# A/B Blind tests on amplifiers- Time to hear for myself



## captainobvious

_*"The Goal"*_

I have a little pile of amplifiers at my disposal(some A/B, some class D, some large, some small, some old and some new, and some expensive, some middle of the road) and I want to determine first if I CAN hear a difference between them, and then, which I prefer and for what reasons.

I want to do a blind test so that I am not influenced by anything other than what my ears are hearing. Below I will detail the equipment and what I'm planning-please point out anything that could be a potential issue and advise of any easier methods you might recommend. One caveat- The process has to be fairly simple and not require much outside expensive gear other than what is available at my disposal already.


*"The Gear"*
TPS 75amp DC powersupply
Pioneer P99RS Source
Alesis Monitor Two studio monitors (10"/4"/1" configuration)
OWON Oscilloscope and true RMS DMM
Xtant X604
Diamond Audio D7054
JL Audio HD900/5
Phoenix Gold Ti800.4 (2011)
Arc Audio XDi804
Zapco Z-150.6
Soundstream REF4.920



_*"The Configuration/Setup"*_
The amplifiers will be powered by a TPS 75amp dc power supply. DC from the supply will then run through a circuit breaker to control power on/off for the whole system, and then off to fused power and ground distribution blocks to supply the amplifiers. For signal, a single pair of RCA outputs will be supplied from the P99 with no crossovers or processing applied. These RCA's will plug into an RCA "patch panel" where the source inputs are tied to each of the 8 RCA output pairs. This means the same signal is shared to each of the amplifiers being tested. Each amplifier will have it's own pair of RCA cables to supply its signal from the patch panel. All of these cables will be the exact same model and length and impedance will be measured of each to ensure they are in close tolerance. On the output side, each amplifier will output 2 channels (L and R) to a patch panel of binding posts. We will use one pair of speaker wires with banana plugs to "plug in to" the amplifier we wish to use to power the mains.


_*"The Method"*_
The source unit will be measured for clipping point and will be kept at a volume point a few notches below to ensure a full, clean signal. All filters and processing will be disengaged. The source volume will not be changed during the listening tests. 

All amplifier gains will be set as close as possible to equal output voltage at the speaker terminals. I will aim to leave plenty of amplifier headroom so that the larger amplifiers do not gain a significant advantage over the smaller ones and output is relatively consistent. 
The speaker patch panel will be hidden from view, leaving the listener unable to see which device is currently powering the speakers. The assistant will keep a list and assign a number to each amplifier randomly so that the listener has a basis for notes. To change the "source amplifier", the assistant will swap positions on the patch panel.


----------



## captainobvious

One concern I have is if there is any issue with using a single RCA source pair tied into the patch to supply each of the 7-8 amps. The other is the switching time, but I've got to think that popping two pairs of banana plugs in a patch panel should be pretty quick.


----------



## james2266

Sounds interesting. Sub'd for this one.


----------



## knever3

Sounds like you have everything covered. One thing i have to mention is make sure the p99 is muted during the switch, i would assume it has a zero bit noise gate to prevent any voltage surge or pop when switching amplifier sources. Just want to prevent any damage.


----------



## wdemetrius1

Should be fun.


----------



## ecbmxer

Should be interesting! Thats a good diverse lineup you have as well


----------



## captainobvious

knever3 said:


> Sounds like you have everything covered. One thing i have to mention is make sure the p99 is muted during the switch, i would assume it has a zero bit noise gate to prevent any voltage surge or pop when switching amplifier sources. Just want to prevent any damage.


Would this still be an issue if there is no changing of the RCA's? In this setup, the only thing that would change is which speaker outputs are connected to the mains. The RCA's always remain plugged in and the amplifiers are all always powered on.


Thanks


----------



## JoeHemi57

Can't wait for results since you are using some amps i am looking at, XDi, Ti, and Ref


----------



## captainobvious

JoeHemi57 said:


> Can't wait for results since you are using some amps i am looking at, XDi, Ti, and Ref



I'll also (crudely) test output voltage and add a section on build quality as well then as that should factor into your equation as well.


----------



## tnbubba

hmmmmmmmm


----------



## momax_powers

It would be good to make a spreadsheet listing the rated thd, damp factor, signal to noise for each amp witg your results to see if theres any correlation


----------



## DBlevel

Wish you were closer.......... I have several more I would have lent you to test.


----------



## ErinH

Steve, I'll just pick up our PM convo here, if that's cool with you...


