to tell any amp from
> >some cheesy Yamaha amp in a double blind ABX test as many times
> >as you would like to try it within reason. I thin Noussien was
> >somehow involved in administering one."
>
> Richard has a standing $10,000 challenge to anyone about amp sound. He'll put
> up $10k of his own money to anyone who can validate he can "hear" his own
> amplifier compared to one that Richard has. The connditions are blind/switched
> and Richard gets to equalize his amplifier (this avoids the ringers that have
> been intentionally changed.)
>
> The Yamaha integrated amplifier was part of the Sunshine Trials (which I did
> proctor) between Steve Zipser anf Steve Maki.
>
> There is also a $5K wire challenge.

How many have tried? 10,000 is quite some money. Now, I myself have
not been part of amp trials. A blind test published in the Swedish
MoLT issue 4 2002 revealed a difference of the Halcro dm 68 amp (7/7
correct guesses made twice) using the normal input (the Halcro dm58
has -1 dB at about 15 Hz, according to Stereophiles measurements). A
before/after test was used with music with bass information down to 5
Hz (Sound track to the "Fifth element").

T

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/23/04 12:03 AM, in article Vz0ic.7169$_L6.776591@attbi_s53,
"outsor@city-net.com" <outsor@city-net.com> wrote:

> Regarding the 10 k prise if amps can be differentiated:
>
> "How about getting some Magnepan 20.1's as the speaker? I am sure that
> the
> differences between low and high power amps would be in sharp relief with
> that one, eh?"
>
> Probably not, one of the stipulations is that the amp be used within it's
> designed range. Power draw enough to cause one amp audible distress would
> violate that. I think it is expressed as x percent of clipping for x
> amount of time not to be exceeded.
>

Then this is a useless challenge - pairing a PA to the speakers is one of
the more important challenges in high fidelity. If you remove that - then
there is no value in the challenge other than feeding the ego if a
"debunker" without understanding the true differentiators of amplifiers.

Really! Geez!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/23/04 1:09 PM, in article B5cic.8775$cF6.400706@attbi_s04, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>> I presume the test is to prove one sounds different from the other in
>> repeated blind trials. 'Better' would be hard to quantify.
>
> Correct, but of course you cannot make a pronouncement on 'better', if
> you can't tell a difference.

Given that the amplifiers' ability to drive difficult load is removed - then
the challenge is removed quite effectively.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/23/04 1:09 PM, in article G5cic.8777$cF6.400786@attbi_s04, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> On 22 Apr 2004 23:55:15 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>> Richard has a standing $10,000 challenge to anyone about amp sound. He'll
>>> put
>>> up $10k of his own money to anyone who can validate he can "hear" his own
>>> amplifier compared to one that Richard has. The connditions are
>>> blind/switched
>>> and Richard gets to equalize his amplifier (this avoids the ringers that
>>> have
>>> been intentionally changed.)
>>
>> How about getting some Magnepan 20.1's as the speaker? I am sure that the
>> differences between low and high power amps would be in sharp relief with
>> that one, eh?
>
> The amps are required to operate *below* clipping. No one is
> suggesting that you can't hear differences due to one amp running out
> of power.

Realisticqlly an amp running out of power is the main reason one would her
distortion vs. another amp. Given the power requirements across the
frequency band would reveal the differences in the amps -- the challenge is
a false challenge, then!

If you remove all possible differentiators between amps, then the challenge
is no challenge but some sort of 'chump' bet.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/23/04 1:08 PM, in article D4cic.8879$YP5.732402@attbi_s02, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>> I have found that you need a reasonably flat amp, and given that, the
>> largest sound difference would be the amount of oomph a speaker needs to
>> open up.
>
> Irrelevant, since both amps are required to operate *below* clipping,
> hence it doesn't matter which is more powerful.

Quite relevant, actually. My amplifier drives a difficult load - and by
removing that it gives no information to someone in my shoes - and will
likely steer them wrongly in choosing an amplifier that is not capable of
diving the speakers that they have picked.

This sounds like a bogus 'challenge' to me.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo wrote:
> On 4/23/04 1:09 PM, in article G5cic.8777$cF6.400786@attbi_s04, "Stewart
> Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 22 Apr 2004 23:55:15 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Richard has a standing $10,000 challenge to anyone about amp sound. He'll
>>>> put
>>>> up $10k of his own money to anyone who can validate he can "hear" his own
>>>> amplifier compared to one that Richard has. The connditions are
>>>> blind/switched
>>>> and Richard gets to equalize his amplifier (this avoids the ringers that
>>>> have
>>>> been intentionally changed.)
>>>
>>> How about getting some Magnepan 20.1's as the speaker? I am sure that the
>>> differences between low and high power amps would be in sharp relief with
>>> that one, eh?
>>
>> The amps are required to operate *below* clipping. No one is
>> suggesting that you can't hear differences due to one amp running out
>> of power.
>
> Realisticqlly an amp running out of power is the main reason one would her
> distortion vs. another amp. Given the power requirements across the
> frequency band would reveal the differences in the amps -- the challenge is
> a false challenge, then!

