The state of the art class D AUDIOPHONICS HPA-S600NC and AUDIOPHONICS HPA-S400ET sound different, though there is a caveat here.

[Sokel]

View attachment 307628

The main speakers in my mixing and mastering setup are, ATC SCM 300, Amphion Two18 with BaseTwo25 subs, Neumann KH420 (not visible on the picture), Genelec 8351B. For our testing at Apollon we also use speakers like B&W 800 D3, Amphion 7LS, and some other brands.

So it's down to Amphion's and B&W for evaluating amps,the rest are actives (I love the sheer force of 300's by the way).

Thanks for the info.

 

[antcollinet]

why might some listeners consistently report discerning distinct differences between them? I believe there's a lot we can learn from each other's experiences and views, and I'd truly appreciate your take on this observation.

Come on - you must know the answer to this - or why are you doing blind tests yourself?

 

[Mnyb]

A lot of nice words , the how is not so important, the result is .

If you achieve levels of performance that’s beyond human perception the road to get there is not a factor for sq ( it can be for general product quality or efficiency size and cost )

Otherwise one risk to delve into magical thinking and ascribe sonic properties or feelings to inanimate things .
Especially if we slide into different sound properties of the buffer stages ( well designed ofcourse ) ? Then we are not talking about the task of driving a speaker. What’s next binding posts ?

Also ascribing soundstage difference to very linear amps with also very good channel separation ? Sound stage depth you got to be kidding us ? Is a secret DSP hidden somewhere , there is no such mechanism in an amplifier ? Amps can not move instruments or singers in the soundstage relative to each other ?

And not the old chestnut “ all can not be measured that can be heard “ it’s very likely the exact opposite situation? We can measure a lot of things that no one can be able to hear .

But it’s beyond forum punters like me to solve this ? but it’s misleading to officially claim that products do “things” that if this was real results decades of science would have to be thrown in the bin and also quite fantastic I look forward to the peer reviewed paper on it , please share when it’s done .
These results would not be limited to a small range of products from one or two manufacturers but general.

I don’t have the tech knowledge in detail but I recognise a smoke and mirror show when I see one .

 

[Mnyb]

Come on - you must know the answer to this - or why are you doing blind tests yourself?

Yes all anecdotal or sighted test does not carry any information, they are not even wrong, they are not data .

 

[Apollon Audio]

Assuming you meant differences are below an audible threshold, this sounds like a great argument for blind testing.

Yes thank you. Corrected.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

I honestly think it's impressive how many of you seem okay with repeating the same things to new people or the same questions every four days.

Why not just link to FAQ and one of the other 99 % similar threads?

 

[JSmith]

Of course there was no level matching, there I've said it!

2 minutes of my life I will not get back. Thanks.

+1... knew I shouldn't have open this thread.


JSmith

 

[MaxwellsEq]

What’s next binding posts ?

Recently a measurable problem was resolved by replacing ferromagnetic binding posts with non ferromagnetic binding posts to solve an hysteresis issue!

 

[Overseas]

As for me, I am 90% an objectivist (many amps sounding the same) and 10% I found amps not sounding the same.
It is obvious that subjectivists are not so fond of strict technical details, why not making a one-life-time 'event' like a super blind test ORGANIZED BY OBJECTIVISTS, targeted at subjectivists ?! It should be very interesting, exciting and result in some long term conclusions. Like anytime in the next 3 years, kind of. Or a series of mini-blind tests, based on a common established methodology, in USA, in France etc

 

[BDWoody]

I'm actually telling everyone and it's only to help someone if they're thinking about these two amps.

That's the thing... Without proper controls your impressions aren't really a help. They are just more unsubstantiated claims.

Not sure what is so hard about the claims vs evidence thing, but it is a sticking point for many.

 

[Mnyb]

Recently a measurable problem was resolved by replacing ferromagnetic binding posts with non ferromagnetic binding posts to solve an hysteresis issue!

I know , but it certainly was not audible no one needed to listen to different binding post and choose the one with most 3D midrange or anything like that .
An engineering problem solved with more engineering and measurements .

 

[ommadusk]

That's the thing... Without proper controls your impressions aren't really a help. They are just more unsubstantiated claims.

Not sure what is so hard about the claims vs evidence thing, but it is a sticking point for many.

