Double Blind tests *did* show amplifiers to sound different

[Sal1950]

They cite blind ABX testing as "proving" that people cannot hear differences where volumes are controlled to within, say. 0.5 dB. Such test regimes might be scientifically rigorous and repeatable, however they are so restrictive that they limit they limit there own results to practical irrelevance.

What's so hard about that, easy peasy to get levels matched to a 1/2 db.

Actually, too many decades have passed during which many audiophiles have allowed themselves to be fooled by cognitive bias regarding what they think they are (or are even capable) of hearing.

But I still find it unbelievable that audiophiles refuse to open their eyes and ears and believe what the evidence has shown them. They come up with (unsupportable) excuse after excuse to find reasons why the science is wrong and their listening fairy-tales have credence.

 

[Feanor]

What's so hard about that, easy peasy to get levels matched to a 1/2 db.

But I still find it unbelievable that audiophiles refuse to open their eyes and ears and believe what the evidence has shown them. They come up with (unsupportable) excuse after excuse to find reasons why the science is wrong and their listening fairy-tales have credence.

Actually, Sal, no very many audiophiles say that "science is wrong". Most, like me, say that science is right so far as it goes.

Scoffers mock that audiophiles aren't convinced by blind ABX testing, but, I'll reiterate, the constraints of the testing procedures limit the conclusions that may be draw. I believe that most scientists will allow that the results of experiments under specific conditions should not be too broadly generalized.

 

[jamtinge]

I don't believe you're going to find a "conclusive" answer as long as people are different, have different experiences, different goals, different types of systems (mine uses extremely sensitive/efficient horns) and different musical tastes. This is no different than in any other human endeavor such as wines, cigars or you-name-it.

You take what's important to you, get the best information you can and run with it. As far as power amplifiers go, I don't think you're going to find a truly awful one made by any good manufacturer.

Thank you very much everyone. I now understand why i wasn't able to get any conclusive comment anywhere.
When i saw the word "WINE" everything just clicked and started to make sense in my head. Why i can observe two sides of the group on this debate, and how these expensive power amps even exist in the market. I thought there would be more to it..
However, i am glad to find out i won't be missing out anything in comparison to 1200wpc monoblock amp i saw the other day

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

However, i am glad to find out i won't be missing out anything in comparison to 1200wpc monoblock amp i saw the other day

Hell, I have all of 2.5 watts driving my horns and am proud of every one of those 2.5 watts!

 

[Putter]

Sneer all you like, Putter, alters my opinion not one iota.

I didn't say anything to the effect that only audiophiles could hear differences -- don't put words in my mouth, thanks. In fact I have average hearing a best, maybe less than average given my age, etc. What I do -- which you might not -- is LISTEN without the prejudice that there are no differences to be heard. (Who's the bigot now?)

As for room distortions, etc., sure, but if all else is equal except the amps, then it's the amp difference you're hearing.

I apologize if it came off as sneering. It's just that there's this self fulfilling prophecy that allows 'audiophiles' to rationalize that if someone else didn't hear it, there must be a reason such as not expensive enough equipment or that they're deaf or something similar. It's this dismissive attitude that I think turns people off to the hobby.

As for my attitude, I don't expect to hear differences because the electrical theory says that it's unlikely for a well designed amp working within its limits to have an effect on its sound. This is called the 'null hypothesis' which is that there is no scientific reason to expect a difference and experimental testing (yes, Double Blind where no one knows which amp they're listening to ) has so far confirmed it. Furthermore, as I stated before there seems to be more to gain in other areas. I mentioned room eq, but there's also Floyd Toole's 'circle of confusion' which is that the recording equipment; speakers, microphones, audio processing, etc. are quite different for different recordings and also don't take into account the home equipment that will be use for listening.

 

[March Audio]

Actually, Sal, no very many audiophiles say that "science is wrong". Most, like me, say that science is right so far as it goes.

Scoffers mock that audiophiles aren't convinced by blind ABX testing, but, I'll reiterate, the constraints of the testing procedures limit the conclusions that may be draw. I believe that most scientists will allow that the results of experiments under specific conditions should not be too broadly generalized.

Aaahhh, the "there are things we don't know yet" clause.

These are always the same people who are looking for something to justify their own subjective experiences. They always miss the point (or refuse to accept) that their own subjective experiences are extremely likely to be faulty due to cognitive bias and lack of controls during a comparison. Due to the fact they don't have sufficient knowledge of electrical/electronic theory and reality they (wrongly) assume there is something pertinent/relevant that isn't known or understood yet.

They look to the complex explanation instead of the simple one. They may not say science is wrong but they certainly choose to ignore the parts of it they don't like or doesn't fit with their dogma.

 

[Feanor]

Folks, there is a dialectic here:

• Science-oriented objectivists who see audiophiles in general as being self-deceivers who wast time and money on supposed difference that are overwhelmingly just their imaginations.
• Audiophile subjectivists who rejecting actual differences that would enhance their enjoyment of music on account of dogmatic adherence to as yet limited science.

I am genuinely in the middle here. Certainly it's true that a amazing number of audiophiles believe they heard difference that don't exist (causing them lavish thousands of on likes of power cords and speaker cable lifters). But, OTOH, I am convinced by decades of listening experience that actual difference exist among amplifiers, DACs, and various other components.

 

[Feanor]

Aaahhh, the "there are things we don't know yet" clause.
...
They look to the complex explanation instead of the simple one. They may not say science is wrong but they certainly choose to ignore the parts of it they don't like or doesn't fit with their dogma. perceptions.

Yes, agreed, out perceptions can and often will be influenced by our presumptions and prejudices. (That may well apply to objectivists whose prejudice is that there are no sound differences and, accordingly, they don't hear any).