So you think any two amps with similar output power measurements would
sound the same? Works for me!

On the other hand, the high-enders' position is that there is something
magical about the sound of expensive amps that cannot be quantized via
measurements. That's what the challenge attempts to debunk.

So, in your opinion, why would anyone buy a $10K 100W amp, when there
are other 100W amps with low distortion available for $1K?

>
> If you remove all possible differentiators between amps, then the challenge
> is no challenge but some sort of 'chump' bet.

There are other differentiators like price, the pedigree of the amp,
etc., that are not removed at all by this challenge.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<c6clsd0jih@news2.newsguy.com>...
> On 4/23/04 1:08 PM, in article D4cic.8879$YP5.732402@attbi_s02, "Stewart
> Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> I have found that you need a reasonably flat amp, and given that, the
> >> largest sound difference would be the amount of oomph a speaker needs to
> >> open up.
> >
> > Irrelevant, since both amps are required to operate *below* clipping,
> > hence it doesn't matter which is more powerful.
>
> Quite relevant, actually. My amplifier drives a difficult load - and by
> removing that it gives no information to someone in my shoes - and will
> likely steer them wrongly in choosing an amplifier that is not capable of
> diving the speakers that they have picked.
>
> This sounds like a bogus 'challenge' to me.

There are more things, e,g, it cost 100-300 dollars and you need to be
a subscriber of a car magazine or worker in car industry, as I
understand it. The amp according to these rules must be a car amp.
However, if I would do the challenge, I would seek up two amps with
different HP filtering in the bass range (if such exist among car
amps; there is nothing in the rules what I can see about the built in
normal HP filtering of amps to avoid DC). Play the music to the film
"Fifth Element" and use speakers with e.g. 10 x 15 inch woofers in a
closed box system in a sealed small room. Play the song where there is
a sweep going down to 5 Hz at loud volumes and try to "feel" the
difference in the body. 1.5-3 dB difference in the 7-15 Hz region may
be percieved differently. Challenge rules, see

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22richard+clark%22+c...

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>"Stewart
>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> I presume the test is to prove one sounds different from the other in
>>> repeated blind trials. 'Better' would be hard to quantify.
>>
>> Correct, but of course you cannot make a pronouncement on 'better', if
>> you can't tell a difference.
>
>Given that the amplifiers' ability to drive difficult load is removed - then
>the challenge is removed quite effectively.

Sure and how many "tough" loads are there? Stewart's speakers may qualify but
of the hunreds of home speakers I've tested I can't recall a single one
(including the 'stats) that would qualify as a difficult load to drive.

It is true that many autosound enthusiasts like to wire multiple woofers, often
with multiple coils, in ways that might qualify. But Richard Clark's challenge
has put the amp sound for autosound to rest as well.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Thomas_Akerlund@hotmail.com wrote:

>Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

.....large snips......

>>
>> This sounds like a bogus 'challenge' to me.
>
>There are more things, e,g, it cost 100-300 dollars and you need to be
>a subscriber of a car magazine or worker in car industry, as I
>understand it. The amp according to these rules must be a car amp.
>However, if I would do the challenge, I would seek up two amps with
>different HP filtering in the bass range (if such exist among car
>amps; there is nothing in the rules what I can see about the built in
>normal HP filtering of amps to avoid DC). Play the music to the film
>"Fifth Element" and use speakers with e.g. 10 x 15 inch woofers in a
>closed box system in a sealed small room. Play the song where there is
>a sweep going down to 5 Hz at loud volumes and try to "feel" the
>difference in the body. 1.5-3 dB difference in the 7-15 Hz region may
>be percieved differently. Challenge rules, see
>
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22richard+clark%22+c...
up:rec.audio.car&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=ISO-8859-1&group=rec.audio.car&selm
=3ff8669c.126950265%40news.east.cox.net&rnum=6

AFAIK Clark brought the Challenge to a well known high-end amplifier company
and left with his money.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>On 4/23/04 12:03 AM, in article Vz0ic.7169$_L6.776591@attbi_s53,
>"outsor@city-net.com" <outsor@city-net.com> wrote:
>
>> Regarding the 10 k prise if amps can be differentiated:
>>
>> "How about getting some Magnepan 20.1's as the speaker? I am sure that
>> the
>> differences between low and high power amps would be in sharp relief with
>> that one, eh?"
>>
>> Probably not, one of the stipulations is that the amp be used within it's
>> designed range. Power draw enough to cause one amp audible distress would
>> violate that. I think it is expressed as x percent of clipping for x
>> amount of time not to be exceeded.
>>
>
>Then this is a useless challenge - pairing a PA to the speakers is one of
>the more important challenges in high fidelity. If you remove that - then
>there is no value in the challenge other than feeding the ego if a
>"debunker" without understanding the true differentiators of amplifiers.
>
>Really! Geez!

