two different amps sound the same?

[krabapple]

It's not like people are kept from posting their subjective...errrr...investigations here anyway. They just get challenged on them. At least we don't ghetto-ize them to a separate area designated as theirs and restrict them from saying anything everywhere else like Headfi does to us objectivist types.

It would not be the same thing. While segregating 'objectivist types' is anti-science, Headfi doesn't present itself as a science-focused site in the first place. You don't go there expecting that subjective impression posts will be discouraged (as you would at Hydrogen Audio). It's also focused on headphones, which like loudspeakers do sound reasonably different.

Discouraging subjective poetics about 'amp sound' here would be in-line with this site's ambit: a place for learning and discussing audio science. It would be anti-non-science. What's wrong with that?

(Examples of the power of cognitive bias provided by such claims could be considered within that ambit, as a part of psychoacoustics...but how many samples of the phenomenon do we really need?)

 

[raistlin65]

Ask you a question, if a $500 device performs as good as a $5000 one, why should the company sell for $500? If all performs the same, why would any company even bother to make equipment of different series, range, prices? Why not just make 1 and be done with it?

Because the industry makes more money off the human fallibility of perceptual bias.

Since people will believe marketing prose which makes the more expensive unit seem better. And price influences perceptual bias, it's to their advantage to sell higher models even though they don't necessarily perform better.

Because audiophiles are typically always looking for better sound, and many of them believe it is possible to achieve that with higher model units, it makes them very susceptible to these industry practices.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

It would not be the same thing. While segregating 'objectivist types' is anti-science, Headfi doesn't present itself as a science-focused site in the first place. You don't go there expecting that subjective impression posts will be discouraged (as you would at Hydrogen Audio). It's also focused on headphones, which like loudspeakers do sound reasonably different.

Discouraging subjective poetics about 'amp sound' here would be in-line with this site's ambit: a place for learning and discussing audio science. It would be anti-non-science. What's wrong with that?

(Examples of the power of cognitive bias provided by such claims could be considered within that ambit, as a part of psychoacoustics...but how many samples of the phenomenon do we really need?)

No, Headfi certainly doesn't present itself as science based. That's kinda the point I was making. It's almost the reverse of here, only there they have a specific forum dedicated to audio science where it's OK to call BS on stuff like burn-in and dacs all sounding different. But try to call out somebody in an ear bud thread claiming his new moondrops need 200 hours of burn-in anywhere else on the site and see how far you get. Here, people are free to post whatever crazy stuff they want. But they have to accept that they will be challenged on it pretty quickly...I'm not sure why the subjectivists seem to have a problem with that.

 

[charleski]

thanks all. it has been informative.
but is it ok for me not to like the adcom based on subjective results?
maybe for the reason @charleski said.
i think i can be pleased with my audiosources.

Most of the discussion here seems to have very little to do with your opening post . It’s impossible to be sure without measuring your particular sample of this amp, but there’s enough evidence from others that the Adcom has a problem, either in the basic design or in its long-term stability. So it’s reasonable to suspect that your subjective experience suggests that your amp has lost its low-end response in a similar way.

 

[escksu]

Most of the discussion here seems to have very little to do with your opening post . It’s impossible to be sure without measuring your particular sample of this amp, but there’s enough evidence from others that the Adcom has a problem, either in the basic design or in its long-term stability. So it’s reasonable to suspect that your subjective experience suggests that your amp has lost its low-end response in a similar way.

Haha, true. The whole discussion has stray off topic.

 

[escksu]

Because the industry makes more money off the human fallibility of perceptual bias.

Since people will believe marketing prose which makes the more expensive unit seem better. And price influences perceptual bias, it's to their advantage to sell higher models even though they don't necessarily perform better.

Because audiophiles are typically always looking for better sound, and many of them believe it is possible to achieve that with higher model units, it makes them very susceptible to these industry prpractices

While i do agree that more expensive units need not perform better, there is a difference to what you can put into a $500 vs a $5000 amp. One very big difference is the power output and cost goes up significantly as power output increase, esp. when you need more than 1 pair of transistors for your output.

Of course, it also depends on what speakers you pair with the amp. If you speakers are only rated 100w, it doesnt make sense to use a 500w amp. If your speakers need alot of power, then 50w amp isnt going to work as well

 

[Willem]

Components are no longer expensive. I quite recently bought a 2x250 watt Yamaha P2500s for all of 300 euros. This is a very robust pro audio amplifier that will take a lot of abuse. It also measures very well.