I don't claim to be free of my own presumptions, but they don't explain how often I am surprised by the difference I hear comparing equipment that are fairly often they are different from what I expected.

 

[SIY]

I am genuinely in the middle here. Certainly it's true that a amazing number of audiophiles believe they heard difference that don't exist (causing them lavish thousands of on likes of power cords and speaker cable lifters). But, OTOH, I am convinced by decades of listening experience peeking and evaluating with eyes and preconceptions that actual difference exist among amplifiers, DACs, and various other components.

FTFY.

There is no "middle" between "ears-only listening" and "evaluation without even the most basic controls." You either do it and put your perceptions to the test, or you're playing make believe. The former is not easy because you have to start from the well-established but uncomfortable position that your brain is effective at deceiving you. That's tough for many people to admit.

 

[Feanor]

FTFY.

There is no "middle" between "ears-only listening" and "evaluation without even the most basic controls." You either do it and put your perceptions to the test, or you're playing make believe. The former is not easy because you have to start from the well-established but uncomfortable position that your brain is effective at deceiving you. That's tough for many people to admit.

Thank you for reiterating you dogmatic opinion, SIY.

As I said in my reply to March Audio, it would be easier for me to believe that my perceptions were entirely due to presumptions and biases if my perceptions didn't differ so often from what I anticipated.

 

[SIY]

As I said in my reply to March Audio, it would be easier for me to believe that my perceptions were entirely due to presumptions and biases if my perceptions didn't differ so often from what I anticipated.

Whether or not you believe that is irrelevant- this is universally true for humans. I would urge you to take that next step to put your beliefs to the test.

 

[Putter]

FTFY.

There is no "middle" between "ears-only listening" and "evaluation without even the most basic controls." You either do it and put your perceptions to the test, or you're playing make believe. The former is not easy because you have to start from the well-established but uncomfortable position that your brain is effective at deceiving you. That's tough for many people to admit.

That is the definition of a true scientist. A quote by Richard Feynman comes to mind, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

 

[Feanor]

Whether or not you believe that is irrelevant- this is universally true for humans. I would urge you to take that next step to put your beliefs to the test.

Great, so drop by my place to do the equipment swaps for blind testing with me. I haven't anyone competent around to do that for me.

I would be willing to submit to blind testing provided I could control a few parameters such as what music I listen to, for how long, and when the swaps are made.

 

[SIY]

If you're one of those Canadians who comes down to Arizona to defrost during the winter, I'd be happy to.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I actually find myself in the middle ground here. While all design and development work is done by measurements, it would be foolish in the extreme to just shove the completed design out the door without listening to it. In my case, while the listening is more for uncovering issues like noise, ground issues and such, there is also time spent listening in order to become confident that the unit just sounds right. However, this does not come down to such foolishness is switching parts impulsively because the unit "doesn't have quite the rhythm and pace it should have" or something like that. A good designer already knows how to avoid things which will impact sound quality in a negative way such as not paying attention to capacitor choices because of dialectric absorpsion (which can be measured too).

ATI does not have an ABX switching device because we're not trying to "prove" anything beyond being confident that amplifiers which go out the door sound right. Subjective? Off course. But to not go thorough this step would be a disservice to the purchaser.

 

[Feanor]

I actually find myself in the middle ground here. While all design and development work is done by measurements, it would be foolish in the extreme to just shove the completed design out the door without listening to it. In my case, while the listening is more for uncovering issues like noise, ground issues and such, there is also time spent listening in order to become confident that the unit just sounds right. However, this does not come down to such foolishness is switching parts impulsively because the unit "doesn't have quite the rhythm and pace it should have" or something like that. A good designer already knows how to avoid things which will impact sound quality in a negative way such as not paying attention to capacitor choices because of dialectric absorpsion (which can be measured too).

ATI does not have an ABX switching device because we're not trying to "prove" anything beyond being confident that amplifiers which go out the door sound right. Subjective? Off course. But to not go thorough this step would be a disservice to the purchaser.

I refreshingly straightforward and common sense approach.

As for blind ABX testing, for a start it's not what audiophiles (or hi-fi enthusiasts) typically do to evaluate equipment. So what? many will say. However after that, the more blind ABX is constrained to ensure the repeatability and legitimate scientific rigors, less like the real listening experience it is -- i.e. the test results are valid only under the specific conditions of the test and cannot be generalized to all circumstances.

 

[SIY]

A good designer already knows how to avoid things which will impact sound quality in a negative way such as not paying attention to capacitor choices because of dialectric absorpsion (which can be measured too).

Where in an amp design would DA in a capacitor matter?

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Where in an amp design would DA in a capacitor matter?

If coupling capacitors were used that it would matter. Filtering would also be an area where this would be important.

 

[SIY]

If coupling capacitors were used that it would matter.

Timing circuits and integrators, sure. DA effect on coupling caps? No.

https://syclotron.com/why-are-people-obsessed-with-coupling-caps/
https://syclotron.com/why-are-people-obsessed-with-coupling-caps-part-2/
https://syclotron.com/capacitor-obsessions-the-zombie-awakes/
https://syclotron.com/sigh-more-capacitor-nonsense/

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Timing circuits and integrators, sure. DA effect on coupling caps? No.

https://syclotron.com/why-are-people-obsessed-with-coupling-caps/
https://syclotron.com/why-are-people-obsessed-with-coupling-caps-part-2/
https://syclotron.com/capacitor-obsessions-the-zombie-awakes/
https://syclotron.com/sigh-more-capacitor-nonsense/

I'm sure opinions are all over the place on almost any issue. I had a colleague that did very extensive study on dissapation factor which was measurement driven. Unfortunately he passed away before it could be published.