So what are the true differentiators, other than the factors clark mentioned?
This post merely mentions adequate power.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 02:05:48 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On 4/23/04 1:09 PM, in article B5cic.8775$cF6.400706@attbi_s04, "Stewart
>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> I presume the test is to prove one sounds different from the other in
>>> repeated blind trials. 'Better' would be hard to quantify.
>>
>> Correct, but of course you cannot make a pronouncement on 'better', if
>> you can't tell a difference.
>
>Given that the amplifiers' ability to drive difficult load is removed - then
>the challenge is removed quite effectively.

Why? Where did you *ever* see a 'high end' maker claim that the
'superior' sound of his amp had anything to do with sheer power?

My Krell will drive a 1-ohm load continuously, but that has nothing to
do with how it *sounds* on normal speakers.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 24 Apr 2004 03:11:09 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On 4/23/04 1:08 PM, in article D4cic.8879$YP5.732402@attbi_s02, "Stewart
>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> I have found that you need a reasonably flat amp, and given that, the
>>> largest sound difference would be the amount of oomph a speaker needs to
>>> open up.
>>
>> Irrelevant, since both amps are required to operate *below* clipping,
>> hence it doesn't matter which is more powerful.
>
>Quite relevant, actually. My amplifier drives a difficult load - and by
>removing that it gives no information to someone in my shoes - and will
>likely steer them wrongly in choosing an amplifier that is not capable of
>diving the speakers that they have picked.

Just tell them to buy a big Rotel or Bryston, and avoid all worries!

>This sounds like a bogus 'challenge' to me.

Then you don't understand how the 'high end' works.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 02:05:44 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On 4/23/04 12:03 AM, in article Vz0ic.7169$_L6.776591@attbi_s53,
>"outsor@city-net.com" <outsor@city-net.com> wrote:
>
>> Regarding the 10 k prise if amps can be differentiated:
>>
>> "How about getting some Magnepan 20.1's as the speaker? I am sure that
>> the
>> differences between low and high power amps would be in sharp relief with
>> that one, eh?"
>>
>> Probably not, one of the stipulations is that the amp be used within it's
>> designed range. Power draw enough to cause one amp audible distress would
>> violate that. I think it is expressed as x percent of clipping for x
>> amount of time not to be exceeded.
>>
>Then this is a useless challenge - pairing a PA to the speakers is one of
>the more important challenges in high fidelity.

Not really - just buy a big 'un!

> If you remove that - then
>there is no value in the challenge other than feeding the ego if a
>"debunker" without understanding the true differentiators of amplifiers.
>
>Really! Geez!

In that case, you have not been reading the claims made by 'high end'
amp makers - whose amps are frequently incapable of driving difficult
speakers, but are nonetheless claimed to have superior 'air',
microdynamics, soundstaging, smoother treble, deeper bass, etc etc
etc. Blind testing of course shows that this is bunk, but it doesn't
stop the claims.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Given that the amplifiers' ability to drive difficult load is removed -
then
the challenge is removed quite effectively."

Not so, if the amps are not driven into overload because both have
ample current reserves. What we want to know is if the 20 year old
integrated "mid fi" which handles the load as easily as the current
amp judged to be the latest statement of "high end" and also handles
it, can be heard to sound different in a listening alone test. If you
say current limiting is the thing, you are not agreeing with those who
say "high end" amps have some additional factor lacking in the lower
price spread amps, which are similar in electrical performance. What is
excluded is not the challenge but the extra factor existing in the amp.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 24 Apr 2004 15:24:40 GMT, Thomas_Akerlund@hotmail.com (Thomas A)
wrote:

>However, if I would do the challenge, I would seek up two amps with
>different HP filtering in the bass range (if such exist among car
>amps; there is nothing in the rules what I can see about the built in
>normal HP filtering of amps to avoid DC). Play the music to the film
>"Fifth Element" and use speakers with e.g. 10 x 15 inch woofers in a
>closed box system in a sealed small room. Play the song where there is
>a sweep going down to 5 Hz at loud volumes and try to "feel" the
>difference in the body. 1.5-3 dB difference in the 7-15 Hz region may
>be percieved differently. Challenge rules, see
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22richard+clark%22+c...

Unfortunately, you failed to notice that in test condition no. 5,
Richard is allowed to EQ the amps to have the same frequency response,
negating this kind of cheap shot.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:



>On 4/23/04 1:09 PM, in article G5cic.8777$cF6.400786@attbi_s04, "Stewart
>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 22 Apr 2004 23:55:15 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Richard has a standing $10,000 challenge to anyone about amp sound. He'll
>>>> put
>>>> up $10k of his own money to anyone who can validate he can "hear" his own
>>>> amplifier compared to one that Richard has. The connditions are
>>>> blind/switched
>>>> and Richard gets to equalize his amplifier (this avoids the ringers that
>>>> have
>>>> been intentionally changed.)
>>>
>>> How about getting some Magnepan 20.1's as the speaker? I am sure that the
>>> differences between low and high power amps would be in sharp relief with
>>> that one, eh?
>>
>> The amps are required to operate *below* clipping. No one is
>> suggesting that you can't hear differences due to one amp running out
>> of power.
>
>Realisticqlly an amp running out of power is the main reason one would her
>distortion vs. another amp. Given the power requirements across the
>frequency band would reveal the differences in the amps -- the challenge is
>a false challenge, then!
>
>If you remove all possible differentiators between amps, then the challenge
>is no challenge but some sort of 'chump' bet.

