Does anyone know of this challenge? - Page 3

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

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:54:59 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On 4/26/04 1:34 PM, in article zKbjc.41838$IW1.2009846@attbi_s52, "Stewart
>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> I agree that is a good use of an end user's time and money - but still - if
>>> people claim to hear a difference, it might be good to do the due diligence
>>> as a scientific sort to see if there is anything to these claims. Some have
>>> been made in the past that haven't helped, but some has been made that did.
>>
>> That is the exact purpose of the various amp and cable challenges.
>
>The problem is that it is *not* due diligence, but grandstanding rather
>loudly !
>
>Real due diligence wopuld involve getting the amplifiers in question and
>doing both double blind testing with a variety of speaker systems and a
>variety of sonic and electrical measurements.
>
>Not some silly $10k "challenge"

The choice of speaker system is free to the challenger, so what's your
problem? BTW, electrical measurements are irrelevant, we're talking
about *sound* quality here. Once a difference in *sound* has been
established, it's easy enough to pin it down, because it is IME
*always* tied to a gross technical problem, nothing at all subtle!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

Thomas_Akerlund@hotmail.com (Thomas A) wrote:

>much snipped...
>>
>> We've done enough testing of specific claims to have laid that idea to
>rest.
>> There is no underground grain-of-truth resting just below the surface. If
>there
>> were then someone, somewhere would have stumbled on it over the past 30
>years
>> of searching.
>
>Tom,
>
>I agree that there is not much that differs amps during music
>listening and using 99.9% of loudspeakers of the market, and standard
>DBT testing. But if one wants to find out any putative difference, the
>test methodology needs to be the most sensitive around. The
>before/after listening tests are far more sensitive that just
>comparing two amps A/B, since you are comparing the amp with a bypass
>cable (the "before" signal). I've posted the link before:
>
>http://www.sonicdesign.se/amptest.htm
>
>I am not saying that there will be audible differences when comparing
>the traditional DBT way, but putting things to "rest" does not mean
>that there are differences, explained by physical terms, that can be
>judged to be significant different. It will, however, have probably
>have little practical meaning for the user. It can also be a
>preference to have an amp where the spec are far below the audible
>limit thereby it will warrant such a market. (I am not talking about
>expensive amps which have poor spec here, but those having high-end
>spec and thus in general more expensive.)
>
>T

The wire bypass test is a good idea. In fact, Arny Kreuger's pcabx is precisely
that. But the site's "data" is simply a statement.

But taken in context wouldn't you say that all the cable-swap and switched test
results would tend to show that if it is true as the site claims that if nearly
90% of amplifiers are not straight wires with gain into his simulayed load they
must nearly universally have the same errors.

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

Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:



>On 4/26/04 1:34 PM, in article zKbjc.41838$IW1.2009846@attbi_s52, "Stewart
>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> I agree that is a good use of an end user's time and money - but still -
>if
>>> people claim to hear a difference, it might be good to do the due
>diligence
>>> as a scientific sort to see if there is anything to these claims. Some
>have
>>> been made in the past that haven't helped, but some has been made that
>did.
>>
>> That is the exact purpose of the various amp and cable challenges.
>
>The problem is that it is *not* due diligence, but grandstanding rather
>loudly !
>
>Real due diligence wopuld involve getting the amplifiers in question and
>doing both double blind testing with a variety of speaker systems and a
>variety of sonic and electrical measurements.
>
>Not some silly $10k "challenge"

As if that had not already been done. By May of 1990 over 2 dozen
bias-controlled listening tests had been published, none of which showed that
any amplifier that had matched levels and frequency response had any "sound" of
its own.

Mr Clark, like other professionals such as me, has been constantly bombarded
with sometimes simply misguided but often wild shouting about the "sound" of
amplifiers which have never been verified. This was his way of encouaging those
who insist on amp-sound to cough up some evidence, prove their case or get out
of the way.

I think its clever but ultimately self-defeating because keeping the faith
depends heavily on refusing to supply evidence and to keep 'debating' the issue
and challenges no matter how fair or how possibly rewarding are unlikely to be
met.
This is because keeping the story or any Urban Legend "alive" depends on a lack
of scientific investigation (no positive evidence) and diversion (You haven't
proven that amplifiers don't sound different and Your Tools Aren't Good
Enough.)

So sure, Clark doesn't get many applicants because deep down inside no
Subjectvists is sure enough of himself to step up to the plate. It's much more
comforting to argue than to prove your case.

SO instead of simply proving his case Mr Lavo suggests a long complicated
experiment which if it doesn't support his hypothesis (supply results identical
to those gathered under conditions known to encourage common human bias
mechanisms) will be proclaimed to have disqualified all extant evidence.

