How far have ss amps really come in the last twenty years??

[Jim777]

your mood, your wife's mood, etc. (...)
Or, you can pick it based on qualities that matter, like the ability to reproduce sound. Totally your choice

We all know that number one factor is wife acceptance factor, and I haven't found an objective measure for that yet. But luckily, mine has great ears and sound quality is high on her list

 

[MattHooper]

Sound is evaluated by ears, not eyes.

Then we shouldn't expect "eyes" to influence the perception of the sound.

But they do.

That's the very "problem" that lead to initiating blind testing to begin with.

I get what you are saying. I'm not sure I'm getting my point across to you, yet.

This is VERY different than customer satisfaction, which incorporates other variables.

Yes. I'm talking about those other variables. They seem to affect the perception of the sound.

 

[SIY]

Then we shouldn't expect "eyes" to influence the perception of the sound.

That's something exactly opposite to what rational people know to be true. But you can't escape from the reality that you can ONLY characterize the sound ears-only. Your "perception" of the sound when peeking is meaningless, so claims of an amplifier or DAC or whatever sounding "detailed" or "bright" or "refulgent" or whatever MUST be backed up with ears-only evaluation, otherwise they fall into the "alien abductions with anal probing" category. It's playing make-believe.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Then we shouldn't expect "eyes" to influence the perception of the sound.

But they do.

That's the very "problem" that lead to initiating blind testing to begin with.

I get what you are saying. I'm not sure I'm getting my point across to you, yet.



Yes. I'm talking about those other variables. They seem to affect the perception of the sound.

yeah, as you correctly point out the purpose of blind testing is to eliminate factors that can, but shouldn't, influence our perception of sound. I guess if you want your eyes to play a part in the listening experience go for it. Most of us want to focus on putting together systems that actually do a great job of producing sound. There is enough gear out there that both looks nice AND actually has a positive effect on SQ that I'm happy to avoid stuff that only looks nice.

 

[Krunok]

We all know that number one factor is wife acceptance factor, and I haven't found an objective measure for that yet.

There is no need for a WAF objective measurement - all you need to do is ask and you will get result immediately.

 

[Ron Texas]

I suppose most around here know of the folding chair test:

http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

There was a preference for cheap gear. People like to attack this test, but I haven't seen an attack which made any sense ever.

I suppose it's nice that we can buy amplifiers with vanishingly low distortion, high energy efficiency, small form factor, somewhat reasonable prices and no back breaking weight. Vanishingly low distortion probably adds no audible benefit over just very low distortion although I consider efficitncy, size, price and weight to be improvements.

 

[BDWoody]

...
Your "perception" of the sound when peeking is meaningless, so claims of an amplifier or DAC or whatever sounding "detailed" or "bright" or "refulgent" or whatever MUST be backed up with ears-only evaluation, otherwise they fall into the "alien abductions with anal probing" category. It's playing make-believe.

I think that costs extra...

 

[Jim777]

There is no need for a WAF objective measurement - all you need to do is ask and you will get result immediately.

No need to even ask, it's a fully automated measurement system.

 

[MattHooper]

I've said that our "eyes" influence the perception of sound (quotes indicating "eyes" is a stand in not only for the visual influence of a product, but the general "knowledge" that we are comparing two different products, or any other things we are told, or know, that can influence our perception).

I'm not sure why you are challenging this obvious point.

That's something exactly opposite to what rational people know to be true.

I'm very surprised to see a science-oriented person say that. There are reems of studies showing how various factors affect our perception - in taste, vision, sound etc. I'm sure you are aware of many studies done on influencing the subjective taste of wine, for instance the influence of price on subjective assesment of taste:

https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/wine-study-shows-price-influences-perception-1374

Yes we use our tastebuds for tasting. But the subjective taste, or assessment of that taste, can be a combination of influences. Same with sound.

But you can't escape from the reality that you can ONLY characterize the sound ears-only. Your "perception" of the sound when peeking is meaningless,

No it's not. It's a real experience. So it has plenty of meaning to the person. The issue is how that experience is INTERPRETED.

If for instance I tested a boutique AC cable against a cheap stock AC cable I may have the subjective impression that the more expensive, prettier one, which I've been told is "objectively superior in performance" seems to make the system sound better. "Listen to that added richness, smoothness, depth!"