What it puts to rest is the idea that any or all amplifiers sound different
from one another when competent for the load.

It is a chump-bet in that Clark knows that amps is amps. But if that weren't
true then Richard would have been short his $10k by now. By the way, the
challengee is not required to put up any money of his own.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Realisticqlly an amp running out of power is the main reason one would
her
distortion vs. another amp. Given the power requirements across the
frequency band would reveal the differences in the amps -- the challenge
is
a false challenge, then!

If you remove all possible differentiators between amps, then the
challenge
is no challenge but some sort of 'chump' bet."

I agree about current limits being the real physical reasons an amp
might sound different from another. But those advocating the inherent
amp sound different view say that when with equal current capacity,
amps will still sound different. Removing differentiation is the core
of the exercise, especially those sources of differentiation which
exist in the perception process and not in the signal the amp delivers
to the speaker. Again those who hold the amps sound different view
say it is in the amp, but not due to current limits, that is the
source of the reported perceived difference. These are those things
this kind of tests can sort out, the physical from the perception

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/24/04 1:15 PM, in article Jgxic.14352$YP5.1069316@attbi_s02, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>> If you remove that - then
>> there is no value in the challenge other than feeding the ego if a
>> "debunker" without understanding the true differentiators of amplifiers.
>>
>> Really! Geez!
>
> In that case, you have not been reading the claims made by 'high end'
> amp makers - whose amps are frequently incapable of driving difficult
> speakers, but are nonetheless claimed to have superior 'air',
> microdynamics, soundstaging, smoother treble, deeper bass, etc etc
> etc. Blind testing of course shows that this is bunk, but it doesn't
> stop the claims.

I tend to ignore these claims and listen for myself.

I do think that tubes have nicely sounded distortion with them and the mid
range on tubes is pleasing to my ear, though.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/24/04 1:13 PM, in article cfxic.14174$0u6.2394685@attbi_s03, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>>
>> Given that the amplifiers' ability to drive difficult load is removed - then
>> the challenge is removed quite effectively.
>
> Why? Where did you *ever* see a 'high end' maker claim that the
> 'superior' sound of his amp had anything to do with sheer power?

Power into low impedance and low to no global feedback is what I hear from
most amplifier advertisements. Oh, that and a DC to daylight flatness with
low distortion.

> My Krell will drive a 1-ohm load continuously, but that has nothing to
> do with how it *sounds* on normal speakers.

The point is that how it can source a 1 ohm current load means you aren't
restricted to 'normal' speakers (whatever those are) - and if there is a ton
of current required - you have it without the amplifier going into some sort
of foldback.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<2Oxic.21007$_L6.1353991@attbi_s53>...
> On 24 Apr 2004 15:24:40 GMT, Thomas_Akerlund@hotmail.com (Thomas A)
> wrote:
>
> >However, if I would do the challenge, I would seek up two amps with
> >different HP filtering in the bass range (if such exist among car
> >amps; there is nothing in the rules what I can see about the built in
> >normal HP filtering of amps to avoid DC). Play the music to the film
> >"Fifth Element" and use speakers with e.g. 10 x 15 inch woofers in a
> >closed box system in a sealed small room. Play the song where there is
> >a sweep going down to 5 Hz at loud volumes and try to "feel" the
> >difference in the body. 1.5-3 dB difference in the 7-15 Hz region may
> >be percieved differently. Challenge rules, see
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22richard+clark%22+c...
>
> Unfortunately, you failed to notice that in test condition no. 5,
> Richard is allowed to EQ the amps to have the same frequency response,
> negating this kind of cheap shot.

He states:

"The sole purpose of my
amplifier challenge is to determine if the differences in amplifiers
are audible."

A previous post of mine disapperad, but there are resports of tactile
differences of vibrations in the 7-15 Hz region in non-manipulated
amps driven within spec using a before/after test. This was found for
e.g. Halcro dm68 from the normal input (-1 dB at approx 15 Hz)
published in Swedish MoLT 2002, issue 3, using music from the "Fifth
element" contaning information down to 5 Hz (14/14 correct in blind
tests). The flat DC-coupled input did not reveal any differences.

So I tend to agree with another poster, the test is quite meaningless.
If you want to buy an amp, you should not have to correct its
frequency response due to its flaws. Better to buy an amp with no
flaws.