Its a clever tactic for 2 reasons. First its long, expensive and unlikely to
ever be coinducted (certainly not by him) and if it is it has a pre-determined
outcome. IOW it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Oh yes, I forgot it keeps the
"debate" going.

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

"Nousaine" <nousaine@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c6k9gl02u6p@news2.newsguy.com...
> "Harry Lavo" harry.lavo@rcn.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >"Nousaine" <nousaine@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:xHXic.34068$w96.2423643@attbi_s54...
> >> Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 4/24/04 1:03 PM, in article P5xic.20708$aQ6.1263449@attbi_s51,
> >"Nousaine"
> >> ><nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >
> >>snip<
> >
> >> >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!
> >>
> >> IMO if there were anything to amp sound that is not readily observable
> >with
> >> traditional measurements and methods then the Richard Clark Challenge
> >should
> >> have brought it to light.
> >>
> >
> >Would you please indicate where in Stereophile's set of conventional
> >measurement the "microphony" test resides that clearly shows microphony
as
> >the reason tube amps are preferred by many audiophiles, as objectivists
love
> >to proclaim loudly and often here.
>
> It would seem to me that the frequency response anomalies that come with
> high-output impedance amplifiers completely describe any audible
differences in
> tubed amplifiers.
>
> As far as the microphony "issue" it seems to me like one you just made up
> yourself.

Poppycock (to quote one of your own)!!

I have never mentioned this issue before.. nor do I believe it. But it has
been raised here regularly by certain objectivists....I will not name names
lest I be forced to spend my sleep time looking for the exact quotes, but I
think we know who they are .... or at least they do. So if standard specs
tell it all, I want to know which specs they (and you, since you made the
statement) would have me look at.

Moreover, I and those preferring tubes usually are speaking of good old
push-pull tubed amps with reasonably low output impedances. Not the SET's
that you guys love to whup up on.

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

On 27 Apr 2004 23:24:07 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:

>"Nousaine" <nousaine@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:c6k9gl02u6p@news2.newsguy.com...

>> As far as the microphony "issue" it seems to me like one you just made up
>> yourself.
>
>Poppycock (to quote one of your own)!!
>
>I have never mentioned this issue before.. nor do I believe it. But it has
>been raised here regularly by certain objectivists....I will not name names
>lest I be forced to spend my sleep time looking for the exact quotes, but I
>think we know who they are .... or at least they do.

I am one of them. I have heard definite microphony effects in SET
amps - easily proved by locating the amps in my study (from where I'm
typing this), which is through a brick wall from the listening room,
but has a baffled cable duct for 'PC sound' and separates the amp
from the acoustic impact of the speakers. The traditional placing of
monobloc SET amps behind the speakers turns out to be a *bad* idea!

The same is even more true of tubed phono stages.

>Moreover, I and those preferring tubes usually are speaking of good old
>push-pull tubed amps with reasonably low output impedances. Not the SET's
>that you guys love to whup up on.

Indeed, I'd agree that a top-class PP tube amp like the ARC VT100 or
C-J Premier Eight is indistinguishable from any good SS amp, which is
kinda interesting, given all the claims for 'tube magic', which seems
to go away as the tube amp gets better.......................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

outsor@city-net.com wrote in message news:<c6mqlg02h6v@news1.newsguy.com>...
> Regarding the test discussed at:
>
> http://www.sonicdesign.se/amptest.htm
>
> "This will force the amplifier to deliver a strongly distorted current,
> just like with a normal loudspeaker, in order to deliver a
> correct voltage. This is a very hard task for many amplifiers!"
>
> An amp driven into it's nonlinear range can have audible artifacts. What
> have we learned that is new from the article? The test, if I'm
> understanding it correctly, is driving a fake speaker load and tapping of
> the output, providing the above observation. If we introduce some element
> into the chain that causes the above, and any amp can in principle be made
> to do so, and tap the signal from that element; what have we learned?
> Only if in the normal configuration does all the distortions usually
> created by current unstability rise above an audible threshold will it be
> percieved so to be able to identify it from another amp. Potential to
> cause the above is only a concern if a known difficult load is to be used.
> This is easy to anticipate and getting an amp with enough current capacity
> no problem. To pick an example, if the middle of the line adcom doesn't
> do it, larger amps in the line should be purchased instead. It would be
> useful for such as the test to be done as part of an amp review, I refuse
> to use "audition" for what is done, to see if a particular amp might be
> prone to current problems, but the solution is still the same and the
> latest wiz bang "night and day" pick of the month is not it.

