[GrahamMG]

Originally Posted by lbstyling

fundamentaly, we agree.
the division is there in the real world application of it. i agree, its of no harm to have lots of power on tap, sure. but the problem is that you have 2 senarios to compair-

1) a typical home theatre application where the speakers for domestic reasons are 6 inch bass/mid drivers with a 1 inch soft dome- attempting ref level may well be 'just' about possible- but its of lower quality than a alba alarm clock radio at this level!- thd is MASSIVE, the actual number will be dependant on individual application, but is irrelevent.- why would the user of this typical setup want to try and deliver the power to do it?- im fully capable of hitting myself in the head with a hammer, that doenst mean i need to suggest to people how its great that i have the capability to do this??- agreed that it would indeed take alot of power to make it there though.

2) a more capable system for this application and aim would indeed be a pro genelec speaker (VERY nice they are too!- you picked a personal fave here)- that assuming a typical 15inch mid and horn, can reach this level on little power, and would indeed do it at acceptable distortion levels (all be it with screwed up polar response)

my point is that neither gain any real world advantage from copious amounts of power. and that if someone wishes to go for it and have a system capable of reference level- the answer is system 2. not system 1.- in conclusion, you should be advising people to get bigger speakers and not to invest in bigger amplification.- but you know this already.

genelec do indeed have active amp stages of much more than 20w- for good reason- they need to ensure reliability. this includes the ability for the speaker to survive a attempt to see how loud it will go. its not like it costs much for this power these days is it.+ they must alow for the consumer who decides to use the ref monitors for a party in a hall.

and besides this, i feel to put it on context the difference between a 50,000w amp and a 100,000w amp is ...3 db.(extreme example i know, but the point is excessive head room is pointless.)



easy now, you dont know my background.

its not 'cool' to advise people to pay for head room theres no good reason to access either.- over fixing the problem.

Right then, getting back to amplifers and why brands/models differ etc..

Fundimentally we know what we are both trying to say, just not getting it across possibily

Please ignor "power" as output wattage that is not what I mean at all, difficult in a post, much easier in person I am sure you agree. ALL I am saying is that the ability of a PSU within an amplifier is critical to ensuring said amp delivers as promised, loads of amps don't do so and it is this probably above all else that makes the difference between a good, bad or indifferent amp.
Multichannel amps by design have a huge issue with space to put such PSU's, monoblocks should not have that excuse so maybe why many monoblocks perform better (or 2 channel jobbies for the same reasons), of course you do get good mulitchannel amps but they tend to be big and even have separate PSU units.

Whilst many smaller 2 way speaker designs have drivers that won't go to reference levels in the room cleanly (lets be honest and say "acceptably") it would not true to say that people are not becoming aware of this and therefore want speakers that can deliver what the film director and sound engineers have mixed. Naturally choosing a speaker that meets the design brief is a serious business and the amp to drive it no less so. I can't make people get the maximium out of their investment but it won't stop me trying.

I'd welcome an ABX test setup of a whole pile of amps hooked to a known reference system install, the results however may cause WW3 as you and I both know that the amps that lack the current to deliver will sound flat compared with the dynamics that some other amps will muster.

Everyone please take note that a good PSU in an amp should be hgh on your list, then by all means, argue about A, AB, D classes or xyz Mosfet being better than abc Mosfet, or gold plated PCB's etc etc etc...

BTW, correct I don't know your background, and you probably know little about mine, doesn't matter to me, I will debate things with anyone at what ever level they wish and regularly do so, sometimes they agree, sometimes not but the truth is it betters everyones understanding of the subject from all angles.

As for Nick and his amp testing, you have to marvel at his workload, he knows that I wouldn't do it the same way but of course that depends on what you have available and I couldn't honestly say in some cases if the result would be much different, matching amp designs to speaker requirements is not a case of just picking two price matched or brand matched devices, it is a huge subject and one that will run and run for ages.