Thomas

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote in message news:<Acxic.14166$0u6.2392261@attbi_s03>...
> Thomas_Akerlund@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>
> ....large snips......
>
> >>
> >> This sounds like a bogus 'challenge' to me.
> >
> >There are more things, e,g, it cost 100-300 dollars and you need to be
> >a subscriber of a car magazine or worker in car industry, as I
> >understand it. The amp according to these rules must be a car amp.
> >However, if I would do the challenge, I would seek up two amps with
> >different HP filtering in the bass range (if such exist among car
> >amps; there is nothing in the rules what I can see about the built in
> >normal HP filtering of amps to avoid DC). Play the music to the film
> >"Fifth Element" and use speakers with e.g. 10 x 15 inch woofers in a
> >closed box system in a sealed small room. Play the song where there is
> >a sweep going down to 5 Hz at loud volumes and try to "feel" the
> >difference in the body. 1.5-3 dB difference in the 7-15 Hz region may
> >be percieved differently. Challenge rules, see
> >
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22richard+clark%22+c...
> up:rec.audio.car&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=ISO-8859-1&group=rec.audio.car&selm
> =3ff8669c.126950265%40news.east.cox.net&rnum=6
>
> AFAIK Clark brought the Challenge to a well known high-end amplifier company
> and left with his money.

Just a note, I would say that at least 50% of the amps fails to be
completely transparent in tests made by the Swedish Acoustical
Society. The use before/after listning tests, blind, with bass-heavy
music (down to 5 Hz signals). These flaws would probably never be
detected in "normal" speaker systems, e.g. B/W 801.

T

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/24/04 1:35 PM, in article Mzxic.14442$YP5.1075735@attbi_s02,
"outsor@city-net.com" <outsor@city-net.com> wrote:

> "Given that the amplifiers' ability to drive difficult load is removed -
> then
> the challenge is removed quite effectively."
>
> Not so, if the amps are not driven into overload because both have
> ample current reserves. What we want to know is if the 20 year old
> integrated "mid fi" which handles the load as easily as the current
> amp judged to be the latest statement of "high end" and also handles
> it, can be heard to sound different in a listening alone test. If you
> say current limiting is the thing, you are not agreeing with those who
> say "high end" amps have some additional factor lacking in the lower
> price spread amps, which are similar in electrical performance. What is
> excluded is not the challenge but the extra factor existing in the amp.
>

If neither is running out of reserves, and you can perform transient tests,
the IMD and THD is really low in both cases, and you have decent but not
excessive damping factor - who cares? What I would want or need to know is
how good is the amplifier at powering my speakers (or any speakers) - most
reviewers have really difficult loads and revealing speakers and only then
can they tell the difference when being driven into compression (running out
of reserves).

This is why I think this is a false challenge - and does not debunk
anything.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/24/04 1:15 PM, in article vgxic.14417$cF6.592659@attbi_s04, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>>> Irrelevant, since both amps are required to operate *below* clipping,
>>> hence it doesn't matter which is more powerful.
>>
>> Quite relevant, actually. My amplifier drives a difficult load - and by
>> removing that it gives no information to someone in my shoes - and will
>> likely steer them wrongly in choosing an amplifier that is not capable of
>> diving the speakers that they have picked.
>
> Just tell them to buy a big Rotel or Bryston, and avoid all worries!

I bought a S200 NAD amp - basically the same deal.

>> This sounds like a bogus 'challenge' to me.
>
> Then you don't understand how the 'high end' works.

Suppose not if this is the sort of challenge that is put forth - remove any
possible way of differentiating one amp from another then claim victory when
you can't tell the difference!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/24/04 1:10 PM, in article Acxic.14166$0u6.2392261@attbi_s03, "Nousaine"
<nousaine@aol.com> wrote:

> AFAIK Clark brought the Challenge to a well known high-end amplifier company
> and left with his money.

With those rules he is likely to keep it. Most amplifiers behavior into
comression makes or breaks them!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

From: chung chunglau@covad.net
>Date: 4/24/2004 7:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <c6dsps02v1c@news3.newsguy.com>
>

>
>On the other hand, the high-enders' position is that there is something
>magical about the sound of expensive amps that cannot be quantized via
>measurements. That's what the challenge attempts to debunk.
>

Why do objectivists continue to burn this straw man? I don't know any
subjectivists who claim any "magic" is at work.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I think you have failed to grasp what the test is to exclude in amps.
For purposes of discussion let us say two amps from different companies
are to be tested. One costs 1000 k and has performance and specs very
similar to another at 10000k. The latter has been reviewed wherein it was
said it had night and day differences in a list of sound qualties to which
a list of common audio writing labels is attached. They said specifically
the obvious difference was with comparsion to the first amp. Now we do
the test and no one can pick the amps from another above the level of
guessing alone. The test was to see if the percieved list of quality
labels attached to the second but said to be missing in the first was an
artifact of the perception process or inherent in the amps. The results
suggest it was not in the amps. Because the performance specs were
similar, the load into which they were driven was not a variable, only the
claimed "night and day" differences. Both would agree that amp limiting
was not in the picture.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>On 4/24/04 1:10 PM, in article Acxic.14166$0u6.2392261@attbi_s03, "Nousaine"
><nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> AFAIK Clark brought the Challenge to a well known high-end amplifier
>company
>> and left with his money.
>
>With those rules he is likely to keep it. Most amplifiers behavior into
>comression makes or breaks them!