Note that this not a test, but a test method. All tests made using
this method is published elsewhere and, unfortunately, in Swedish.
Except for compression artefacts at high outputs, there are frequency
response deviations that in some cases shows up as different in the
blind tests. Also, the reviewer is free to set the criteria for a
"recommended amp", e.g. "it should be able to recreate the signal in
99.9% of the speakers in the market with no or little compression of
musc playing realistic levels" (which can be quite high if you want to
simulate the SPL of a drum set . As stated in their recommendation
of the NAD 208 THX amp:

"Able to reproduce signals with no audible artefacts up to 250W, and
with small audible artefacts up to 600 W"

Now, what new can be gained by such a before/after test? Well, with
respect to frequency response deviations, with amp with similar roll
off in the low en (e.g. -3 dB at 7 Hz) may not be different in a
standard A/B test, but when compared to a cable only, it might. So the
advantage of a before/after listening test is that it's more sensitive
for colorations. This goes for all types of possible audible
colorations. So my point is that if one really wants to find out
audible (or tactile) differences, the most sensitive test method must
be used.

Thomas

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

Thomas_Akerlund@hotmail.com (Thomas A) wrote:

>nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote in message
>news:<_0Bjc.31128$0u6.5483536@attbi_s03>...
>> Thomas_Akerlund@hotmail.com (Thomas A) wrote:
>>
>> >much snipped...
>> >>
>> >> We've done enough testing of specific claims to have laid that idea to
>> rest.
>> >> There is no underground grain-of-truth resting just below the surface.
>If
>> there
>> >> were then someone, somewhere would have stumbled on it over the past 30
>> years
>> >> of searching.
>> >
>> >Tom,
>> >
>> >I agree that there is not much that differs amps during music
>> >listening and using 99.9% of loudspeakers of the market, and standard
>> >DBT testing. But if one wants to find out any putative difference, the
>> >test methodology needs to be the most sensitive around. The
>> >before/after listening tests are far more sensitive that just
>> >comparing two amps A/B, since you are comparing the amp with a bypass
>> >cable (the "before" signal). I've posted the link before:
>> >
>> >http://www.sonicdesign.se/amptest.htm
>> >
>> >I am not saying that there will be audible differences when comparing
>> >the traditional DBT way, but putting things to "rest" does not mean
>> >that there are differences, explained by physical terms, that can be
>> >judged to be significant different. It will, however, have probably
>> >have little practical meaning for the user. It can also be a
>> >preference to have an amp where the spec are far below the audible
>> >limit thereby it will warrant such a market. (I am not talking about
>> >expensive amps which have poor spec here, but those having high-end
>> >spec and thus in general more expensive.)
>> >
>> >T
>>
>> The wire bypass test is a good idea. In fact, Arny Kreuger's pcabx is
>precisely
>> that. But the site's "data" is simply a statement.
>>
>> But taken in context wouldn't you say that all the cable-swap and switched
>test
>> results would tend to show that if it is true as the site claims that if
>nearly
>> 90% of amplifiers are not straight wires with gain into his simulayed load
>they
>> must nearly universally have the same errors.
>
>Tom,
>
>I don't think they are saying that every amp has the same errors, but
>they can probably be divided into a few "groups". I've not read all
>the different tests that have been conducted during the years, but
>usually, the amps coming up to be transparent (or very close) are e.g.
>NAD 208 THX and Rotel RB 1090.
>
>The recommended list of equipment is here:
>
>http://www.lts.a.se/teknik/rekommenderat.html
>
>Although it is in Swedish it is probably not difficult to understand
>which components that are "recommended".
>
>T

Sorry I wasn't a bit more clear. If, as this sire claimed, 8 of 9 amplifiers
could be distinguished from a straight wire when their output was played
through a 2nd amplifier then amplifiers 'different' sounding than a piece of
wire are common.

However, there have been a couple dozen bias-controlled listening tests of
amplifiers which have only found amplifiers with a lack of competence
(frequency response, overload or other operating errors) to sound different
from one another.

So putting these two data set together I would think that all those amplifiers
that sound different from a piece of wire (90%) but do not show up as being
different sounding from each other in other tests must have errors with enough
similarity that they sound like each other even if they don't sound identical
to a piece of wire.

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

On 4/28/04 8:25 PM, in article oYXjc.9662$RE1.937959@attbi_s54, "Nousaine"
<nousaine@aol.com> wrote:

> Sorry I wasn't a bit more clear. If, as this sire claimed, 8 of 9 amplifiers
> could be distinguished from a straight wire when their output was played
> through a 2nd amplifier then amplifiers 'different' sounding than a piece of
> wire are common.
>
> However, there have been a couple dozen bias-controlled listening tests of
> amplifiers which have only found amplifiers with a lack of competence
> (frequency response, overload or other operating errors) to sound different
> from one another.
>
> So putting these two data set together I would think that all those amplifiers
> that sound different from a piece of wire (90%) but do not show up as being
> different sounding from each other in other tests must have errors with enough
> similarity that they sound like each other even if they don't sound identical
> to a piece of wire.