Finally I looked up the A500 thing and the lack of info regarding how the PSU is built (capacitor bank etc.) and its price and all the "pro" tags (an amp is an amp, and pro should only really mean 19" rack mount and balanced connections, any amp should be reliable!!) I am not sure that would equal performance to worry ADA or Bryston etc... But in an ABX blind test the result could be hilarious, anyone want to organise one? I would volunteer to listen.

[lbstyling]

settled. good enough for me.

i have a a500 that im happy to let someone test it. its only to power my sub, and as i have no pro at the mo- its just sitting there. i have my opinions on it, but id rather not express them so i dont have any bearing on a outcome. its a old RMX design amp, so is legitimately sourced.

in terms of factual stats on it, its known to have a limited slightly under rated cap bank- a pair of 3300 mF/100V (limiting low end extention-but in a surround system with a sub, this is unlikely to be a big deal), a 600va tranny, and a odd THD issue when the vol pot it at 3/4-(needle goes off the oscilliscope) so the pro idealy should be set with the vol on the a500 set low or full level, otherwise its pritty stable at 0.1-0.2. rail voltage is close to cap rating, but imo acceptable.
no deal breakers there as far as i can tell.

considering the price, it would be fairer to run a pair of amps bridged mono against the likes of bryston- no?

[dean999]

Originally Posted by alexs2

Lots of off-topic stuff removed.

thanks fot that. irrelevant stuff is really detrimental to any thread for obvious reasons.

[nicfaz]

Originally Posted by dean999

thanks fot that. irrelevant stuff is really detrimental to any thread for obvious reasons.

Seconded! Back to opinions on amps and not on testing please! I am intrigued to know what the mystery amp is...

As a brief aside, I've just bought a NAD 3020 off ebay for £50 and that would make an interesting addition to the test, if only to show how much hi-fi you can get for £50! Very few watts but amazing control of difficult to drive speakers, plus you can disconnect the pre from the power so you could test it properly alongside the other power amps.

[GrahamMG]

I think you will find that we all have opinions on amps (that much is pretty clear), however objective testing vs subjective testing (would you buy an amp based purely on soemone elses personal preference without objective backup?) is only really settled if the dreaded ABX testing regime is used. Like I said wars have broken out over less but if a person cannot tell the difference between two amps in a blind test then if brand "a" is cheaper than brand "b" they go away happy.
Testing amps is a very complicated subject but it is fair to say that a good amp probably always sounds good and a less able amp always sounds "bad" in comparision.

Anyone got a pair of Rogers LS5/8's ??, that will give an amp a workout and show what can drive difficult loads etc........

I have to agree with Graham - both on the point about comparing amps and not the testing process and on the PSU issues. I have a Rotel 1572 as the power in front of a pair of Focal 826Ws and in general it sounds great. The occassional times I get annoyed or tired by the sound it almost always turns out to be the source material or my mood I have once managed to get the amp to cut out when played loud and I suspect that the lower impedance limit of the speakers were the cause. Rotel took the decision to replace the stock PSU in the ICE module reference design and probably for good reason. Never had a Class D amp before so it's difficult to compare, TBH. When things settle down at home with the DIY and stuff I may well take the opportunity to compare the Audiolab 8000PX (pre-buyout) and 8000M's (Made In China) for stereo music into the same load - i.e. the Focal's, as originally the speakers and amp came in the same purchase

On the subject of comparing amps - and did I already say this ? - I think in general the only true differences show up with edge cases; driving difficult speakers and at very high or very low volume levels. Especially the latter is missed quite often - can "your" amp drive "your" speakers cleanly at low volumes and still present a nice, clean and balanced sound for *you* ?