One option would be to use a DSP with one input and multiple outputs that allows you to simply pass through the DSP the same signal to each amplifier. The input never changes; you simply mute all but the channel (amp) you want to test. This means you don't have any lag time and there's no ability for you to lose any focus on listening. Ever try to tune time alignment in your car and think it's fine, then a minute later come back to it and you've convinced yourself something is off even though you didn't touch anything? Any time window you have will be an opportunity for error in the test. Your goal should be to swap amplifiers as quickly as possible and the best way I can think of doing this is electronically with a DSP. This also addresses your concern about y-splitting the signal out of the headunit. There may be other options, but I can't think of anything that trumps this. 

Have whoever is controlling the mute/unmute function away so that you can't hear him click the buttons. the reason being: he should also be trying to trick you by not clicking anything now and again. otherwise, you'll be expecting a change and you're mind is gonna try to find that change. 

I think it's safe enough to say that a good DSP's outputs will be the same on all channels. Just make sure to match the output voltage of each amp's output voltage best you can. The lower the output voltage is, the more closely they need to be matched. ie; if you're at 2v output, they need to be around 0.0xv window. if you're at 10v output, 0.1v is close enough. do some google searching; there's some good ohm's laws calculators that will tell you the difference in dB you get with a delta in voltage. like this:
dB dBu dBFS dBV to volts audio conversion digital - calculator volt to dBu and dBV dB mW SPL dB decibels - convert dB volt normal decibels relatioship relation analog audio absolute level true rms convertor converter decibel to dbfs converter calcula

If you can find someone to loan you a good DSP that has a muting feature that is easy to access and quick to alternate between channels, that would be a good way to go. Helix DSP, Mosconi, etc. Heck, if I lived close, I'd lend you my Rane RPM88 since it's 120v. Or find a behringer DCX. 

You likely won't have enough channels to run all the amps in stereo (personally, I'd listen in mono but I won't get in to that here). So, just set the test up as a tiered system. Then, at least, you'll have (2) solid rounds of QUICK A/B/X testing as opposed to swapping cables around.

Bottom line: all you need is something with inputs and enough outputs and the ability to mute. You don't need crossovers (unless you want to use them) or anything else. The DSP would simply afford you the ability to pass signal through and mute channels to perform the listening in very quick windows. 


Finally, don't forget to consider that a gain isn't a brick wall. If you have Amp A that can put out 20vRMS and Amp B puts out only 10VRMS, even if you set the amp output voltages to the exact same, there's _potential_ for my dynamic ability which can play in to the audition if the music content is right. How big a factor this is, I can't really say. But, it's plausible, I suppose. 

Just my $.02.

- Erin


----------



## captainobvious

momax_powers said:


> It would be good to make a spreadsheet listing the rated thd, damp factor, signal to noise for each amp witg your results to see if theres any correlation


I don't have the equipment to test those specifications, nor are they really of much value as THD at 1% and below is going to be inaudible and damping factor is a basically useless spec in the real world. 

I will be happy to post the manufacturers specs on them though


----------



## momax_powers

captainobvious said:


> I don't have the equipment to test those specifications, nor are they really of much value as THD at 1% and below is going to be inaudible and damping factor is a basically useless spec in the real world.
> 
> I will be happy to post the manufacturers specs on them though


Yes i was referring to the manufacturers specs ..so we can grasp whether if they really matter at all or not


----------



## captainobvious

bikinpunk said:


> Steve, I'll just pick up our PM convo here, if that's cool with you...


Not a problem- and thanks for joining in 




Bikinpunk said:


> Bottom line: all you need is something with inputs and enough outputs and the ability to mute. You don't need crossovers (unless you want to use them) or anything else. The DSP would simply afford you the ability to pass signal through and mute channels to perform the listening in very quick windows.


I can see the idea here and it makes sense for quick, transparent switching between amps. But here's the flip side- You still have to change the speakers over to the amplifier source. I considered using a speaker selector in reverse but felt that posed a big issue with regards to shorting amplifier outputs. Any ideas there?




Bikinpunk said:


> Finally, don't forget to consider that a gain isn't a brick wall. If you have Amp A that can put out 20vRMS and Amp B puts out only 10VRMS, even if you set the amp output voltages to the exact same, there's _potential_ for my dynamic ability which can play in to the audition if the music content is right. How big a factor this is, I can't really say. But, it's plausible, I suppose.


Yep, I realized this could be a factor but I don't see any real way around that one. The only thing I can try to do is go by the smallest amplifiers output and limit all amplifiers to a voltage level well below that. Still wont be perfect, but at least ensures all amps have some amount of headroom.


----------



## captainobvious

momax_powers said:


> Yes i was referring to the manufacturers specs ..so we can grasp whether if they really matter at all or not


Ahhh ok. Thanks for clarifying


----------



## JVD240

Really the switching needs to happen after the amplifiers. I'm not sure what devices are used for that. Most car audio shops have something like this though. Maybe someone here could chime in.