That is a good test, that.

And the source of my amplifier upgrade - the Arcam was not capable of
driving the speakers the way I wanted !

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

>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>Date: 4/28/2004 12:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <FkTjc.37648$0u6.6349206@attbi_s03>
>
>On 27 Apr 2004 23:32:37 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>
>>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>>Date: 4/27/2004 9:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <Hfwjc.30312$0u6.5306584@attbi_s03>
>
>>>The choice of speaker system is free to the challenger, so what's your
>>>problem? BTW, electrical measurements are irrelevant, we're talking
>>>about *sound* quality here. Once a difference in *sound* has been
>>>established, it's easy enough to pin it down, because it is IME
>>>*always* tied to a gross technical problem, nothing at all subtle!
>
>>Given the fact that you have reported hearing differences between certain
>>models of amplifiers in your own blind tests, why don't you take the
>challenge
>>and collect the 10K?
>
>Because the differences were down to easily traceable technical
>faults,

Clipping? nonlinear frequency response? I don't remember what you said was the
probable cause of the differences you heard.

and while I *could* build an amp which would both meet the
>criteria and be instantly identifiable, it would not be within the
>*spirit* of the challenge. It would not be a 'superior' high end amp,
>but would have some quite horrific colourations (or a very high noise
>floor) which are not covered in the entry criteria. I don't see the
>point of cheating for its own sake on such a test..........
>--

I wouldn't suggest that you or anybody cheat but if memory serves me the amps
in question were ones that are considered to be "competent" by objectivists.


>
>Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

On 29 Apr 2004 03:48:31 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On 4/28/04 3:10 PM, in article FkTjc.37648$0u6.6349206@attbi_s03, "Stewart
>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Because the differences were down to easily traceable technical
>> faults, and while I *could* build an amp which would both meet the
>> criteria and be instantly identifiable, it would not be within the
>> *spirit* of the challenge. It would not be a 'superior' high end amp,
>> but would have some quite horrific colourations (or a very high noise
>> floor) which are not covered in the entry criteria. I don't see the
>> point of cheating for its own sake on such a test..........
>
>Dunno ... It all depends on the response the amp has - did he specify the
>specification of the amps required for the challenge?

Not in detail, and not concerning noise and distortion.
>
>As we discuss and dissect this - the "challenge" can get rather ...
>Esoteric.

Not at all, it's simply a means of debunking the myth of 'high end'
amplifiers sounding different from 'mid-fi' amps.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

much snipped...

> >Tom,
> >
> >I don't think they are saying that every amp has the same errors, but
> >they can probably be divided into a few "groups". I've not read all
> >the different tests that have been conducted during the years, but
> >usually, the amps coming up to be transparent (or very close) are e.g.
> >NAD 208 THX and Rotel RB 1090.
> >
> >The recommended list of equipment is here:
> >
> >http://www.lts.a.se/teknik/rekommenderat.html
> >
> >Although it is in Swedish it is probably not difficult to understand
> >which components that are "recommended".
> >
> >T
>
> Sorry I wasn't a bit more clear. If, as this sire claimed, 8 of 9 amplifiers
> could be distinguished from a straight wire when their output was played
> through a 2nd amplifier then amplifiers 'different' sounding than a piece of
> wire are common.
>
> However, there have been a couple dozen bias-controlled listening tests of
> amplifiers which have only found amplifiers with a lack of competence
> (frequency response, overload or other operating errors) to sound different
> from one another.
>
> So putting these two data set together I would think that all those amplifiers
> that sound different from a piece of wire (90%) but do not show up as being
> different sounding from each other in other tests must have errors with enough
> similarity that they sound like each other even if they don't sound identical
> to a piece of wire.

It might be so that many amps have similar errors and that these might
be missed when comparing amps against amps, rather than amps against
wires. However, I think that the goal of the tests differ. If you want
to have an amp capable of playing all sorts of music at realistic
sound levels in your home without audible coloration in 95% of the
speakers (excluding speakers with extreme impedances), many amps would
turn out to be different from each other. Besides
clipping/compression, frequency response errors might be audible. Arny
now has some HP filter experiments with -3 dB varying from 50 Hz down
to 2.5 Hz I believe. By making tests with bypass wire using high-end
subwoofer systems one could tests whether tactile differences exist
among amps without going into any compression/clipping distortion.