[Welwynnick]

I'm not sure I want to bring up this thread again, but there's one point that I've been meaning to address. There's been a lot of talk about the importance of power supplies, almost to the point of it being the dominating factor with power amps. Subjectively or objectively, I don't think there's as much to separate power amps as there is with players or processors, and load tolerance is indeed a big factor. Its a complex area, and it won't get resolved quickly, but I have one observation to make before talking about new acquisitions like the Nuforce and Cinepro.

At the begining of this thread, I started off with several middle-market M/C power amps. One of the best known is the Parasound HCA-2205, which is a traditional muscle amp with huge power supply and heat sinks. There's been much less feedback with the Marantz MM8003, and when you sit them side-by-side, you'd think the Parasound would run away with the honours.

By coincidence, the Marantz and the Parasound are at the opposite ends of the scale in terms of power supply and load tolerance. The power amps that I've compared side-by-side in the same systems are:

Emotiva XPA-5
Parasound HCA-2205A
Integra DTA-9.4
NHT Power 5
Bryston 3B-ST
Marantz MM8003
Arcam P7

They are also at the opposite ends of the scale in sound quality, though not in the way that you'd expect. The Parasound was the worst sounding, and the Marantz was the best. Needless to say this wasn't what I was expecting, and I did the comparisons every which way I could to try and get some sort of contradiction, qualification or other lack of censensus. In the end, I thought that maybe some people would prefer the Emotiva to the Arcam in some systems with some music, but otherwise the pecking order was pretty clear and repeatable. Different player, different processor, different cables, different rooms, different speakers - the Parasound was always the worst, and the Marantz always the best.

My general view is that if you want to use specs & measurements to judge what power amp will sound the best, then doubling-down is probably the best indicator. However, it looks like there's a disappointingly elusive correlation with sound quality, and there's not really any substitute for using your ears.

Best, Nick

[Tone-uk]

I would have thought it be reasonable to try and remove KNOWN factors which may have caused the differences before trying to find new and unknown reasons?

Get rid of the reasons we know about first (eg human bias). If the differences are there after a proper listening comparison and the results are repeatable then a closer look is required (and a call to Richard Clark to take his $10,000 off him is in order!).

[Russell.Williams]

At the risk of reviving a very old and done-to-death debate, Richard Clark does not claim that all amplifiers sound the same; Merely that under a very controlled set of circumstances (not found in average front room) that all amplifiers can be made to sound so similar as to be not reliably distinguishable. He wasn't taking a risk when he put the cash up.

If you can't understand why his qualifications accept that all amps are not the same, then I suggest you stop posting here and go buy a Behringer A500 or some such like.

I honestly think the mere mention of Richard Clarke should be consigned to the same realm as any mention of extreme right wing world domination by a European state espoused in the first half of the twentieth century.

Russell

[Tone-uk]

Originally Posted by Russell.Williams

At the risk of reviving a very old and done-to-death debate, Richard Clark does not claim that all amplifiers sound the same; Merely that under a very controlled set of circumstances (not found in average front room) that all amplifiers can be made to sound so similar as to be not reliably distinguishable. He wasn't taking a risk when he put the cash up.

If you can't understand why his qualifications accept that all amps are not the same, then I suggest you stop posting here and go buy a Behringer A500 or some such like.

I honestly think the mere mention of Richard Clarke should be consigned to the same realm as any mention of extreme right wing world domination by a European state espoused in the first half of the twentieth century.

Russell

Already got the A500 - it's great thanks! Looks a bit rotten though!

But, I won't stop posting thank you very much.

Do you agree with me it is better to remove the known possibilities than to try and sweep them under the carpet and pretend the differences must must be something else? Double blind testing can help so much!

[Tone-uk]

And that reminds me - Nick have you had a chance to try an A500 yet?

[Welwynnick]

Originally Posted by Tone-uk

And that reminds me - Nick have you had a chance to try an A500 yet?

Nope - still looking. I do want to try one out.

Nick

[Welwynnick]

Its getting interesting now. I've been listening very closely to the NuForce MCH7C3 and CinePro 2k6 against the Marantz MM8003, the favourite from my first round of comparisons, and I've got a new champion. But which one?