 

[steve59]

When I was shopping to replace my Krell kav 300il I tried a peachtree nova 300, a parasound A21 with the kav as a pre amp, an anthem 225 I, and a hegel h360. (I settled on the h360 after listening to a few hegels)The nova 300 was off in the top end, the A 21 was an amazing piece built like a tank and raising the hood looked like it, but it brought male vocals forward while rolling the top off a little. The Anthem 225i was solid for the price, nearly as powerful as the a21, more neutral but lacked a tape loop and variable output I wanted for the option of biamping. The hegel sounded the most powerful, was the most balanced and had the smoothest top end. My speakers were the revel salon 1 at that time and they reacted to all these amps. I just played tracks from Big head todd and the monsters live and focused on specifics, like how loud or quiet the audience was with different amps and then individual singers and instruments comparatively to reach my choice. Revel's ultima line might be more sensitive to partnering amplification than typical household speakers tho'.

 

[izeek]

Haha, true. The whole discussion has stray off topic.

to some degree but it was definitely helpful for me at least.
lets say most comments were relative and/or tangential.
and, i actually got answers to my questions that i can live with. now, i dont feel like i missed out on a lot based especially on amps.

 

[krabapple]

Haha, true. The whole discussion has stray off topic.

Well, the OP asking "But is it ok for me not to like the adcom based on subjective results??" is either a not serious, or just sad.

'Like' or 'not like' whatever the heck you want, man. Just understand why 'I don't like the way my amp sounds' by itself isn't good evidence for real sonic difference. Don't give it much weight, and don't present it as evidence on a science-oriented forum.

 

[Mojo Warrior]

Well, yes,

When someone designs an amplifier for consumer use it is voiced to appeal to a certain listener. A talented designer can adjust the parameters of the amplifier to modify the sound. This was brilliantly demonstrated by Bob Carver. It is worth the read. A very ingenious method to objectively compare amplification.

The Carver Challenge

Is it possible to make a $700 "mainstream-audio" power amplifier sound exactly like a high-priced perfectionist amplifier? Bob Carver, of Carver Corporation, seemed to think he could, so we challenged him to prove it.

www.stereophile.com

 

[krabapple]

Well, yes,

When someone designs an amplifier for consumer use it is voiced to appeal to a certain listener. A talented designer can adjust the parameters of the amplifier to modify the sound. This was brilliantly demonstrated by Bob Carver. It is worth the read. A very ingenious method to objectively compare amplification.

That was long ago...1985. And the Stereophile gang never verified with blind testing that they could hear differences between the target amps in the first place, much less the Carver emulations. They wrote:

"It is true that there were no "controls" here—no double-blind precautions against prejudices of various kinds. But the lack of these controls should have, if anything, influenced the outcome in the other direction. We wanted Bob to fail. We wanted to hear a difference. Among other things, it would have reassured us that our ears really are among the best in the business, despite "70dB nulls."

Which is bullsh*t. Cognitive bias doesn't have to care what you 'wanted' consciously, for it to operate.

The whole thing was a typical high-end clown show. A circle of confusion.

Anyway, "voicing" an amplifier means making it into a fixed-position equalizer. Its goal is no longer to emulate 'straight wire with gain": simply amplifying a signal. Its goal it to add 'euphonic distortion' to the signal.

Why would one buy such a thing? It's not like one can easily 'undo' whatever 'voicing' has been applied.

 

[Mojo Warrior]

The Laws of Physics and electronics have remained the same since 1985. Maybe that was before your time but if you follow Amirm's reviews and measurements, it is obvious that all amplifiers are not the same.

Bob Carver is no fool. He knows how to sell amplifiers. What he demonstrated was that he could match the sound of any amplifier, exactly. Without resorting to the "Golden Ears Audiophiles" to tell us what we should hear.

The OP was "can different amplifiers sound the same?"

 

[krabapple]

The Laws of Physics and electronics have remained the same since 1985.

As has human psychophysics.

Maybe that was before your time but if you follow Amirm's reviews and measurements, it is obvious that all amplifiers are not the same.

Yes, it is obvious. It is also a truth universally acknowledged -- or at least it should be, here -- that measuring a difference doesn't mean you can hear it. Differences are not all the same in terms of audibility. Why do you leave that part out? It's crucial. Amir knows it, for sure.