Now...the subjective experience is real. The problem comes from how we interpret it. If I just infer from my subjective experience that it's due to the AC cables actually CHANGING the physical sound of the system, then that can be totally in error, and this is subject to empirical checking via blind testing and measurements. I can then find out that my subjective impression was not caused by any actual audible change to the system, so it must be do to some other factors - bias or whatever. And this is knowledge-gained-as-power. It helps make an informed choice about buying AC cables: if your goal is to ACTUALLY alter the sound of the system, then spending money on the boutique cable will be misspent.

But you can always decide "you know what? I just seem to like the system better when I have that nice looking cable in the mix." Just accept the influence of bias...but knowingly...and not under the misapprehension of what's going on, nor misleading anyone else about what's going on.

so claims of an amplifier or DAC or whatever sounding "detailed" or "bright" or "refulgent" or whatever MUST be backed up with ears-only evaluation, otherwise they fall into the "alien abductions with anal probing" category. It's playing make-believe.

Yes. And No. For the reasons above. Yes, ears-only/blind testing helps identify what is happening in purely audible terms. But if other factors influence how something sounds to us in sighted conditions, those are real world factors that do alter the experience. Being rigorous helps us distinguish these variables...but the variables exist, and how anyone wants to juggle those variables in his own purchase is up to them, and it can be reasonable to include the variables in one's choice.

 

[amirm]

I've said that our "eyes" influence the perception of sound (quotes indicating "eyes" is a stand in not only for the visual influence of a product, but the general "knowledge" that we are comparing two different products, or any other things we are told, or know, that can influence our perception).

I'm not sure why you are challenging this obvious point.

The issue with these other contributing factors is that they fade away over time, leaving you with just the sound. Subjectivists audiophiles seem to always be changing gear and tweaking it with this and that. This factor may be behind that. Improper evaluation easily leads one to think many things are effective in improving audio when in reality they do nothing in that regard. Once that faulty evaluation is done, then that effect wears off leading one with nothing.

 

[SIY]

Sound = ears.

Period.

Not sure why that's so complicated to understand.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I suppose most around here know of the folding chair test:

http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

There was a preference for cheap gear. People like to attack this test, but I haven't seen an attack which made any sense ever.

I suppose it's nice that we can buy amplifiers with vanishingly low distortion, high energy efficiency, small form factor, somewhat reasonable prices and no back breaking weight. Vanishingly low distortion probably adds no audible benefit over just very low distortion although I consider efficitncy, size, price and weight to be improvements.

Here's my "attack"

Putting to one side the power supply hum, the "cheap" amp used in that test actually appears to measure better than the "high end" one:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/yba-2-hc-power-amplifier-measurements-part-2

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...easurements-of-behringer-a500-amplifier.5070/

Given that the power amp was probably the only component in the test other than the speakers that potentially had any audible impact on sound, this may be an explanation.

But in any case, there was no attempt made to ensure that those who voted could reliably discern a difference in the first place. Given the fairly evenly split between A, B, and no difference/preference, I don't think the results are of any statistical value.

Finally, the Clever Hans effect may have been a factor given the test was conducted on a room full of people who could see each other when listening and deciding.

My 2c...

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Of course the other element worth remembering is that company's selling high end audio equipment very rarely advertise their products as looking very awesome in spite of not really doing anything for SQ. lol...

 

[Ron Texas]

@andreasmaaan you do have a point as the A500 doesn't measure very well to start with. I agree the results were not statistically significant, but that's the point. I might note the level controls on the A500 probably were being used and they have a documented flaw which likely caused it to perform even worse than it measured here. JA's testing damaged the YBA2 and involved preconditioning, so possibly the unit was not as good as the one in the folding chair test. Even so, would think that two amps which measured poorly would be easier to tell apart than two that measured well.

 

[Xulonn]

Romy's favorite word is 'moron' and he has a hundred different ways to let you know that you are it and he is NOT! His vitriol wading into the self anointed grandees on the blogs is pretty funny, though.

I understand that Romy is a charter member of the Donald J. Trump "Massive Ego Club" aka 'The Massive Insecurity Club" by its detractors.

 

[Xulonn]

Amazing to see that screen name again. I used to get in to it with Romy on the Audio Asylum boards. The word "opinionated" is barely sufficient to describe that dude.