----------



## weshole

Subd


----------



## captainobvious

Pics of some of the gear. I've wanted to sample some of these for quite a while. A few others on my coveted list as well but chances of acquiring them are tough-
Mosconi AS series and Phoenix Gold Elite series and the Audison AV/Thesis.


----------



## REGULARCAB

Sub'd


----------



## Hoye0017

captainobvious said:


> I don't have the equipment to test those specifications, nor are they really of much value as THD at 1% and below is going to be inaudible and damping factor is a basically useless spec in the real world.
> 
> I will be happy to post the manufacturers specs on them though



Statements like that makes me think you probably lean towards the "no difference" camp.


----------



## joemk69

I live near the philly area. I have a Arc Audio 4200 SE I am willing to throw in the mix.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

I like this...but I lean towards: amps may add characteristics but it's always "tunable"  So I guess I'm standing on the line?


----------



## dgr932

Steve,
Glad to see the mad scientist is finally conducting his blind study of amplifiers. I know a guy with a Mosconi 6-8 DSP at your disposal for your study 

I'm still in Conshohocken if you need a hand. 
also why don't you throw in this amp. Remember there is no such thing as too much headroom! :laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## JoeHemi57

Wow the Arc is tiny compared to the others, i like the look of the PG too and have plenty of room. I have lots of room for amps below my trunk floor so i want to see if i'm giving up anything going small when i don't really have to.


----------



## WestCo

1) You will be able to hear differences.

2) Rapid switching and doing this blind is great, but not 100% necessary. To post on this forum it's a good idea.

3) Class D's will surprise you if they are well constructed.

4) Ill bet any money that the z series is toward the bottom in performance.

Thanks for doing the test. IMHO this is a great way to learn how system components change the output.

All system components (which carry the waveform) have an influence on the sound. The most important components are your source and drivers, amps also play a large role. Cables are secondary but different RCAs do change the end sound audibly, provided you have good drivers/amps.


----------



## captainobvious

Hoye0017 said:


> Statements like that makes me think you probably lean towards the "no difference" camp.


Interestingly enough, I'd say I lean more toward the difference in sound camp. I've always experienced differences in sound between amplifiers in my systems. The problem is, I've never done a blind experiment with fixed variables which is really the only way to know for sure. I've always loved the big A/B amps of the past and have had some very nice ones over the years. 
I'm going into this with an open mind and will be interested to see what I'm able to learn from it.


----------



## REGULARCAB

Ive always figured that we all know there is a huge difference between the sound of a cheap chip amp and a tube amp. You can't really debate that, but will we see much of a difference in the amps tested? Im down to find out.


----------



## captainobvious

joemk69 said:


> I live near the philly area. I have a Arc Audio 4200 SE I am willing to throw in the mix.


Thanks for the offer! The SE's are ones I certainly wouldn't mind demoing. If we have room for another, I'll PM you 




dgr932 said:


> Steve,
> Glad to see the mad scientist is finally conducting his blind study of amplifiers. I know a guy with a Mosconi 6-8 DSP at your disposal for your study
> 
> I'm still in Conshohocken if you need a hand.
> also why don't you throw in this amp. Remember there is no such thing as too much headroom! :laugh::laugh::laugh:


Thanks Dustin  If you're in the area when we do the testing, you'll have to come by and join in.


----------



## WestCo

captainobvious said:


> Thanks for the offer! The SE's are ones I certainly wouldn't mind demoing. If we have room for another, I'll PM you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Dustin  If you're in the area when we do the testing, you'll have to come by and join in.


The SE's are among the best amps in production. It should definitely be included if possible.


----------



## WestCo

Also Captain, please take copious notes for each test!

In my experience the JL's have been slightly dry sounding throughout the mids/highs. Good amp, but significantly lacked warmth.

The Zapco was exceptionally lifeless as if blankets were placed on the drivers. We tested a z400.2 full range, curious to see if the others in that line are similar. That was at 4ohms, at 6ohms the z series had markedly better performance.

I know for certain there are audible differences in two of these because I have ran them all and noticed how they have altered the sound. Two of which I have A/b'ed.

The question here is how good are your drivers and ear are  Not wither the difference is audible or not, because it is. Furthermore, this is how tests should be conducted on source units, amps, and drivers. Using your ears is the most practical way to do this and makes the most sense, also literally wearing a blindfold allows you to focus more on the sound and less on visual stimuli.


----------



## Darth SQ

One suggestion.
Have someone else that's into sq listen with you, do his own critique, and then compare notes.
Preferably someone that's from DIYMA.
The outcome will be interesting, add validity to the testing, and I am curious to see if you both agree any on the results. 