Bob Carver is no fool. He knows how to sell amplifiers. What he demonstrated was that he could match any amplifier, exactly. Without resorting to the "Golden Ears Audiophiles" to tell us what we should hear.

The 'demonstration' was that Stereophile writers are silly. I applaud Bob Carver. He's a fan of blind testing.

The OP was "can different amplifiers sound the same?"

That's the thread title, sort of. But the OP's first post was a jumble of words ending in

now, i did not dbx, but i feel like there IS a difference between them.
i felt the adcom lacked some ass end compared to the audiosources. the midbass was more lively but thats about it.
i felt like there was some slam missing on drum hits and low bass runs.
my expectation bias was that i'd be wowed since supposedly its a "better"amp than the audiosources.

Bob Carver 'proved' 50 years ago that two amps can 'sound the same' to a sighted panel of historically credulous listeners in a patently unscientific trial where they knew he was fiddling with 'distortion' with the intent of making two amps sound the same. Big whoop. There are far more compelling reasons and methods to use to prove that different amps can sound the same.

 

[pseudoid]

This forum is about objective measurements. Also, you are the one who said if they are audible, they should be entirely measurable.

Very rude and condescending! There is more to this forum than just being about objective measurements, else @amirm would not be sticking his ears where they do not belong (listening, that is).

 

[pseudoid]

...if all amps working right sound the same,...

I notice that your original assumption (premise) has a flaw, as has been discussed within many replies.
But many replies also indicate that your question may not be as simple (strictly based on "sound") as the reasons why there are so many different hw in the market place. Part of that answer also lies with the fact that you can still purchase an old Adcom GFA amplifier (no matter how flawed it was designed or how sounds) due to its brick outhouse (BSH) design.

 

[escksu]

Well, yes,

When someone designs an amplifier for consumer use it is voiced to appeal to a certain listener. A talented designer can adjust the parameters of the amplifier to modify the sound. This was brilliantly demonstrated by Bob Carver. It is worth the read. A very ingenious method to objectively compare amplification.

The Carver Challenge

Is it possible to make a $700 "mainstream-audio" power amplifier sound exactly like a high-priced perfectionist amplifier? Bob Carver, of Carver Corporation, seemed to think he could, so we challenged him to prove it.

www.stereophile.com

Yes. It is entirely possible to purposely adjust design parameters in order to impose a certain characteristics to the sound. OK, I have to say power amps arent the best examples becaue most power amps are designed to be as transparent and netural as possible (not having any of its own characteristics). The pre-amp would be the one imposing it instead.

Btw, one can build a clone of those high end power amps at a fraction of the cost (around 10-20% of the original price). One of the most expensive item would be the transformer. A 1.5KW toroid can cost a few hundred. This is also to say that building a good amp for $500 is not impossible but there would be no profit margin left.....

Audio gears are not mass production items which could leverage on quantity for profits. They are extremely niche items which requires extremely high margin in order for company to survive. Most of the high end brands are mainly boutique size companies with small factories. They don't churn out amps/players etc.....

 

[izeek]

Well, the OP asking "But is it ok for me not to like the adcom based on subjective results??" is either a not serious, or just sad.

'Like' or 'not like' whatever the heck you want, man. Just understand why 'I don't like the way my amp sounds' by itself isn't good evidence for real sonic difference. Don't give it much weight, and don't present it as evidence on a science-oriented forum.

man, theres a lot of you unnecessary commenters.
i came for information.
apparently you came to belittle.
if you cant answer questions without the dumb s$#÷, just keep it moving.
really simple.
pretty sad you feel the need to be a jackass to prove your superiority of said knowledge.
obi wan you are not.
this goes for the others here negatively describing my quest for information which is what this forum is supposedly about.

 

[ahofer]

How could they not sound different if they don't reproduce the signal the same way?

By changing the signal in a way or magnitude that is inaudible.

 

[ahofer]

On the topic of market supply- I wrote this a while back:

How can bogus claims and inferior audio thrive in a competitive market?

I keep running into the same addlepated thought, here and in other forums. It goes something like this: Market success is the clearest indication of value. Expensive cables must sound better, or people wouldn't pay for them; exotic amplifiers must be better or they wouldn't survive. Even...

audiosciencereview.com