T

Thomas

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

>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>Date: 4/29/2004 9:31 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <v5akc.8098$kp.227618@attbi_s52>
>
>On 29 Apr 2004 03:50:19 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>
>>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>>Date: 4/28/2004 12:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <FkTjc.37648$0u6.6349206@attbi_s03>
>>>
>>>On 27 Apr 2004 23:32:37 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>>>>Date: 4/27/2004 9:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>Message-id: <Hfwjc.30312$0u6.5306584@attbi_s03>
>>>
>>>>>The choice of speaker system is free to the challenger, so what's your
>>>>>problem? BTW, electrical measurements are irrelevant, we're talking
>>>>>about *sound* quality here. Once a difference in *sound* has been
>>>>>established, it's easy enough to pin it down, because it is IME
>>>>>*always* tied to a gross technical problem, nothing at all subtle!
>>>
>>>>Given the fact that you have reported hearing differences between certain
>>>>models of amplifiers in your own blind tests, why don't you take the
>challenge
>>>>and collect the 10K?
>>>
>>>Because the differences were down to easily traceable technical
>>>faults,
>>
>>Clipping? nonlinear frequency response? I don't remember what you said was
>the
>>probable cause of the differences you heard.
>
>Nonlinear distortions, and drooping treble.
>
>>and while I *could* build an amp which would both meet the
>>>criteria and be instantly identifiable, it would not be within the
>>>*spirit* of the challenge. It would not be a 'superior' high end amp,
>>>but would have some quite horrific colourations (or a very high noise
>>>floor) which are not covered in the entry criteria. I don't see the
>>>point of cheating for its own sake on such a test..........
>>>--
>>
>>I wouldn't suggest that you or anybody cheat but if memory serves me the
>amps
>>in question were ones that are considered to be "competent" by objectivists.
>
>
>Who told you that?

Here is your post on the amps in question.

Stewart said

"I positively identified several amps, the Yamaha
was closest to indistinguishable from the top runners (Krell, Hafler
and Audiolab in this case). The C370 was compared at a later date, to
the same Krell transfer standard. Interestingly, a Mark Levinson 333
also provided a positive result against the Krell, showing similar
treble sharpness. I did not compare Yamaha and Levinson directly, but
that would have been *very* interesting! :-)"

Either you were making positive IDs on amps that are considered 'competent' or
the Mark Levinson 333 and the Yamaha amp are not "competent" amps. Are those
amps exluded from the Clark challenge? Are they or are they not "competent"
amps?
>--
>
>Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

On 4/29/04 2:13 PM, in article 0Bbkc.16381$Rd4.1126875@attbi_s51, "Norman
Schwartz" <nmsz1@att.net> wrote:

>>>> Indeed, I'd agree that a top-class PP tube amp like the ARC VT100 or
>>>> C-J Premier Eight is indistinguishable from any good SS amp, which is
>>>> kinda interesting, given all the claims for 'tube magic', which seems
>>>> to go away as the tube amp gets better.......................
>>>
>>> What about the slew rate of a tube - isn't it slower than most non-switch
>>> mode solid state?
>>
> Whose tubes? Do you consider all eg., 6550 or 12AX7a to be (and sound) the
> same?

Nope - just asking generalities - the number of volts moving per unit of
time. I think I heard somewhere the slew rate of a tube is slower than most
solid state - just asking for some confirmation.

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

On 30 Apr 2004 03:48:20 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" <nmsz1@att.net> wrote:

>"Bromo" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:c6s2ne01mdr@news1.newsguy.com...
>> On 4/29/04 2:13 PM, in article 0Bbkc.16381$Rd4.1126875@attbi_s51, "Norman
>> Schwartz" <nmsz1@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Indeed, I'd agree that a top-class PP tube amp like the ARC VT100 or
>> >>>> C-J Premier Eight is indistinguishable from any good SS amp, which is
>> >>>> kinda interesting, given all the claims for 'tube magic', which seems
>> >>>> to go away as the tube amp gets better.......................
>> >>>
>
>Sorry to have confused you, my question was directed at the above "tube
>magic" idea and not slew rates. I meant to imply that it's possible that the
>tubes themselves got better, rather than top-class PP amps. That is to say
>how could one ever know, without having listened to vintage equipment using
>contemporary tubes and vice versa?