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## dgage

I've got a tiny PPI P600.2 digital amp that I'd be willing to let you borrow for this test. Westco was surprised the small, cheap amp sounded as good as it did. Just PM me if you want it.

And I agree on the speakers. Westco and I did some listening comparisons using my not so inexpensive home speakers and differences between sources and amps we listened to were noticeable, more so in the sources but some in the amps too.


----------



## captainobvious

PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> One suggestion.
> Have someone else that's into sq listen with you, do his own critique, and then compare notes.
> Preferably someone that's from DIYMA.
> The outcome will be interesting, add validity to the testing, and I am curious to see if you both agree any on the results.
> 
> 
> Bret
> PPI-ART COLLECTOR


My "assistant", while not a member in DIYMA, is also a music and sound enthusiast (moreso home audio) and will also be participating in the tests. He runs an Anthem preamp, Sunfire Audio home amplifiers and some large Martin Logan electrostats so he does appreciate good audio. 

I will also invite a few select DIYMA members out for the tests to get a few more people involved. This should help generate some more interesting overall results.

Thanks Bret


----------



## captainobvious

WestCo said:


> Also Captain, please take copious notes for each test!
> 
> In my experience the JL's have been slightly dry sounding throughout the mids/highs. Good amp, but significantly lacked warmth.
> 
> The Zapco was exceptionally lifeless as if blankets were placed on the drivers. We tested a z400.2 full range, curious to see if the others in that line are similar. That was at 4ohms, at 6ohms the z series had markedly better performance.
> 
> I know for certain there are audible differences in two of these because I have ran them all and noticed how they have altered the sound. Two of which I have A/b'ed.
> 
> The question here is how good are your drivers and ear are  Not wither the difference is audible or not, because it is. Furthermore, this is how tests should be conducted on source units, amps, and drivers. Using your ears is the most practical way to do this and makes the most sense, also literally wearing a blindfold allows you to focus more on the sound and less on visual stimuli.



I'll be sure to make plenty of notes, and I'll ask all of my participants to do the same. After the testing is complete, I'll compile a spreadsheet of all of the results we find in the various tests as well as the notes from each user if they are willing to provide them.

RE: the Zapco Z series- I have run these in my vehicle and can say without a doubt that they do not impede the sound in any way. Granted mine are the Z-150.6, not the Z-400.2 and the system is vastly different from what you guys were demoing on, so who knows where the issue lies. But in my experience, they are very accurate, neutral sounding amplifiers. We'll see how it plays out though in the blind tests- should be interesting!


----------



## caraudioworld

Subscribed! This promise to be a very interesting test!

Probably more wood to fuel this fire: HIGHER END AMP SQ IS A MYTH


----------



## Mic10is

captainobvious said:


> My "assistant", while not a member in DIYMA, is also a music and sound enthusiast (moreso home audio) and will also be participating in the tests. He runs an Anthem preamp, Sunfire Audio home amplifiers and some large Martin Logan electrostats so he does appreciate good audio.
> 
> I will also invite a few select DIYMA members out for the tests to get a few more people involved. This should help generate some more interesting overall results.
> 
> Thanks Bret


LMK when you are doing it. I may be available


----------



## goodstuff

Nice Steve. Wish I was closer. Would love to throw my audison lrx in the mix. Subscribed.


----------



## captainobvious

Mic10is said:


> LMK when you are doing it. I may be available


Sounds good Mic. PM me your cell number. This is likely to happen in the next 2 weeks so I'll keep in touch.


-Steve


----------



## cajunner

it's too bad there's no obvious dogs in the bunch, I'd like to see some flea market product represented as well.

then when the slight lift of distortion in the treble isn't attributed to a distortion but perhaps a "lively" or "energetic" sound, people will wear egg on their face, gladly and without regrets.

or that "warmth" standing out amidst a pile of perfect, clinical presentations, softens the crowd on some truly poor measured testing, and yet good sounding product, then the contest gains traction in what is pleasing and what is not.

it could be the best testing product sounds the best, wouldn't that be so disappointing, though.


----------



## Gary Mac

Neat, subed


----------



## Gary Mac

If mic meets up with you, I have two zapco c2k's I could pass off to him for you to test, if you want.


----------



## I Need Bass

let s toss some "old school" US Amps USA 400's in there...nice surfboard A/B amps


----------



## BassnTruck

If you want something classic/semi old school, first mass produced full range class D's in the mix. I would be willing to ship one of my Infinity Beta 100's if you want to pick up the trip.


----------



## captainobvious

Thanks for all of the generous offers guys, I really appreciate it! I do have a couple class D's and some good class A/B's, but one thing I don't have is a class G/H. Something like an Arc KS 2 or 4 channel would be interesting to add to the mix if someone has one laying around.

