Just how legit is this person's blind test results?

[symphara]

So now your complaint is that my 'bullshit' stipulations *weren't specific enough*??

Some people just refuse to be pleased.

Not specific enough is the slippery slope to bullshit, as far as I'm concerned.

'Largely useless' even it were true, doesn't mean 'wrong'.

No, it doesn't, nowhere did I say that. But is "largely useless" your aim?

And your view seems to assume amp designer *do* routinely aim for non-transparency. Which doesn't seem to be the case.

I cannot read minds and don't know what people aim for. If I were to guess, their goal is to make money?

The point of hammering on about it is because of ubiquitous *claims* made about *amps sounding different*. It's not wrong to challenge those claims. Having seen those claims challenged, the consumer can sally forth with a better sense of what they can 'know' and 'not know' and their own 'bullshit detectors' are better thereby. Whether that's 'useless' I leave to you to decide... but you're here, aren't you?

I am here but your performance is far from impressive. I don't even know what you mean - is it some silly tautology like "amplifiers with identical measurements sound the same" or something else? You don't specify.

Who said "I" had a 'wealth' of randomized blind tests on amps, or that anyone does?

I was being facetious but in pharma they do actual tests on actual people. As for all your handwaving with engineering and measurements etc. I'm looking at the Onkyo RZ50 review here, which declared it broken due to failure of power delivery on top of mediocre SINAD and fairly low resolution processing, while I'm monitoring the owner's forums on two continents and so far nobody I've seen to have had that particular problem. And it appears that real use cases seem to be mostly movies and gaming, as far as people share, and not Direct/Pure Direct use, and the feature set seems good and fairly well implemented, and Dirac quite the cherry on the cake.

So you see, I'm confused. If this, whatever you're defending here, is not a practical endeavour (as in, struggles with real life applicability), then what is it? Circle back slap, to make fun of "audiophools"? Nothing wrong with that by the way, but let's not beat around the bush.

 

[Newman]

Notable that he didn't just poo-poo blind tests, but actually claimed to undertake one. Progress.

He has definitely been doing them for years, as I mentioned earlier, and others in this thread have mentioned other occasions.
No real progress, except in his rising toxicity.

 

[Galliardist]

They aren't.
I don't think children should be dragged into this so won't repost or link to pictures of them.

Thanks.

A video of a repeat test would show them, so best to drop that idea unless an adult can substitute for them.

 

[solderdude]

I think part trois will be done with the recently acquired ABX box. No helpers needed.

 

[krabapple]

I am here but your performance is far from impressive. I don't even know what you mean - is it some silly tautology like "amplifiers with identical measurements sound the same" or something else? You don't specify.

You dismiss the standard 'objectivist' stance on amp difference, because of its qualifications, as 'bullshit' because it is either too general, or too specific, or 'largely useless' as a buying guide, but here you also don't know what it 'means'.

Dear me, what a mess!

For starters, amps with 'identical measurements' should sound the same when compared fairly, sure. Of course, no one said they need to have literally identical measured performance to do that, given the precision available to us.

But I can't imagine you didn't know that. Shall I assume you were being facetious again, performance-wise?

Do a little dance for us: when amps sound different, why is that?

 

[Newman]

@symphara if your point is that transparency of an amp is not a major deal-killer for many buyers, that’s fine, but not what the SBAF test is all about and not what this thread is objecting to.

The SBAF test is trying to prove with solid evidence (blind test) that amps with extremely similar measurements sound so different that it is, quote, “ridiculously easy” to tell them apart, and to do so in terms of euphonic listener attributes “graininess”, “jumpy highs”, “flat and boring”. Not just something like hiss or hum.

If SBAF guy is right, it overturns a lot of ABX test evidence, and disproves the evidence-based opinions of many audio researchers that hifi electronics is a “solved problem” in sonic terms by having achieved audible transparency.

What do you reckon? Do you think SBAF guy is right and amps that are designed for flat FR and low distortion are contributing to the sonic attributes of the system? That we need to ‘listen to’ amps (and DACs) and choose them for their sonic effect on the sound waves?

 

[symphara]

For starters, amps with 'identical measurements' should sound the same when compared fairly, sure. Of course, no one said they need to have literally identical measured performance to do that, given the precision available to us.

It's not clear what you say at all. The snark, ok, otherwise I'm at a loss. From your initial 'amps operating within their design parameters and not designed to distort, should be indistinguishable in a blind, level matched test'. That's not a testable or useful hypothesis, but close to word salad which no doubt sounds very intelligent to you, and your output went downhill from there.

 

[AdamG]

OK Guys, let’s step back from making personal insults. Stick to the ideas, concepts and science. Any further insults, slights and/or diss, will be removed and possibly issued further sanctions. Treat others with dignity, respect and compassion or expect none in return.

Thank you for your understanding and support.

 

[krabapple]

Well, there's 'blind' and there's 'unwillingness to see'. From my vantage, you're displaying the latter. But if others here think my recital of a standard view on amp difference -- not just at ASR, but any audio forum I've been to over the decades where such things are debated -- is incomprehensible, I'm open to editorial input.

I asked for your view, do you have one? How would you phrase the terms of debate?

 

[julian_hughes]

I'd like to settle this once and for all. If fellow forum members would group together and contribute just a few $/£/€ I'll buy both versions of the Schiit amps and conduct my own blind tests. Thank you in advance.