Hah! Nearly twenty years ago, I was the moderator of the three AudioAsylun tube audio forums after JackG left because of his nastiness towards objectivists. Romy was - and is apparently still is - a real "anal orifice."

 

[Blumlein 88]

The issue with these other contributing factors is that they fade away over time, leaving you with just the sound. Subjectivists audiophiles seem to always be changing gear and tweaking it with this and that. This factor may be behind that. Improper evaluation easily leads one to think many things are effective in improving audio when in reality they do nothing in that regard. Once that faulty evaluation is done, then that effect wears off leading one with nothing.

I don't know this is true. A friend lusted over a highly regarded preamp for years. He said he didn't care if it was any better or not, it was beautiful, the controls were laid out wonderfully, the switches and knobs had a wonderful hefty, but silky feel, he didn't care if it was better or not he just liked seeing it, using it made him feel good everytime he touched it. It actually also was very good performing gear. So an identical sounding preamp without these features would have been nowhere the same satisfaction to him. That did effect how he felt when listening at least a little bit. So he was left with just the sound, and the niceties of that design.

I do agree what you describe is lots of what is behind audiophiles always looking for the next big thing. I think they do convince themselves the effects are real and it makes them feel good. It wears off in the sense they then believe the process can be repeated and they get a hit of new gear rush for awhile. Soon they are addicted to that and just continue. Even if they knew there was no sound improvement possible, they miss the idea and experience of doing something to make it sound better. Even if illusory they get the rush for real. That is the part of subjectivist methodology that is real and provides something you won't get buying transparent gear once and leaving it alone.

 

[Thomas savage]

I don't know this is true. A friend lusted over a highly regarded preamp for years. He said he didn't care if it was any better or not, it was beautiful, the controls were laid out wonderfully, the switches and knobs had a wonderful hefty, but silky feel, he didn't care if it was better or not he just liked seeing it, using it made him feel good everytime he touched it. It actually also was very good performing gear. So an identical sounding preamp without these features would have been nowhere the same satisfaction to him. That did effect how he felt when listening at least a little bit. So he was left with just the sound, and the niceties of that design.

I do agree what you describe is lots of what is behind audiophiles always looking for the next big thing. I think they do convince themselves the effects are real and it makes them feel good. It wears off in the sense they then believe the process can be repeated and they get a hit of new gear rush for awhile. Soon they are addicted to that and just continue. Even if they knew there was no sound improvement possible, they miss the idea and experience of doing something to make it sound better. Even if illusory they get the rush for real. That is the part of subjectivist methodology that is real and provides something you won't get buying transparent gear once and leaving it alone.

A knob that's both ' hefty ' AND ' silky ' , the stuff of dreams ..

 

[Blumlein 88]

I actually have an HP100. An interesting exercise that I've recently performed is to ABX the output of the Hovland sourced from an RME ADI-2 PRO FS vs the direct output from the PRO FS. The outputs can be level matched to within about 0.25dB with a bit of messing about as the Hovland has a c. 2dB/step volume control with 14dB of gain, and the RME can be adjusted in 0.5dB steps.
The two outputs are quite distinguishable in an ABX test despite the Hovland output having a measured -3dB point of about 200kHz.
I have no idea what the harmonic distortion is like, but the Hovland line stage consists of three minimal design tube gain stages with a 4:1 resistor attenuator in between and an N-FET buffer output with an equivalent c.1k series R and, if I remember correctly, a tantalum bead cap.
Somehow, with some music, the Hovland sounds subjectively better than the RME source.
The power amp I used for this is a Benchmark AHB2 driving a pair of Martin Logan Montis.

According to Stereophile measurements, the HP100 isn't flat to 20 khz, and well down by 200 khz.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/hovland-hp-100-preamplifier-measurements

Noise performance is also marginal, and might be enough to make them audible. Its output impedance is 2400 ohms rising to more than 4000 ohms at 20 khz. Depending upon the amp you are feeding this could alter the frequency response and further alter the volume out the amp if you measured signal level on the two bits of gear prior to the amp. And .25 db is getting up enough to also make the results an unmasking due to volume alone. Probable/possible volume mismatch and FR differences could make this not transparent vs the RME.

 

[Thomas_A]

Just a note that evaluation is not always only done by the ears. Differences in the infrasonics 0-25 Hz can also be felt by vibrational sensation in the body.