Am I to take your point as meaning that an amplifier operating in its linear
range will sound just like any other amplifier with similar frequency response?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>
>On 4/24/04 1:15 PM, in article vgxic.14417$cF6.592659@attbi_s04, "Stewart
>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> Irrelevant, since both amps are required to operate *below* clipping,
>>>> hence it doesn't matter which is more powerful.
>>>
>>> Quite relevant, actually. My amplifier drives a difficult load - and by
>>> removing that it gives no information to someone in my shoes - and will
>>> likely steer them wrongly in choosing an amplifier that is not capable of
>>> diving the speakers that they have picked.
>>
>> Just tell them to buy a big Rotel or Bryston, and avoid all worries!
>
>I bought a S200 NAD amp - basically the same deal.
>
>>> This sounds like a bogus 'challenge' to me.
>>
>> Then you don't understand how the 'high end' works.
>
>Suppose not if this is the sort of challenge that is put forth - remove any
>possible way of differentiating one amp from another then claim victory when
>you can't tell the difference!

This tells me you really don't understand the high-end. All the factors that
Clark includes in his prereqs are well known and well understood issues that
when viewed as problems have been solved long ago.

The subjectivist crowd and the high-end, on the other hand, claim that there
are "other" factors which cannot be measured with traditional tools that
contribute to the sound of amplifiers. Clark's prereqs could not possibly rule
out those factors as they are all standard things.

The real lesson is to get an amplifier that has adequate power for the job. No
mystery there. But if one searches for a good sounding amp for his speakers
based on those elusive factors that can't be measured then he'll by chasing his
tail.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo wrote:
> On 4/24/04 1:13 PM, in article cfxic.14174$0u6.2394685@attbi_s03, "Stewart
> Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Given that the amplifiers' ability to drive difficult load is removed - then
>>> the challenge is removed quite effectively.
>>
>> Why? Where did you *ever* see a 'high end' maker claim that the
>> 'superior' sound of his amp had anything to do with sheer power?
>
> Power into low impedance and low to no global feedback is what I hear from
> most amplifier advertisements.


OK, so there is another possible differentiator that would be tested for
validity: low/no global feedback vs normal global feedback.

Wouldn't it be nice if we can settle the issue of whether low/no global
feedback sounds any different?

> Oh, that and a DC to daylight flatness with
> low distortion.

You clearly have not read ads of certain tube amps.

>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"So I tend to agree with another poster, the test is quite meaningless.
If you want to buy an amp, you should not have to correct its
frequency response due to its flaws. Better to buy an amp with no
flaws."

The ability to drive an extreme load at the edje of an amp's performance
is not at issue. When an amp is driven into such a load and is overlaoded
doesn't show a flaw, only that the load is outside it's performance design
specs. The real test is for those claiming "night and day" obvious anyone
can hear them differences between amps with similar performance specs. If
one looks enough some condition can be so extreme so as to drive one amp
into an unstable condition, that in this instance is irrelevant. It is a
purchase consideration when an amp of x cost and another of 10x are found
by test to sound no different. The same consideration would apply under
the extreme conditions you propose, why buy the second amp if the first
costs 1/10 the other and sounds the same under those conditions.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/24/04 9:00 PM, in article H4Eic.16486$YP5.1208573@attbi_s02, "Nousaine"
<nousaine@aol.com> wrote:

> Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>> On 4/24/04 1:10 PM, in article Acxic.14166$0u6.2392261@attbi_s03, "Nousaine"
>> <nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIK Clark brought the Challenge to a well known high-end amplifier
>> company
>>> and left with his money.
>>
>> With those rules he is likely to keep it. Most amplifiers behavior into
>> comression makes or breaks them!
>
> Am I to take your point as meaning that an amplifier operating in its linear
> range will sound just like any other amplifier with similar frequency
> response?

Not having measured or listened to but a dozen or so, I cannot say for sure,
but on the ones I measured, save tubes which distort in a very melodic way
throughout their range, I would agree.

I would further say this is a silly non-contest.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/24/04 1:03 PM, in article P5xic.20708$aQ6.1263449@attbi_s51, "Nousaine"
<nousaine@aol.com> wrote:

>> Given that the amplifiers' ability to drive difficult load is removed - then
>> the challenge is removed quite effectively.
>
> Sure and how many "tough" loads are there? Stewart's speakers may qualify but
> of the hunreds of home speakers I've tested I can't recall a single one
> (including the 'stats) that would qualify as a difficult load to drive.

Martin Logan has a 1 Ohm impedance at the high end.
Apogees have a sub 1 Ohm impedance as well.
Thiels are notorious for requiring a lo of current in the bass (and tend to
be 3 Ohms)
Magnepans are -- magnepans and then to have a sub 5 Ohm load.

All of these are considered to be "difficult" to drive - and many integrated
amp manufactuers place warnings on their amps to not have speakes with
impedances that low! Many times in loud passages the amps could overheat
and trip thei protection circuit - or in extreme cases with no protections,
blow up!

But, if you don't see it - feel free to take the "40Wpc into 8 Ohms at 1Khz"
integrated and try to drive a Thiel 7.2....

> It is true that many autosound enthusiasts like to wire multiple woofers,
> often
> with multiple coils, in ways that might qualify. But Richard Clark's challenge
> has put the amp sound for autosound to rest as well.