Also, I like cajunner's idea about a low dollar unit in the mix. I'd like to find something with higher power (100wpc+) in a 2 or 4 channel to add in. If you have something that might work, let me know. 

For selfish reasons, I'd love to demo a PG Elite as well. If someone in the NE has one they are willing to lend out for a bit, let me know. Ive had the offer of one in the south but shipping those beasts from down there and back could get costly.


Thanks!


----------



## rton20s

I'm definitely interested to see the results as well. And along with bikinpunk's concerned, I'm interested in seeing how you resolve your switching options for the final test.


----------



## captainobvious

Looks like I'll also have one of the Phoenix Gold SD1300.5 amps in the mix as well. Its a class D mid-entry level model with a tiny footprint.


----------



## mmiller

Subscribed.


----------



## Old Skewl

This is getting interesting. Very interested in your opinions. I wish I lived a little bit closer. I'd be in on the listening session.


----------



## jdsoldger

I will be interested to see the results of this. I got to take part in a blind a/b test of two old home audio receivers (pioneers from the late 70s). They were identical but one had had the old worn out electrolytic capacitors replaced and the other was as delivered from the factory. There was a difference between them, very slight and if it weren't for the fact we had silent, gapless switching between the two, I don't thing it would have been hearable. The way it worked is it was at a get together, the receivers were level matched and hooked to the same speakers though a switchbox. We could choise the source music and were given the switch to switch between them, but were not told which was which, one was shown with a green LED, the other red. The person running the test gave us all scorecards to score the green and red on different things (clarity, midrange, trebble, bass ect.). He tallied up the results and it turned out almost everyone picked the recapped one as sounding better, but only by a slight bit.

This was the box used for the comparison, a blind AB switch designed by Eliot Sound Products.

A-B Box For Amplifier Comparisons


----------



## captainobvious

jdsoldger said:


> I will be interested to see the results of this. I got to take part in a blind a/b test of two old home audio receivers (pioneers from the late 70s). They were identical but one had had the old worn out electrolytic capacitors replaced and the other was as delivered from the factory. There was a difference between them, very slight and if it weren't for the fact we had silent, gapless switching between the two, I don't thing it would have been hearable. The way it worked is it was at a get together, the receivers were level matched and hooked to the same speakers though a switchbox. We could choise the source music and were given the switch to switch between them, but were not told which was which, one was shown with a green LED, the other red. The person running the test gave us all scorecards to score the green and red on different things (clarity, midrange, trebble, bass ect.). He tallied up the results and it turned out almost everyone picked the recapped one as sounding better, but only by a slight bit.
> 
> This was the box used for the comparison, a blind AB switch designed by Eliot Sound Products.
> 
> A-B Box For Amplifier Comparisons


Thanks. I like the idea of a silent/quick switch AB box, but with 8+ amplifiers, that makes things much more difficult. I'm not really sure how to get around that in any kind of cost effective method.


----------



## PsyCLown

Oooh, curious to see the outcome of this!

Wonder if a few people may be surprised or even dislike your findings.

Sub'd!!


----------



## file audio

Ohhh my god ,amazing amps there, in verte intetested on final results. Iwant to take a plane to be there. Also Have a mcintosh, a helix, a great warm audio art, PGti, PGzx,audison Lrx4, ihope some myths will be clarified.. Good job. Sub"scribed


----------



## rich20730

Sub'd


----------



## captainobvious

Well I've confirmed we will have a Phoenix Gold Elite and (most likely) a Zuki Audio Eleets v2 in the mix (Thanks to Casey and DBlevel !!).

At this point, I don't think I can add any more amplifiers to the group just because of the sheer number of them and the amount of time it will take to get them all in and demo'd for the group. The only exception to that would be the Mosconi AS and/or the Audison Voce/Thesis. (Only because I selfishly want to demo them  )

I've already begun wiring up the "test panel". My only conundrum now will be where to host this since I have requests from multiple people to sit in on the tests. (My condo in not really conducive to hosting a large bunch  )

Any suggestions I'm all ears...

In addition, My board will be setup for 7-8 amps. Unless I build a larger board(requires some $$) with connections, I'll do two sessions to include all amps in the same day. 

After getting some of the wiring done, I did a quick test run with my buddy to ensure no issues or noise from the setup. We used his Anthem preamp and Martin Logan Electrostats (either the Ascent or Odyssey?) as the test speakers initially. No noise, no issues to report so we're making progress.