I've listened to quite a lot digital amps recently, and they generally have very neutral behaviour, but lack the final degree of transparency that the best linear amps can give. In other words their sins are those of omission rather than addition. NuForce have been on my radar for some time, and its impossible to ignore so many glowing reviews, so I was keen to hear the multi-channel version. This uses seven defeatable power amp modules from the monblocks range, but with with a shared switch-mode power supply. It's lighter and more compact than the NHT and Integra class D amps, and also runs relatively cool. It has both RCA and XLR inputs, like many of the higher quality amps.

Whether with music or movies, the Nuforce makes a very particular impression. Its powerful and dynamic, and sounded like it's bigger than it is. The Nuforce also sounded very detailed, and gave a good impression of transparency. I was reminded of the diminutive Flying Mole monoblocks that I tried in my system some time ago, and could see why people might want to replace their huge, hot and heavy monoliths with something so diminutive. Like the 'Moles, the Nuforce had a lot of authority, and felt quite in control of whatever speaker they were used with. I tried three different speakers in two different rooms, and everything worked well.

Transients were handled particulary well. There was a good combination of speed and weight, and I never got the impression that there was an inadequate power supply there, that needed to have a breather after each crash or bang. It was energetic and pacy, and exciting to listen to with appropriate material. In fact the Nuforce sounded better and better when there was more for it to do. More volume and more elements in the soundstage were what it liked, as it could maintain focus on what was going on, and avoid muddling them all up when the going got difficult.

Like the 'Moles though, it was less happy with gentler material, seeming to want to exaggerate detail. Its definitely a transients-over-tones amplifier, and doesn't convey atmosphere, melody and swing so well. With slower-moving material, it sounds impatient, and doesn't have the ability of the best amplifiers to be transparent to ALL the moods of music. Its not that transparent to low-level detail, like harmonics, reverberation, decays and atmosphere. Its not bad - better than the non-Halo Parasound and ICEPower amps - but not as good as the better class A/B amps. I think this stops it from stringing some types of music together - there's too much starting and stopping, and not enough continuity. Funnily enough, in my system it worked pretty well with the Denon A1UDCI as the source. Thats good with CDs for a blu-ray player, but its quite a shrinking violet. Its quite a good foil for the Nuforce, and there's actually a good balance of energy and restraint.

There's one other thing that stands out - the bass. The Emotiva XPA5 is good here, but the Nuforce is most impressive. Its extended and controlled, though perhaps over-dry. It feels like you're hearing everything that's going on, even if there's no lushness or ripeness. Yes, very impressive at first, but a bit academic, and not so entertaining in the long run. Overall its not for me, but I can see how some people would take to it.

Nick

[Welwynnick]

Apart from the odd online review from US AV websites that are traditionally good at video equiment reviews, and less dependable with pure audio, all I had heard about the Cinepro amplifiers was from some enthusiastic reports from some of the more experienced AVF members. I don't suppose there are too many Cinepro amps in the UK - I tried to import one from the US, but the seller laughed when I asked about shipping. I'm not keen on big, hot, heavy power amps with power-station supplies and copper bars for cables, but I'm starting to think that its difficult to get away from that.

The Nuforce did a good impression of a "big" amp, yet paradoxically it wasn't so good at the finer things of audio reproduction. Could the Cinepro be any better? Having gotten used to the scalpel-sharp Nuforce, the Cinepro created a quite different impression. It was warmer and softer, less incisive and more rounded, as if it didn't maintain extension and resolution to the extremes of the frequency range. A bit like the Arcam in fact, but with more muscle. My Arcam is long gone, so I couldn't compare them directly, but the Marantz does do much of what makes the Arcam so good, while filling in the gaps in other areas. Comparing the Marantz and Cinepro was more instructive, and rather a surprise.