He is trying to prove a negative, so the quest will be forever.

This whole thing struck a nerve - people doing a flashy sort of thing by
putting up a large sum of money with rules constructed so they won't ever be
"wrong"

The whole point of an amp is to source power - and matching that to the
needs of the speaker for good sound reproduction is the big task for that
link in the chain.

This "challenge" has so many if's and conditionals, that it generated more
heat and smoke than light.

It is understood by anyone that if you do not feed the speaker with enough
power, it won't sound good - too much power, and you will blow it out.
Conventional measurements should indicate if the speaker is likely to be
suitable, but to think we understand hearing and the processing our brains
go through to change pressure to sound to make it an end game is pure
arrogance to me!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/24/04 10:15 AM, in article c6dsps02v1c@news3.newsguy.com, "chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

>> Realisticqlly an amp running out of power is the main reason one would her
>> distortion vs. another amp. Given the power requirements across the
>> frequency band would reveal the differences in the amps -- the challenge is
>> a false challenge, then!
>
> So you think any two amps with similar output power measurements would
> sound the same? Works for me!

Nope - you would have to measure distortion, intermod, channel separation,
transient response, frequency response, and it is late I am sure I left
something out....

> On the other hand, the high-enders' position is that there is something
> magical about the sound of expensive amps that cannot be quantized via
> measurements. That's what the challenge attempts to debunk.

I don't think it is a useful "challenge" - since you CANNOT divorce the
needs of a particular speaker or transducer from this and still come up with
anything useful to a consumer that I hope you are tring to "protect".

For instance Halcro advertises a THD that is much lower than most other
amplifiers at a power level not likely to ever be reached. Perhaps that is
their edge in this game of diminishing returns. The Theta Drednaught II
shows a great amount of frequency extension - and given that I have designed
(RF) amps for the last 10 years, I can see a small amount of value for that
if it is true. It means the source of distortion has been moved to the
component feeding the amp. Even if it is overkill, this is a HOBBY, where
the pursuit of perfection is part of the fun (the most fun being music).

> So, in your opinion, why would anyone buy a $10K 100W amp, when there
> are other 100W amps with low distortion available for $1K?

I have no opinion - it depends upon the amp and the speaker. I have some
Thield 2.4's and it required a fair amount of current to make the bass sound
good. This made me seek out the best value to correct it given that I only
had about 70-80Wpc. I ended up with a NAD S200 - which made the bass sound
good without muddying the upper frequencies. I ended up paying more than
$1k for it. (It was 225Wpc).

If someone offers me a hand crafted piece of electronics, with a vanishingly
low noise floor, low IMD and harmonics, incrementally better than your $1k
amp, and wants to charge me $2-4k for it (more realistic) - I wouldn't fault
him or her at all. Why should I?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Thomas_Akerlund@hotmail.com (Thomas A) wrote:

>
>nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote in message
>news:<Acxic.14166$0u6.2392261@attbi_s03>...
>> Thomas_Akerlund@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>
>> ....large snips......
>>
>> >>
>> >> This sounds like a bogus 'challenge' to me.
>> >
>> >There are more things, e,g, it cost 100-300 dollars and you need to be
>> >a subscriber of a car magazine or worker in car industry, as I
>> >understand it. The amp according to these rules must be a car amp.
>> >However, if I would do the challenge, I would seek up two amps with
>> >different HP filtering in the bass range (if such exist among car
>> >amps; there is nothing in the rules what I can see about the built in
>> >normal HP filtering of amps to avoid DC). Play the music to the film
>> >"Fifth Element" and use speakers with e.g. 10 x 15 inch woofers in a
>> >closed box system in a sealed small room. Play the song where there is
>> >a sweep going down to 5 Hz at loud volumes and try to "feel" the
>> >difference in the body. 1.5-3 dB difference in the 7-15 Hz region may
>> >be percieved differently. Challenge rules, see
>> >
>> >
>> >http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22richard+clark%22+c...
>> up:rec.audio.car&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=ISO-8859-1&group=rec.audio.car&selm
>> =3ff8669c.126950265%40news.east.cox.net&rnum=6
>>
>> AFAIK Clark brought the Challenge to a well known high-end amplifier
>company
>> and left with his money.
>
>Just a note, I would say that at least 50% of the amps fails to be
>completely transparent in tests made by the Swedish Acoustical
>Society. The use before/after listning tests, blind, with bass-heavy
>music (down to 5 Hz signals). These flaws would probably never be
>detected in "normal" speaker systems, e.g. B/W 801.
>
>T

Oh I get it. You have to have a DIY subwoofer like mine before amps ain't amps.
There aren't currently any consumer passive (or even active) subwoofers that
have response below 15 Hz.

And here, Mr Wheeler says that a 10 Hz subwoofer is "useless." Maybe that's why
the high-end can't prove that amps ain't amps ..... none of them have a
subwoofer with adequate bandwidth. Indeed most of them don't have subwoofers
at all. They're too "slow" and the bass stays in the room so you get to
hear/feel it. The fast-bass sneaks out too quickly.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/24/04 2:31 PM, in article c6ebp5016pe@news4.newsguy.com,
"outsor@city-net.com" <outsor@city-net.com> wrote:

> I agree about current limits being the real physical reasons an amp
> might sound different from another. But those advocating the inherent
> amp sound different view say that when with equal current capacity,
> amps will still sound different.