----------



## casey

just checked this thread. guess that answers my question about russ letting you borrow the eleet lol. looks like ill pick it up after we are done messing with my pile on wednesday. 

expect a 45lb box from good ole NC


----------



## avanti1960

great thread, thanks. personally i am convinced that there are distinct differences that can lead to brand preference.
i recently returned to the home audio world now that my car sounds so incredible  and i just did an A-B comparison of amps over the week-end in my basement.
the home audio world don't even challenge the idea of amps sounding different- they take it for granted. my tests confirmed this in spades with one of my home amps (pioneer) sounding smooth and almost velvety yet another (marantz) was noticeably sharper and piercing in the high midrange. 
since i have witnessed the difference in sound in my car as well, i am already convinced and will be surprised if the testing does not show the same. 

i would imagine that since many mobile audio amps are often the same re-branded stuff but in a different box, many believe most do sound the same.


----------



## Victor_inox

I`d use something like thatBehringer Powerplay Pro-8 HA8000 | Sweetwater.com to feed amps, you can level match and mute each out independently. ideal testing environment.


----------



## captainobvious

casey said:


> just checked this thread. guess that answers my question about russ letting you borrow the eleet lol. looks like ill pick it up after we are done messing with my pile on wednesday.
> 
> expect a 45lb box from good ole NC


Haha, thank again Casey (and Russ)! I'm looking forward to checking these both out up close and getting lots of feedback from the testing group on these and all of the others included


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> I`d use something like thatBehringer Powerplay Pro-8 HA8000 | Sweetwater.com to feed amps, you can level match and mute each out independently. ideal testing environment.



So here's the deal...This sort of thing works great for the input switching of signal, but it doesn't address the problem of quick switches between amplifier _outputs_ to the test speakers.

The way I have setup the amplifier inputs is to have the source preamp outputs daisy-chained to each amp simultaneously. Therefore, the signal is always the same to all of the amps, and the signal is always present to all of the amps. The only thing that would change is which amps outputs would be connected to the speakers at a given time. For that portion, I have a simple banana jack panel to switch the mains between amps. I haven't seen any other reliable solution that would cost an arm and a leg.


----------



## captainobvious

To give a better visual idea of the signal flow setup...here's a pres-school level rendition 





Again, all of the RCA outputs on the panel are soldered together for left and right channels so that they all share the same input from the source and they all output the same thing to each amp, all the time. RCA's connect from the panel to each amp. (They are the same length and model). Each amp is supplied from the same 75 amp power supply and the power connections have been kept to equivalent lengths.


.


----------



## req

it would be neat if you could do some toggle switches to turn on\off the outputs - like cutting the circuit with a switch, and then hitting the next switch for the next amp. everything stays hooked up. instead of bananna plugs and being a telephone panel operator like way back when, put switches inline with the speaker output terminals, and label them as such (amp 1 through 8). then just flip swithc 1 to on, listen, and flip 1 off, and 5 on. so on and so forth. making sure you do NOT have two switches on at once lol.

maybe run some diodes to prevent backfeed?

just a thought.


----------



## ecbmxer

Maybe rig up something like this: 










I bet some rotary switches like that are dirt cheap.


----------



## Victor_inox

req said:


> it would be neat if you could do some toggle switches to turn on\off the outputs - like cutting the circuit with a switch, and then hitting the next switch for the next amp. everything stays hooked up. instead of bananna plugs and being a telephone panel operator like way back when, put switches inline with the speaker output terminals, and label them as such (amp 1 through 8). then just flip swithc 1 to on, listen, and flip 1 off, and 5 on. so on and so forth. making sure you do NOT have two switches on at once lol.
> 
> maybe run some diodes to prevent backfeed?
> 
> just a thought.


I agree, disconnectin and reconnecting outputs will spoil the test, humans can effectively remember about 20 seconds at the time, if your reconnection take more time that would be no purpose for this test.


----------



## captainobvious

req said:


> making sure you do NOT have two switches on at once lol.



THAT is the reason I decided not to use a setup like that or a "speaker selector" in reverse. Most important part is to protect the gear involved


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> I agree, disconnecting and reconnecting outputs will spoil the test, humans can effectively remember about 20 seconds at the time, if your reconnection take more time that would be no purpose for this test.


Should take all of 5 seconds to unplug and plug in banana jacks  


I did just come across this guy though which has protection, isolated grounds and CAN be used in reverse as a selector for amplifiers as well. Pretty reasonable price too. 2 of these should get the job done...eh?

http://www.allaboutadapters.com/6spseamswse.html

.

.


----------



## Carlton8000

captainobvious said:


> Thanks. I like the idea of a silent/quick switch AB box, but with 8+ amplifiers, that makes things much more difficult. I'm not really sure how to get around that in any kind of cost effective method.


Could you use the silent switch to compare two amplifiers at a time taking notes to describe the difference if noted and pick a winner to advance to the next round? It would give all amplifiers a chance to be tested to determine the best. Then repeat test leaving out the winner of the previous test for each sequential test. 