Just for the record. I probably didn't go about writing this thread in the right way. I was trying to help @soerenssen in particular because he's the only person I know that has the Audiophonics stereo and at the same time I was trying to start a debate. I love this website but there are so many things I don't know. For example, I watched Amir's video review of the HPA-S400ET and when he talked about the different frequency chart he said it was perfect but then he said it wasn't and I know he's said something like high frequencies can be heard in some contexts. Then I've heard people say to me that you can't hear more than a 6dB difference but other people have said you can hear up to a 2dB difference. I like to decide for myself what I can actually hear and I don't simply go on what I'm told by some people. I think that's a good attitude. If two amps sound exactly the same, can I ask why Amir hasn't said that in the reviews? By the say, I'd like to note that Amir hasn't reviewed the Audiophonics NCX500 amp and he did say he'd look forward to testing the implementations.

I should have worded the title of the thread differently and altered my original post. I think I would have sparked a better discussion. I'm sorry if I got on anyone's nerves.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

That's the thing... Without proper controls your impressions aren't really a help. They are just more unsubstantiated claims.

Not sure what is so hard about the claims vs evidence thing, but it is a sticking point for many.

I could once hear a difference between an AVR and a dedicated power amp. on the same pair of speakers. I must admit I don't know what it was. But I came to terms with the fact that until I had evidence it was just an anecdote. Just like in this case. And that is actually pretty essential to realise and accept. -How else are you going to be convincing to other people?

Since then I have had many different amplifiers and none of those have any "sound profile". They shouldn't have.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Just for the record. I probably didn't go about writing this thread in the right way. I was trying to help @soerenssen in particular because he's the only person I know that has the Audiophonics stereo and at the same time I was trying to start a debate. I love this website but there are so many things I don't know. For example, I watched Amir's video review of the HPA-S400ET and when he talked about the different frequency chart he said it was perfect but then he said it wasn't and I know he's said something like high frequencies can be heard in some contexts. Then I've heard people say to me that you can't hear more than a 6dB difference but other people have said you can hear up to a 2dB difference. I like to decide for myself what I can actually hear and I don't simply go on what I'm told by some people. I think that's a good attitude. If two amps sound exactly the same, can I ask why Amir hasn't said that in the reviews? By the say, I'd like to note that Amir hasn't reviewed the Audiophonics NCX500 amp and he did say he'd look forward to testing the implementations.

I should have worded the title of the thread differently and altered my original post. I think I would have sparked a better discussion. I'm sorry if I got on anyone's nerves.

That's a nicely worded post there.

IR to dB differences I can certainly hear a difference between e.g. a +2 dB low or high shelf in EQ.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

I know , but it certainly was not audible no one needed to listen to different binding post and choose the one with most 3D midrange or anything like that .
An engineering problem solved with more engineering and measurements .

You are correct. It should not be audible. But it's quite cool that it was measurable, a hypothesis was proposed for the artefact and a solution found which measurably improved it! That's science and engineering

 

[VintageFlanker]

Why is this thread still going exactly?

 

[Mnyb]

You are correct. It should not be audible. But it's quite cool that it was measurable, a hypothesis was proposed for the artefact and a solution found which measurably improved it! That's science and engineering

+1

 

[ommadusk]

Why is this thread still going exactly?

Can I ask a very simple question? You may be able to answer. Why does Amir have a 95dB SINAD threshold for excellent amps and a higher excellent threshold for DACs, seemingly of 109-110dB? Shouldn't they be the same?

And yes, I don't think there's any point in continuing the thread. I have my view and no one can disagree or agree with it, that doesn't make me right or anyone else wrong.

P.S. Perhaps the answer's not so simple.

 

[VintageFlanker]

Why does Amir have a 95dB SINAD threshold for excellent amps and a higher excellent threshold for DACs, seemingly of 109-110dB? Shouldn't they be the same?

No, they shouldn't. A DAC has to be cleaner than an amp. Why? Because its noise, distortion, or any irregularities will be amplified thought the amp's Gain. Measured performance is always degrading from digital domain, then to analog, and at last, to acoustics. You better start with the cleanest signal possible, then.

 

[ommadusk]

No, they shouldn't. A DAC has to be cleaner than an amp. Why? Because its noise, distortion, or any irregularities will be amplified thought the amp's Gain. Measured performance is always degrading from digital domain, then to analog, and at last, to acoustics. You better start with the cleanest signal possible, then.

I see the logic of not having a worse measurement at the beginning but not the logic of having a worse measurement at the end.