Yes - this makes this sort f test rather useless in information or
enlightenment.

If I buy sme Maggie 3.6R's I has better get an amp with more cajones than
the Yamaha integrated, for instance.

If I get a Lowther horn speaker - I would do with a lot less power.

I do not see how this "challenge" serves anyone but the ego of the
"debunker"...

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/24/04 9:00 PM, in article y4Eic.16484$YP5.1208556@attbi_s02,
"outsor@city-net.com" <outsor@city-net.com> wrote:

> I think you have failed to grasp what the test is to exclude in amps.

Exclude *what* in amps?

> For purposes of discussion let us say two amps from different companies
> are to be tested. One costs 1000 k and has performance and specs very
> similar to another at 10000k. The latter has been reviewed wherein it was
> said it had night and day differences in a list of sound qualties to which
> a list of common audio writing labels is attached. They said specifically
> the obvious difference was with comparsion to the first amp. Now we do
> the test and no one can pick the amps from another above the level of
> guessing alone. The test was to see if the percieved list of quality
> labels attached to the second but said to be missing in the first was an
> artifact of the perception process or inherent in the amps. The results
> suggest it was not in the amps. Because the performance specs were
> similar, the load into which they were driven was not a variable, only the
> claimed "night and day" differences. Both would agree that amp limiting
> was not in the picture.

The contest is a silly endevour because of the various loads an amplifier is
asked to drive into - each speaker is different in impedance and the amount
of current required in order to get a nice, flat response out of it (or a
response the listener finds to his or her liking).

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 4/24/04 9:00 PM, in article %4Eic.16489$YP5.1208529@attbi_s02, "Nousaine"
<nousaine@aol.com> wrote:

>> Suppose not if this is the sort of challenge that is put forth - remove any
>> possible way of differentiating one amp from another then claim victory when
>> you can't tell the difference!
>
> This tells me you really don't understand the high-end. All the factors that
> Clark includes in his prereqs are well known and well understood issues that
> when viewed as problems have been solved long ago.

Fine - I must not "understand" - so enlighten me!

> The subjectivist crowd and the high-end, on the other hand, claim that there
> are "other" factors which cannot be measured with traditional tools that
> contribute to the sound of amplifiers. Clark's prereqs could not possibly rule
> out those factors as they are all standard things.

I would concede that we do not have a full 100% understanding of all
possible sonic differences. I do not need to offer $10k in a debunking
escapade to realize that the world is not going to be black and white
despite my earnest desire to try to force it there.

I am an RF engineer by profession and training - and I have to figure out
new ways to measure things all the time. Why should audio be different?

Sure, there might be people that fool themselves into thinking that there is
some ineffable difference between a Yamaha and a Halcro - and given the way
this test is set up - it is skewed to prefer the Yamaha since the amplifiers
aren't going to be driven into compression where any differences might be
seen.

If your conception of the "high end" is going on a debunking fest - I don't
get it - and probably never will.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel wrote:

> From: chung chunglau@covad.net
>>Date: 4/24/2004 7:15 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <c6dsps02v1c@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>
>>
>>On the other hand, the high-enders' position is that there is something
>>magical about the sound of expensive amps that cannot be quantized via
>>measurements. That's what the challenge attempts to debunk.
>>
>
> Why do objectivists continue to burn this straw man? I don't know any
> subjectivists who claim any "magic" is at work.
>

Oh yeah? A casual search finds the following post:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=tube+magic+group:rec....

Here's what Zipser said in that post:

"Probably the one and only solid state amplifier line that sonically
posseses the same magic as your tube amplifier is the PASS Labs Aleph
series of amplifiers."

There are many references to "tube magic"; just do a google search on
the various audio newsgroups.

BTW, you misunderstood what I said. I said that some high-enders believe
there is something magical about the sound of certain highly touted
amps. That does not mean that I am saying that subjectivists believe
there is magic at work. It simply means that said high-enders cannot
explain why these amps sound so great, since measurements do not explain
such greatness.

It seems like you are imagining a strawman being burned. When someone
says that something sounds magical, do you always assume that someone is
saying there is magic at work?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On 4/24/04 2:31 PM, in article c6ebp5016pe@news4.newsguy.com,
> "outsor@city-net.com" <outsor@city-net.com> wrote:

> > I agree about current limits being the real physical reasons an amp
> > might sound different from another. But those advocating the inherent
> > amp sound different view say that when with equal current capacity,
> > amps will still sound different.

> Yes - this makes this sort f test rather useless in information or
> enlightenment.


As compared to, say, a typical high-end review of an amp?

> I do not see how this "challenge" serves anyone but the ego of the
> "debunker"...

Then, as many have already pointed out here, you don't understand
why the challenge was laid down in the first place. It is a response
to typical audiophile claims.


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director