Classic article on amp comparison

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

Chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:

> > didn't realize this was online, but it is -- E. Brad Meyer's
> > classic 1991 Stereo Review article,
> > 'The Amp?speaker Interface'
> >
> > In it , he describes conditions under which the same two amps --
> > one being tube, the other SS --
> > sound different or the same in a DBT. Nothing radical here,
> > but nice to have so much good information in one place.
> >
> > http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/a [...] erface.pdf
> >
> >
> >

> That is a nice article, thanks. I guess we should bookmark this so that
> next time someone says that DBT's never give positive results, we can
> help him/her out.

Well, there's also the Carlstrom ABX site , whihc has some old positive ABX
amp results along the same lines. And of course the Greenhill speaker cable
comparison gave at least one positive result, traceable to a significant measurable
response difference between two of the cables.

(these instances have been referenced before, but 'subjectivists' seem to have a short
memory for this sort of thing)

http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm


--

-S

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

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > didn't realize this was online, but it is -- E. Brad Meyer's
> > classic 1991 Stereo Review article,
> > 'The Amp?speaker Interface'
> >
> > In it , he describes conditions under which the same two amps --
> > one being tube, the other SS --
> > sound different or the same in a DBT. Nothing radical here,
> > but nice to have so much good information in one place.
> >
> > http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/a [...] erface.pdf
>
> Don't think I'd ever seen this one before. I wouldn't expect it to sway
> any opinions, but subjectivists really should read it anyway, because
> it will give you a better understanding of the arguments your opponents
> are making here.
>
> bob

I read it. It is well written and makes the case very clearly. I
certainly see the internal consistency of this point of view. And, if
no one has ever shown cables/etc are audible in a blind test, that
certainly is damning evidence.

I simply think this (and we shall never agree): that I put some weight
on my own experience, to the extent it disagrees with the paradigm.
It's not my perceptions of the sound that makes me disagree. It's not
that I hear differences between CD players. It's that my experience of
the way that subtle right-brain aspects of sound are perceived and
labelled shows me just how extraordinarily difficult it is to
"conceptualize" these differences. Since no one has ever pointed me to
a test that addressed this difficulty, I'm not convinced that this
thunderous lack of DBT results has any relevance.

I know: you don't think this difficulty is a difficulty; or that I made
it up, or that there's no evidence it exists. Oh well. We shall never
agree.

I have no problem integrating the "lack of evidence" for this
difficulty into my theory, since I also believe that ignoring such
facts about perception doesn't lead to a contradiction, but leads to a
self-consistent paradigm in which the difficulty doesn't exist, and
nothing ever happens that requires the difficulty to exist. Analogous
to the way that a photon will be a particle if you look for a particle,
and nothing will ever happen (as long as you keep looking for a
particle) that ever indicates it is also a wave.

I know, I know: you probably think this analogy is absurd and Chung
will probably mock it as a convenient dodge of the evidence, etc. etc.
Sigh. We shall never agree. I would also think it was absurd, except
that I've discovered the world really works that way.

I'm pretty sure that multiple internally consistent paradigms exist to
explain most things, and there's no way to choose among them without
calling on intuition at some point. Occam's razor suggests a way of
choosing; but I also think that's just a heuristic and not any kind of
fundamental truth.

Mike

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

michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > didn't realize this was online, but it is -- E. Brad Meyer's
> > > classic 1991 Stereo Review article,
> > > 'The Amp?speaker Interface'
> > >
> > > In it , he describes conditions under which the same two amps --
> > > one being tube, the other SS --
> > > sound different or the same in a DBT. Nothing radical here,
> > > but nice to have so much good information in one place.
> > >
> > > http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/a [...] erface.pdf
> >
> > Don't think I'd ever seen this one before. I wouldn't expect it to sway
> > any opinions, but subjectivists really should read it anyway, because
> > it will give you a better understanding of the arguments your opponents
> > are making here.
> >
> > bob
>
> I read it. It is well written and makes the case very clearly. I
> certainly see the internal consistency of this point of view. And, if
> no one has ever shown cables/etc are audible in a blind test, that
> certainly is damning evidence.
>
> I simply think this (and we shall never agree): that I put some weight
> on my own experience, to the extent it disagrees with the paradigm.
> It's not my perceptions of the sound that makes me disagree. It's not
> that I hear differences between CD players. It's that my experience of
> the way that subtle right-brain aspects of sound are perceived and
> labelled shows me just how extraordinarily difficult it is to
> "conceptualize" these differences. Since no one has ever pointed me to
> a test that addressed this difficulty, I'm not convinced that this
> thunderous lack of DBT results has any relevance.
>
> I know: you don't think this difficulty is a difficulty; or that I made
> it up, or that there's no evidence it exists. Oh well. We shall never
> agree.

Clearly not, but that's because you refuse to put your own ideas to the
test. Yes, I've said that no evidence exists, but I've also asked you
for evidence to support your beliefs, and you haven't--and
can't--provide any. If you would only do the test you are so convinced
would prove you right, then I guarantee you that we would indeed come
to agreement.

bob

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

michaelmossey@yahoo.com wrote:


> I simply think this (and we shall never agree): that I put some weight
> on my own experience, to the extent it disagrees with the paradigm.
> It's not my perceptions of the sound that makes me disagree. It's not
> that I hear differences between CD players. It's that my experience of
> the way that subtle right-brain aspects of sound are perceived and
> labelled shows me just how extraordinarily difficult it is to
> "conceptualize" these differences. Since no one has ever pointed me to
> a test that addressed this difficulty, I'm not convinced that this
> thunderous lack of DBT results has any relevance.



There is no "subtle" right brain aspect of sound perception. On the
contrary, it is very simple. Once the levels are matched and once the
brand names are hidden it all sounds the same as long as there are no
peculiar frequency response artifacts evident. That's the entire point
of the article.


To bring up all this psuedo neurological stuff is either just an
obsfucation for those that know but, for their own reasons, don't want
to admit the facts, or fuzzy thinking by those who cannot (or will not)
accept the facts.


As far as one's own experience goes, it's GIGO. If you play fast and
loose with testing parameters then you'll never be prepared or able to
validate what you are trying to discover in the first place.


mp