Subd.


----------



## rton20s

captainobvious said:


> Should take all of 5 seconds to unplug and plug in banana jacks
> 
> 
> I did just come across this guy though which has protection, isolated grounds and CAN be used in reverse as a selector for amplifiers as well. Pretty reasonable price too. 2 of these should get the job done...eh?
> 
> 6-Way Speaker Selector Amplifier Switch Selector


Not a bad idea! You may even contact them and describe what you are doing and that you'll be posting results on DIYMA (and/or other forums). Part of your procedure could be a review on their product. It might get you some better pricing on their gear.


----------



## captainobvious

Carlton8000 said:


> Could you use the silent switch to compare two amplifiers at a time taking notes to describe the difference if noted and pick a winner to advance to the next round? It would give all amplifiers a chance to be tested to determine the best. Then repeat test leaving out the winner of the previous test for each sequential test.
> 
> Subd.


I suppose you *could* do that, but it only works for single person testing. If I have a group of 8-10 guys, how would you decide? Know what I mean?

Anyways, the two selectors daisy chained should provide enough room for up to 12 amplifiers and quick selection so we should be all set


----------



## Carlton8000

captainobvious said:


> I suppose you *could* do that, but it only works for single person testing. If I have a group of 8-10 guys, how would you decide? Know what I mean?
> 
> Anyways, the two selectors daisy chained should provide enough room for up to 12 amplifiers and quick selection so we should be all set


Time is probably going to be the limiting factor. But each individual could go through the process. It would allow each individual to sit in the same exact sweet spot which is impossible with multiples. It would be interesting to see what amplifier each individual determined to rank the highest and his notes describing the difference.

Here is a example of amp shootout
http://www.stereomojo.com/AmpSHOOTOUTPowerAmps.htm


----------



## avanti1960

too bad you won't have a pioneer gm 9500 class d. that is one of the grainiest, poorest sounding amps i have ever heard. 

do you have any idea about program material and judging criteria- what to listen for?

are the test speakers bright? 

the worst sound of the worst amps can easily be heard with a combination of "stack up" - example gritty sounding music- (example the band "****ed up" my name is david), plus some brighter sounding speakers, plus high volume. if an amp can sound good under a "torture test" it can sound good playing anything. challenging recordings on bright speakers at high volume usually make it easy to spot the bad amp.


----------



## Darth SQ

captainobvious said:


> Should take all of 5 seconds to unplug and plug in banana jacks
> 
> 
> I did just come across this guy though which has protection, isolated grounds and CAN be used in reverse as a selector for amplifiers as well. Pretty reasonable price too. 2 of these should get the job done...eh?
> 
> 6-Way Speaker Selector Amplifier Switch Selector
> 
> .
> 
> .


This!


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## bertholomey

This is quite an endeavor - but if anyone can pull it off - it is you Captain! I wish I could drive up for it.....and nudge another amp out of the way to make room for an AS200.4 

Good Luck my friend!


----------



## Golden Ear

Oh yeah, I'm subd! This is gonna be very interesting. Too bad Elektra isnt still around to hear what you guys have to say about the Zapco. :laugh: Hahaha


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> Should take all of 5 seconds to unplug and plug in banana jacks
> 
> 
> I did just come across this guy though which has protection, isolated grounds and CAN be used in reverse as a selector for amplifiers as well. Pretty reasonable price too. 2 of these should get the job done...eh?
> 
> 6-Way Speaker Selector Amplifier Switch Selector
> 
> .
> 
> .


 go for it, I still have Adcom GSF-6 awesome switch, used to compare different amps/ speakers, I`d lend it to you but shipping back and forth would not make any sense.


----------



## captainobvious

bertholomey said:


> This is quite an endeavor - but if anyone can pull it off - it is you Captain! I wish I could drive up for it.....and nudge another amp out of the way to make room for an AS200.4
> 
> Good Luck my friend!


Only an hour+ flight into Trenton


----------



## thehatedguy

If anyone is down my way and is going up there, I will loan out my HSS for the test.


----------



## captainobvious

Carlton8000 said:


> Time is probably going to be the limiting factor. But each individual could go through the process. It would allow each individual to sit in the same exact sweet spot which is impossible with multiples. It would be interesting to see what amplifier each individual determined to rank the highest and his notes describing the difference.
> 
> Here is a example of amp shootout
> AmpSHOOTOUTPowerAmps


I guess it would depend on how many people i have up here for the test, but yeah time would be the limiter. I can position the speakers a little wider to allow for more seating in the "sweet spot", but i think as long as everyone tests from their same seat position, we eliminate variables and each individual can focus on the "differences" they hear in tonality, frequency response, noise floor, etc.