Easy - use NOS tubes.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

On 29 Apr 2004 22:47:21 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:

>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>Date: 4/29/2004 9:31 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <v5akc.8098$kp.227618@attbi_s52>
>>
>>On 29 Apr 2004 03:50:19 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:

>Stewart said
>
> "I positively identified several amps, the Yamaha
>was closest to indistinguishable from the top runners (Krell, Hafler
>and Audiolab in this case). The C370 was compared at a later date, to
>the same Krell transfer standard. Interestingly, a Mark Levinson 333
>also provided a positive result against the Krell, showing similar
>treble sharpness. I did not compare Yamaha and Levinson directly, but
>that would have been *very* interesting! :-)"
>
>Either you were making positive IDs on amps that are considered 'competent' or
>the Mark Levinson 333 and the Yamaha amp are not "competent" amps. Are those
>amps exluded from the Clark challenge? Are they or are they not "competent"
>amps?

The Yamaha has a fair amount of HF IMD, leading to a (slightly) bright
treble, and the ML has a treble peak in the response - very unusual
for an amp of this supposed quality, but perhaps a *deliberate* ploy
to make it sound 'better' than mere mid-fi amps...............

So, in that sense, the Yamaha would meet the Clark criterion, but the
ML might not. However, in the *spirit* of the challenge, both have
readily identifiable deviations from the linear response which is
widely available from other amps. Of course, Tom Nousaine would
challenge my results anyway, and I only did the one series of tests.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

"Nousaine" <nousaine@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c6mqsc02oc8@news2.newsguy.com...
> Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 4/26/04 1:34 PM, in article zKbjc.41838$IW1.2009846@attbi_s52,
"Stewart
> >Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>> I agree that is a good use of an end user's time and money - but
still -
> >if
> >>> people claim to hear a difference, it might be good to do the due
> >diligence
> >>> as a scientific sort to see if there is anything to these claims.
Some
> >have
> >>> been made in the past that haven't helped, but some has been made that
> >did.
> >>
> >> That is the exact purpose of the various amp and cable challenges.
> >
> >The problem is that it is *not* due diligence, but grandstanding rather
> >loudly !
> >
> >Real due diligence wopuld involve getting the amplifiers in question and
> >doing both double blind testing with a variety of speaker systems and a
> >variety of sonic and electrical measurements.
> >
> >Not some silly $10k "challenge"
>
> As if that had not already been done. By May of 1990 over 2 dozen
> bias-controlled listening tests had been published, none of which showed
that
> any amplifier that had matched levels and frequency response had any
"sound" of
> its own.
>
> Mr Clark, like other professionals such as me, has been constantly
bombarded
> with sometimes simply misguided but often wild shouting about the "sound"
of
> amplifiers which have never been verified. This was his way of encouaging
those
> who insist on amp-sound to cough up some evidence, prove their case or get
out
> of the way.
>
> I think its clever but ultimately self-defeating because keeping the faith
> depends heavily on refusing to supply evidence and to keep 'debating' the
issue
> and challenges no matter how fair or how possibly rewarding are unlikely
to be
> met.
> This is because keeping the story or any Urban Legend "alive" depends on a
lack
> of scientific investigation (no positive evidence) and diversion (You
haven't
> proven that amplifiers don't sound different and Your Tools Aren't Good
> Enough.)
>
> So sure, Clark doesn't get many applicants because deep down inside no
> Subjectvists is sure enough of himself to step up to the plate. It's much
more
> comforting to argue than to prove your case.
>
> SO instead of simply proving his case Mr Lavo suggests a long complicated
> experiment which if it doesn't support his hypothesis (supply results
identical
> to those gathered under conditions known to encourage common human bias
> mechanisms) will be proclaimed to have disqualified all extant evidence.
>
> Its a clever tactic for 2 reasons. First its long, expensive and unlikely
to
> ever be coinducted (certainly not by him) and if it is it has a
pre-determined
> outcome. IOW it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Oh yes, I forgot it keeps the
> "debate" going.

Sheer Balderdash!!

Had you really followed my oft-repeated discussions of test (latest with
Steven) you would note that I said explicitly that:

1) If the equipment under test were felt by subjectivists to have
differences (and thought not by objectivists) and if the blind vs. sighted
*evaluative* testing showed those differences to go away/be greatly
mitigated by blinding then I would then I would gladly accept blinding with
no reservations (and I further said that if real differences existed then I
expected they would show up even if blinded in the evaluative test).

2) I further said that if the quick-switch comparative blind test showed
the same results as the blind evaluative test, then I would swing over and
support your test as validated.

Pray tell, what fault can you possibly find with a test that allows those
definitive conclusions to be reached (by me, and presumably by many other
subjectivists here.) I would appreciate if you would stop misrepresenting
my point of view. And I am asking the moderators to enforce the "quotation
standard" on both sides, please.