The MM8003 is a good amp, but the Cinepro pulled away. As well living up to it's macho image with an ability to slam speakers around in ways that the lower-powered Marantz could only dream of, it also made the Marantz sound slightly cold, glassy and uninvolving. The Cinepro could dive into delicate music just as confidently as it could with rowdy action-adventures. This is having your cake and eating it. It could dig deep into music in a way that few multi-channel amps can do, and what really pleased me was its way to adapt to the tempo of the music, rather than just play the way IT wanted to. It had that rare ability to speed-up or slow-down time when called upon, instead of banging on blindly at its own pace. This is real transparency, and I have to say it was a pleasant surprise.

But what about that Nuforce? I needed to spend a lot of time to get to know both these amps, and once I had gotten used to the Cinepro, I had a slightly different perspective. Although the Nuforce makes you sit up and pay attention, pointing out every detail like a spotlight, the Cinepro was just as able to follow all the strands of music or dialogue, and was able to make the Nuforce sound artificial, like it was exaggerating detail for effect rather than for reality. The detail was all there with the Cinepro, but it was natural and unforced. Where the Cinepro could let you relax, the Nuforce would remain forced and impatient, all strung-up tight with its fingers drumming the table.

More than that, the Cinepro was also able to generate a deep, wide, soundstage with focus and solidity. I guess it was as good as the Arcam here, and better than the digital power amps, which were all foreshortened to some extent. Finally, the Cinepro also seems to be load-tolerant. I have some Final 700 speakers - "full-range" 6 foot electrostatics that don't hide anything, but are also very demanding on amplifiers. The Cinepro got on with them like a house on fire, inspite of their low efficiency, low impedance and reactive, capacitive load.

The downside of the Cinepro is what you see - its a big, ugly box, and its a noisy one as well. There's a 120mm cooling fan, and it makes rather a woosh. That needs some action - either a remote location, a quiet box or cabinet, or substitution of a quieter fan, which might not be too difficult. It also needs a big space in your stand, but I guarantee it will have pride of place.

Nick

[stevefish69]

It's nice to see a positive review again for the Cinepro as although i am aware it's good, i was unaware that it is capable of beating the other amps that you have put it up against

I suppose i've got complacent with how well it makes my speakers sing.

Originally Posted by Nick Peacock

The downside of the Cinepro is what you see - its a big, ugly box, and its a noisy one as well. There's a 120mm cooling fan, and it makes rather a woosh. That needs some action - either a remote location, a quiet box or cabinet, or substitution of a quieter fan, which might not be too difficult. It also needs a big space in your stand, but I guarantee it will have pride of place.

I also get some transformer buzz if i'm not hooked upto the PS Audio Humbuster and a slight buzz / hum if you put your ear up next to the speaker (could well be a well hidden ground loop though) Once it's playing something, all these slight background noises can soon be forgiven and are not noticable in the real world anyway. I suppose it's the downside of having a mini power station within the case along with 21,000w of transistors backing it up

[yvv]

Nick, have you tried the Cinepro at low volume? Having been a hardcore Bryston user for more than 15 years I had a brief encounter with the Cinepro 3k6 SE Gold (I had it for 3 or 4 months back in 2002-03) I was able to compare it with my 7B-ST monoblocks driving the B&W Nautilus 801. Both were excellent for movies with a slight edge to the Brystons but for music the 7B-STs were clearly better. There were more subtlety, liquidity, with excellent microdetail but preserving grunt, transients and control.


For some people (including me) it's very important how the system sounds at low and moderate levels. Bryston is incredible at this. They preserve the detail and airness and even dynamics of the sound even at 40-50db volume. This quality is often overlooked and usually regarded as speakers responsibilty. Cinepro failed at this quality and produced slightly closed in sound at low and moderate levels. We are talking about small difference , of course. It is also impossible to take the speakers out of the equasion and the sinergy of the system as a whole but that was my impression on the Cinepro in my system. Also I could hear that it added some slight (very slight and pleasant) coloration to everything it passed through. But , all in all, Cinepros are excellent HT amplifiers and represent best value per watt in the industry IMHO.