 

[krabapple]

I'd like to settle this once and for all. If fellow forum members would group together and contribute just a few $/£/€ I'll buy both versions of the Schiit amps and conduct my own blind tests. Thank you in advance.

That's nice, but to 'settle once and for all' it would also be incumbent on you to do (or have done) comprehensive measurements on both.

Ditto how you would ensure the trustworthiness of your DBTs to a remote and skeptical audience, beyond what the SBAF troll has done. Proctoring?

 

[JRS]

2 amps (that are more similar than not). One uses a bunch of opamps (voltage feedback) and the other one uses discrete components with a similar functionality/design as a current feedback opamp.
Similar power, similar form factor, similar output resistance, similar bandwidth, similar distortion (at 1kHz).
Similar is not 'the same' which is the key here.


Marvin has an AP555x and could have included measurements.
He did report his findings about both Magni's but in other threads though and the first one showed (considered inaudible) differences.

There is a premise on the more subjective forums that when things measure differently and as different components are used (discrete is always better) they just differ and this can be heard because hearing is more discriminate than some steady state test signals in a resistive load.

The whole point of this 'exercise' was to show 'AmirNAD' says nothing and amps can sound different while both are similar and beyond audible thresholds.
He showed this to his audience with great success.
Others remain skeptical.

It took a generation for transistors to come of age

You could check out my thread.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...eaker-may-not-be-accurate-yourmhoughts.42870/

We are used to seeing straigh line FR graphs under constant simulated impedance. But in reality, speaker impedance varies rather widly with frequency. This is where the amp's FR will no longer be flat but also vary according to impedance (look at the black line in the graphs posted by Blumlein88). Some amps varies more than others.

This variation in FR with changing impedance is perhaps one of the reasons why amps don't sound the same.

Which I believe I acknowledged several pages ago, i.e. speaker-amp interactions, along with the observation of 0.1 dB changes, while possibly audible, certainly don't merit the "my gosh I never thought my stereo could sound this good, ...spent days reacquainting myself with my music selection." Because if we are absolutely honest here, the grandiose prose so often accompanying these products is not hinting at differences you have to ear squint to hear. My God such concentration would pretty much kill any joy.

So yes to barely audible differences using current thirsty speakers drawing 40 amps at ear bleed levels. And as I also observed these speakers are becoming much less common.

So pretty much back to square one and perhapx I should say meaningful difference. I would also point out that the Krell has an unusually high output impedance that creates these frequency deviations. Most SS state amps have damping factors close to a 1000 and often more. At some point the speaker cable becomes the limiting factor in avoiding such issues, which of course can also be avoided with music "hose."

 

[krabapple]

And again

E. Brad Meyer wrote this in 1991 for Stereo Review, describing load conditions under which amps 'sound different'.

"The Amp/Speaker Interface: Are Your Loudspeakers Turning Your Amplifier Into A Tone Control?"

Note that what he describes is a mismatch between hardware. It is not because amps themselves intrinsically 'sound different' when working within their limits.

AND it includes ABX tests!

The original link to Stereo Review is long dead, but I've made the article available below. The point is that the phenomenon was described to consumer 'audiophiles' ages ago.

Meyer1991_AmpSpeakerInterface.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[delta76]

Does it make tests more valid?

No. But it creates a more pleasant setting for discussion. And some people with more knowledge and experience than you might give suggestions to make the test better, more reliable and, as you asked, more valid.

Asr has a lot of industrial experts and so far nobody cared enough to give their suggestions.

Of course that only means something if he wants to learn. If he already thinks his test is the best it can be, and/or he only cares to discredit Amir, so be it

 

[julian_hughes]

No. But it creates a more pleasant setting for discussion. And some people with more knowledge and experience than you might give suggestions to make the test better, more reliable and, as you asked, more valid.

Asr has a lot of industrial experts and so far nobody cared enough to give their suggestions.

Of course that only means something if he wants to learn. If he already thinks his test is the best it can be, and/or he only cares to discredit Amir, so be it

Perhaps it's a problem that you have already decided that he needs to learn? That's about as biased and subjective as can be. People we dislike can do credible and useful things. People we think are stupid can say things which are true. People who hate us or our positions can say things about us which we can learn from. This whole concept that because he is hostile and vexatious then he cannot be credited with performing a task properly, a process we would never question if performed by a person we like, is about as subjective and biased as any of the crap talked at SBAF.

 

[julian_hughes]

....And some people with more knowledge and experience than you...

That's real charming too! Is everybody you don't easily agree with automatically a numbskull?

 

[ahofer]

People we think are stupid can say things which are true. People who hate us or our positions can say things about us which we can learn from.

How do they prove that it’s true, though?

 

[MarkS]

So let me see if I have this right: some guy on the internet claims to have done something that is known to be impossible from decades of repeatedly verified research, and we're supposed to take it seriously?

Okay, whatevs.

 

[Galliardist]

I'd like to settle this once and for all. If fellow forum members would group together and contribute just a few $/£/€ I'll buy both versions of the Schiit amps and conduct my own blind tests. Thank you in advance.

I will consider donating if it is a true double blind test, of multiple subjects, and tests the principle of difference rather than a pair of specific amplifier models.

Unitil then it’s just someone else doing what this person did. Maybe with harder to pick holes in tbe method, but not an answer to the question.

 

[julian_hughes]

How do they prove that it’s true, though?

They don't have to. We can consider what they say and work it out for ourselves. Or sometimes, usually when we're too fixed and narrow, people will prompt us.