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

From: "Norman Schwartz" nmsz1@att.net
>Date: 5/14/2004 2:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <c83d3501uh4@news2.newsguy.com>
>
>"Howard Ferstler" <ferstle@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:wP7pc.49177$xw3.2938368@attbi_s04...
>>
>> OK, now fantasy is sometimes fun and I do not begrudge any
>> reader who wants to fantasize about his audio components. I
>> rather enjoy fantasizing myself when I am off line. However,
>> when reviewing, reviewers should be different. They should
>> deal with brass tacks and not speculations - even if
>> speculations make for more poetic literature.
>>
>
>Fantasy, shmantasy. If a reviewer receives remuneration for listening and
>reporting on heard differences, what do you expect?
>Doesn't occur to anyone other than myself that the industry depends upon
>this fantasy. The manufacturers, mags, their editors and contributors,
>boutiques, second-hand houses simply would not exist without such fantasy.
>Perhaps only Julian Hirsch, may he rest in peace, told it the way it was, is
>and must be. All properly functioning pieces of equipment, up to their tasks
>sound the same, period, (transducers; e.g.. cartridges and speakers
>naturally
>excepted.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Julian Hirsch was the one who said that the first 14 bit CD player that I
bought would sound the same as the 16 bit players. He may have been a nice guy
but I found no value in his reviews and lived with an inferior piece of
equipment for a while based on his comments.

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

>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>Date: 5/15/2004 10:02 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Q2spc.54787$xw3.3277048@attbi_s04>
>
>On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:55:55 GMT, Philip Meech <macmeech@adelphia.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I was just noticing how well I could compensate for my budget speakers
>>with my Sony and Onkyo home theatre receivers.I am still really enjoying
>>dipping my toes into tube filled waters off mainland China. It has
>reactivated
>>my sense of gadgeteer romance. I cannot spend $100,000 on stereo
>>equipment nor would I. I often wonder if reviewers have better ears than the
>>rest of us or better imaginations. It is some of the best non fiction
>writing in
>>America.
>
>What makes you think it's non-fiction?

Editorial is in large part opinion. That is not fiction unless the writer is
lying.

After all, these guys get
>*paid* for 'hearing' differences among audio gear, and reporting them
>in colourful prose.

Really? Can you cite anyone being fired for reporting that something didn't
sound different? It is one thing to claim that the differences may be imagined.
You are claiming a conspiracy of fraud. Strong charges IMO and something that
needs to be supported with proof. If you are right, then more power to you for
exposing such conspiratorial fraud. But your assertion needs proof IMO.

Such 'differences' pay their mortgages.......

I don't think very many audio journalists pay their mortgages with their income
from reviews.


>
>Do you really *believe* all that guff that Kessler, Fremer et al spout
>every month?

Do you believe they are knowingly making stuff up to keep their jobs?

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

On 5/15/04 1:02 PM, in article Q2spc.54787$xw3.3277048@attbi_s04, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:55:55 GMT, Philip Meech <macmeech@adelphia.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I was just noticing how well I could compensate for my budget speakers
>> with my Sony and Onkyo home theatre receivers.I am still really enjoying
>> dipping my toes into tube filled waters off mainland China. It has
>> reactivated
>> my sense of gadgeteer romance. I cannot spend $100,000 on stereo
>> equipment nor would I. I often wonder if reviewers have better ears than the
>> rest of us or better imaginations. It is some of the best non fiction writing
>> in
>> America.
>
> What makes you think it's non-fiction? After all, these guys get
> *paid* for 'hearing' differences among audio gear, and reporting them
> in colourful prose. Such 'differences' pay their mortgages.......
>
> Do you really *believe* all that guff that Kessler, Fremer et al spout
> every month?

Perhaps you can take a less cynical view - these people review music and
point out what is enjoyable to them as well as things that sound as if they
are recorded and mastered well. They also review equipment that sounds as
if it could reproduce that music either accurately or at least sounding
"good" to them as possible.

When looking to build a system or upgrade an old one - we are unlikely to
try out as much equipment as they look at - so warts and all, it has value.

I would agree that you don't need to and shouldn't swallow everything that
people write or tell you - but heck, that is true in GENERAL, not just for
audio reviewers. Also, from what I can tell, audio journalists are hifi
geeks at heart - enthusiasm for the Next Big Thing is the only fault, if
any, I doubt they go out and try to figure out how to dupe the guy reading
their rag. And just like a movie review - because a reviewer likes it
doesn't mean you will like it.

No need to be an audio curmudgeon !

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

On 16 May 2004 14:44:33 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On 5/15/04 1:02 PM, in article Q2spc.54787$xw3.3277048@attbi_s04, "Stewart
>Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>> Do you really *believe* all that guff that Kessler, Fremer et al spout
>> every month?
>
>Perhaps you can take a less cynical view - these people review music and
>point out what is enjoyable to them as well as things that sound as if they
>are recorded and mastered well.