Nick, what did you mean by the Cinepro being noisy? My unit was dead quiet and the fans never kicked in even under load. It was better than the Brystons in this regard. The SNR also was as good as it gets.

Having read the thread about AB custom amps I'm very glad that the people who made Cinepro are still in the business and the prices are still incredibly low for the quality they offer (but not in the Emotiva price range though).

Yury

[Welwynnick]

Hi Yury, good to hear from you. Its a small world - for everyone else's benefit, I met Yury a few weeks ago and bought his Meridian 861, which I believe was replaced by Ianfromnotts' 568.2 + CLUX. But that's another (interesting) story.

Regarding power amps I have to hold up my hand and say I'm not really a Bryston fan, and the Cinepro is more my cup of tea. I wouldn't argue that Brystons are less coloured, but I think power amps have less impact than other elements of a system. I'm not a volume freak, but I can't say that I did any particularly low-level listening though. This thread and forum are really about multi-channel amplifiers, and I don't think multi-channel gear can usually compete very well with stereo.

When I say noisy, I meant mechanically noisy, not electrically, where it was beautifully quiet.

[indus]

Nick, you have mentioned that the digital amps lack a certain something in a way that implies that this is a characteristic of ALL digital amps.

Do you feel this is a fair and qualified comment?

[AdrianMills]

Originally Posted by Russell.Williams

At the risk of reviving a very old and done-to-death debate, Richard Clark does not claim that all amplifiers sound the same; Merely that under a very controlled set of circumstances (not found in average front room) that all amplifiers can be made to sound so similar as to be not reliably distinguishable. He wasn't taking a risk when he put the cash up.

If you can't understand why his qualifications accept that all amps are not the same, then I suggest you stop posting here and go buy a Behringer A500 or some such like.

I honestly think the mere mention of Richard Clarke should be consigned to the same realm as any mention of extreme right wing world domination by a European state espoused in the first half of the twentieth century.

Russell

In any practical sense, solid state amplifiers sound the same. I've yet to see a credible level matched blind test that shows otherwise. Usually, even tube amps are indistinguishable from solid state. Are there measurable differences? Yes, sure, but are they audible? Not a chance, not unless there's clipping going on and my bet is that happens very rarely in the average house with the average consumer speaker.

Even if you disagree with this, I'd be surprised if you of all people would agree that there are the "night and day" differences that people commonly describe.

[crobo]

Nick bought the Cinepro from me and I have to say it is a tremendous power amp. One channel per speaker did more for my Neat fronts than bi-amping with the previous Arcam P7, and I still rate the P7 as a marvellous amp.

I put this largely down to sheer current delivery and I have to admit I'm surprised at some posts that question whether there are night and day differences between power amps. With demanding speakers, some power amps make a huge difference and you can tell immediately that your speakers are more comfortable and 'singing' happily. Of course between equally powerful power amps there will be other sonic differences too, although personally I find that the speakers and processor make more of a difference to overall sound quality if the speakers are being powered adequately.

[AdrianMills]

Originally Posted by crobo

Nick bought the Cinepro from me and I have to say it is a tremendous power amp. One channel per speaker did more for my Neat fronts than bi-amping with the previous Arcam P7, and I still rate the P7 as a marvellous amp.

I put this largely down to sheer current delivery and I have to admit I'm surprised at some posts that question whether there are night and day differences between power amps. With demanding speakers, some power amps make a huge difference and you can tell immediately that your speakers are more comfortable and 'singing' happily. Of course between equally powerful power amps there will be other sonic differences too, although personally I find that the speakers and processor make more of a difference to overall sound quality if the speakers are being powered adequately.

And I'm surprised that people continually ignore the objective evidence and the research that's gone into psychoacoustic phenomena.

[indus]

Originally Posted by AdrianMills

In any practical sense, solid state amplifiers sound the same. I've yet to see a credible level matched blind test that shows otherwise. Usually, even tube amps are indistinguishable from solid state. Are there measurable differences? Yes, sure, but are they audible? Not a chance, not unless there's clipping going on and my bet is that happens very rarely in the average house with the average consumer speaker.

Even if you disagree with this, I'd be surprised if you of all people would agree that there are the "night and day" differences that people commonly describe.

In general I'm a sceptic on everything in life, especially where it involves spending money. I can say without doubt there is significant audible difference between different amps even when stated performance is similar.

I know this is going off topic but you seriously can't think that all these people (Nick etc) who are trying one amp after another are just imagining it all.

[Welwynnick]

Originally Posted by indus

Nick, you have mentioned that the digital amps lack a certain something in a way that implies that this is a characteristic of ALL digital amps.
Do you feel this is a fair and qualified comment?

I think I should clarify that. I meant the digital amps that I had been talking about, and not ALL digital amps. I have to say that I was slightly disappointed with the Nuforce, which I thought would move things on a bit, given what I had read about them. There are probably about four digital amps that might not suffer from errors of omission - and I bought one of them yesterday .

Nick

[Welwynnick]

Originally Posted by AdrianMills

In any practical sense, solid state amplifiers sound the same. I've yet to see a credible level matched blind test that shows otherwise. Usually, even tube amps are indistinguishable from solid state. Are there measurable differences? Yes, sure, but are they audible? Not a chance, not unless there's clipping going on and my bet is that happens very rarely in the average house with the average consumer speaker.

Even if you disagree with this, I'd be surprised if you of all people would agree that there are the "night and day" differences that people commonly describe.

I think its fair to say that power amps make less difference to a system than other components do. The big qualification is that a power amp shouldn't be run outside its envelope by the speaker. I had a huge improvement with my Final 700's when I went from the Sony 9000 to the Cinepro - yes, night and day better. With other speakers, the difference is much smaller.

I've already proved to everyone on 26-1-09 that when there's no difference, I say there's no difference. I'll also admit that some amplifiers do sound much the same. For example, when I reviewed the Integra DTA-9.4 in this thread, I said that it sounded similar to the NHT Power5, and that I couldn't be sure to split them in a blind comparison.

Things are different with other electronics though, and anything that does D to A conversion or small signal amplification is vulnerable to degradation, even if it doesn't show up in specs and measurements. I had a good time comparing three, highly-regarded, expensive players on Wednesday. They all had superb measurements but could hardly have sounded more different.

No one, not you, me or the pope is free from bias, subconscious or not, and it's a proven fact that these biases can and do effect how we perceive sound. So unless there are controls in place to negate the influence of bias any review is next to useless particularly when differences, even if they do exist, are going to be extremely subtle

And you're absolutely right, everyone is prone to bias.

I certainly am, and having taken part in several blind tests over the last year or so, its surprising to see how this can affect judegements.

Nick

[dean999]

Originally Posted by Nick Peacock

I think I should clarify that. I meant the digital amps that I had been talking about. I have to say that I was slightly disappointed with the Nuforce, which I thought would move things on a bit, given what I had read about them.
There are probably about four digital amps that might not suffer from errors of omission - and I bought one of them yesterday .

Nick

hi nick

once again thanks for all your efforts, however, i think you missed your calling as a mystery/thriller writer

i wonder what surprise you have in store for us?

regards
dean

[dean999]

totally agree with crobo's post #167 & indus's post #169.

[AdrianMills]

Originally Posted by indus

I know this is going off topic but you seriously can't think that all these people (Nick etc) who are trying one amp after another are just imagining it all.