However, that's not what they say in their reviews.

>I would agree that you don't need to and shouldn't swallow everything that
>people write or tell you - but heck, that is true in GENERAL, not just for
>audio reviewers. Also, from what I can tell, audio journalists are hifi
>geeks at heart - enthusiasm for the Next Big Thing is the only fault, if
>any, I doubt they go out and try to figure out how to dupe the guy reading
>their rag. And just like a movie review - because a reviewer likes it
>doesn't mean you will like it.

The point of course is that you should like it, because it sounds
*just the same* as last month's 'best amp ever'.

>No need to be an audio curmudgeon !

Sorry, but *you* claim to be a professional engineer, yet you apply
extreme sloppiness to your listening tests regarding cable, and you
refuse even to discuss the detail of your 'experiment'. IME, those who
apply less rigorous attention to their hobby than to their work, are
not really interested in that hobby.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>Date: 5/17/2004 8:52 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <7d5qc.68404$xw3.3855476@attbi_s04>

> IME, those who
>apply less rigorous attention to their hobby than to their work, are
>not really interested in that hobby.
>--

Funny. IME those who apply as much attention to their hobby/hobbies as their
work are not really interested in thier work.

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

On 5/16/04 11:15 PM, in article c89anu02of9@news3.newsguy.com, "Norman
Schwartz" <nmsz1@att.net> wrote:

>> No need to be an audio curmudgeon !
>
> Many years ago Stereophile recommended the shielded version of a Grado
> cartridge, in their periodic listings over *several* years duration. I'm
> sure it sounded fine, the only trouble being that no such animal was ever
> even contemplated (according to Mr. Joe Grado himself). The owner at Lyle
> Cartridges became real pissed by people wishing to buy one (myself
> included). Despite his requesting them to remove the recommendation at
> various shows, they continued on with it.

The point being .... ?

Stereophile made a mistake once?

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

On 5/17/04 7:03 PM, in article c8bgc50fnq@news3.newsguy.com, "Lasse"
<lasse_ukkonen@hotmail.com> wrote:

> s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote in message
> news:<c85ngf019a1@news3.newsguy.com>...
>>
>> Do you believe they are knowingly making stuff up to keep their jobs?
>
> Maybe not-knowingly is the answer. These guys have succeeded by doing
> what they have done. This assures them that what they have done was
> right. All people are subconsciously seeking for approval* and
> usually people react very strongly if their perceived world-view or
> self image is threatened

The power of a critic is truly awesome. People turn to others to analyze
and judge the work of others all the time. Ask any actor, producer, car
manufacturer, computer maker, artist or anyone.

There are people that make it their living in passing these judgements. And
if they do a good job - the people that follow their advice can save a lot
of time AND make their lives better!

>=> If reviewer has created his success by
> making stuff up, then he will not willingly endanger his world-view/
> self image and his true motives might stay subconsciuos. So, reviewer
> might feel that he is The Man as long as he keeps hearing the
> differences and it might be almost impossible to make him admit
> that he does not hear the difference, even when he is reviewing
> different green markers.
>
> Lasse
>
> * Probably wrong words in psychological context

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

On Mon, 17 May 2004 23:46:11 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On 5/17/04 6:39 PM, in article Fabqc.68734$536.11120778@attbi_s03,
>"S888Wheel" <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>> Date: 5/17/2004 8:52 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: <7d5qc.68404$xw3.3855476@attbi_s04>
>>
>>> IME, those who
>>> apply less rigorous attention to their hobby than to their work, are
>>> not really interested in that hobby.
>>> --
>> Funny. IME those who apply as much attention to their hobby/hobbies as their
>> work are not really interested in thier work.

In the real world, not that many people are lucky enough to be paid
for doing something that they really enjoy. This does not of course
prevent them from doing it well.

>Good point - but my point is that work pays much better than hobbies - so if
>you pay more attention to your hobbies - you may not have work for very
>long!!

Perhaps this is a world view which does not cross the Atlantic very
well.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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

Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<rHSic.32839$_L6.1818930@attbi_s53>...

> I recall reading a review in Absolute Sound where they compared a bunch of
> amps ranging from $2k (Rotel) to about $6K - and their only comment was that
> at normal listening levels, any of the amps would be easy to live with - and
> the only differences were heard at a high level of drive.

Well I recall reading many, many reviews in which amps are compared
according to soundstage, musicality, bass response, speed, openness,
and many other characteristics, none of which can be corrected by
equalization or which appear only at the power extremes. If such
qualities are in fact comparable then they should be plainly obvious
when both amps are driving the same speakers well within their
performance specs. If they're not obvious, it means the reviews are
overblown.