No one, not you, me or the pope is free from bias, subconscious or not, and it's a proven fact that these biases can and do effect how we perceive sound. So unless there are controls in place to negate the influence of bias any review is next to useless particularly when differences, even if they do exist, are going to be extremely subtle.

In addition, our auditory memory is extremely short so making any sort of comparison with other equipment is going to be inaccurate at best unless they are compared side by side with an A-B switch.

For the believers just answer me this; why have so many level matched blind, double blind, and ABX tests failed to result in a differentiation of amplifiers if the differences really are so obvious?

Now I will leave you to your Emperor's new clothes.

[crobo]

Originally Posted by AdrianMills

And I'm surprised that people continually ignore the objective evidence and the research that's gone into psychoacoustic phenomena.

I'm not really aware of this research but to be honest I'm not too bothered, because at the end of the day I 'know' when I like the sound of something. A few power amps (not many) have given me a real surprise and it has been instantly obvious that the speakers are responding. There's much more of a difference between processors and again, it's obvious when there's a big improvement - however subjective that might be. However, one important point is that different people like different house sounds; there are those in this forum who love Lexicon processors, for example, and those who can't stand their sound. I can't imagine any objective tests pointing the way; as someone pointed out earlier, it would be great if we could see test measurements and think 'ah, that's my sort of sound', but it hasn't happened.

The great thing about these forums is that you get good ideas about what might suit your taste (and budget) but at the end of the day you just have to try things out for yourself in your own system and room. But that's half of the fun anyway.

[Russell.Williams]

Originally Posted by AdrianMills

For the believers just answer me this; why have so many level matched blind, double blind, and ABX tests failed to result in a differentiation of amplifiers if the differences really are so obvious?

I believe you meant disbelievers but offer this; Because auditory concentration becomes dulled with extended concentration? To put it another way, listening in an ABX environment puts a pressure on the listener that simply sitting back and listening to the music doesn't demand and that becomes tiring sooner. I'd be surprised if the listeners at the end of an ABX test were listening as reliably acutely as they were at the beginning, so at what point would you suggest the cut-off for reliable results be drawn?

ABX testing isn't as flawless in practice as it is in theory because it involves humans and likewise, music is a human subjective experience. I've started off loving a piece of kit, but found it wearisome after a couple of weeks. The opposite has also been true - something that doesn't initially impress can ingratiate itself over time. ABX testing wouldn't have revealed this.

Russell

[AdrianMills]

Originally Posted by Russell.Williams

I believe you meant disbelievers but offer this; Because auditory concentration becomes dulled with extended concentration? To put it another way, listening in an ABX environment puts a pressure on the listener that simply sitting back and listening to the music doesn't demand and that becomes tiring sooner. I'd be surprised if the listeners at the end of an ABX test were listening as reliably acutely as they were at the beginning, so at what point would you suggest the cut-off for reliable results be drawn?

ABX testing isn't as flawless in practice as it is in theory because it involves humans and likewise, music is a human subjective experience. I've started off loving a piece of kit, but found it wearisome after a couple of weeks. The opposite has also been true - something that doesn't initially impress can ingratiate itself over time. ABX testing wouldn't have revealed this.

Russell

No, actually I meant believers - which you use depends on the question I guess - do you believe amplifiers have a different sound...?

As for the old "tired ears" argument, well, that's an easy cop out and doesn't hold up to any sort of examination especially when we are talking of "night and day" differences - I mean, seriously, how much concentration do you need to hear them exactly and if you need so much how audible can they be in terms of real world listening? And I don't buy the "long-term" listening either especially when our auditory memory is so short lived, not only that, but if it took so long to "hear" these differences how on earth can people say in other instances that they hear night and day differences as soon as they turn these things on? Seems to be a lot of bad logic to rationalise something that just isn't there.

But I can understand people not wanting to accept that they can't trust their hearing, psychologically it's a bit of a blow. I guess I should know by now that there's just too much resistance and people don't really want to hear something like this that challenges something so fundamental to what they think they know.