I will have a sheet for each participant to fill out so that we can track results and also include comments sections for each amplifier.


----------



## captainobvious

avanti1960 said:


> too bad you won't have a pioneer gm 9500 class d. that is one of the grainiest, poorest sounding amps i have ever heard.
> 
> do you have any idea about program material and judging criteria- what to listen for?
> 
> are the test speakers bright?
> 
> the worst sound of the worst amps can easily be heard with a combination of "stack up" - example gritty sounding music- (example the band "****ed up" my name is david), plus some brighter sounding speakers, plus high volume. if an amp can sound good under a "torture test" it can sound good playing anything. challenging recordings on bright speakers at high volume usually make it easy to spot the bad amp.


The speakers used will almost certainly be the Alesis Monitor II studio monitors. They have a very natural, accurate response and should be good for these tests. Im trying to avoid speakers with any overemphasized portion of the response range so that they dont skew the listening tests. Studio monitors make sense for their flat(ter) response and so this pair with their 3-way design including a 10" woofer in each cabinet will play much lower than the typical studio desktop pair.

As for test material, i havent decided on it yet, but i will use just a few tracks and provide them to the testers ahead of time. Im shooting for something like a 45-60 second sampler clip to test FR range, noise floor, tonality and dynamics, etc.


----------



## Golden Ear

Steve, are you considering using any of the Meca competition disk material for your tests?


----------



## captainobvious

Not really sure yet. I have about 80 gigs of music on the pc to choose from :surprised:

I have a few tracks in mind so far


----------



## Hanatsu

Amp performance is kinda tricky since they might behave different with different loads. I'm a strong believer that most amps sound "neutral" or whatever till they're driven into clipping. Transient clipping isn't as audible as "steady state" distortion and there's still no real proof on how our ears perceive non-linearities. All amps cannot sound the same - impossible, the reasoning behind that statement is ridiculous. However, if two units measure the same, they will sound the same - There's no magical parameter that can be heard that cannot be measured. The interesting part is IF you find that two units do sound different in a blind test (to eliminate the placebo effect), what exactly makes them sound different? If you can hear the difference, then a microphone should be able to pick up the sound as well. Just place a mic in a fixed position, do a MLS/Sine Sweep in ARTA or REW, compare FR, Group Delay, Harmonic Distortion, Step Response/ETC whatever. IMD is still tricky to measure and pretty time consuming, but IMD and HD are related, if HD is low then IMD should be low as well. Not saying it will work, but it would sure be interesting. 

I've tried different amps with my p99 as source, all crossovers as pass-through. Sub, mid, midrange channels to different amps then two friends to swap banana plugs to speakers. Tried DLS Ultimate, Alpine PDX and some JBL GTO amp, failed hearing any differences at low/moderate volumes (yes, gain differences was within +/- 0,1dB). At really high volume we all felt the JBL amp sounded muddy, 99% sure it was because it had the least power available/weakest power supply. Any "subtle" differences can be pretty much disregarded imho if you listen to your system while driving, road noise won't be that "subtle"...

Anyway... found this site, haven't read through it all yet but this part should be interesting for some of you guys: 



> However, in the blind tests, one amplifier was selected as sounding most accurate on one of the loudspeakers, another amplifier was chosen for another loudspeaker, and a third amplifier was deemed to sound most accurate on the remaining two loudspeakers of the range. The loudspeakers in question were all of similar design concept, but varying in size. The participants in the tests were all highly experienced and respected engineers, and all had been expecting that they would choose one amplifier for the whole range of the loudspeakers.
> 
> It could have been the case that certain characteristics of the individual amplifiers counterbalanced opposing characteristics in the different loudspeakers, and this could also have been due to the different load characteristics presented by each loudspeaker.


Loudspeakers: Effects of amplifiers and cables - Part 1 | EE Times

I also find this test to be kinda funny:

Matrix HiFi --> Blind testing high end full equipments


----------



## Golden Ear

Good reads, Han. Just checked them both out. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## t3sn4f2

http://webpages.charter.net/fryguy/Amp_Sound.pdf


----------



## captainobvious

t3sn4f2 said:


> http://webpages.charter.net/fryguy/Amp_Sound.pdf



Richard Clark's test and writeup is very good. I remember reading it a while back. I'll likely use some of the methodology and sheet scoring examples he used to aid me in my experiment.


----------



## 07azhhr

Looking forward to your results.


----------



## captainobvious

EDIT:


OK, I'm in contact with some of the hotels in the King of Prussia, PA area to try to arrange the rental of a meeting room for Saturday February 1st. This will provide a much nicer venue with plenty of space and seating as well as a good central location with easy access to major roads, food etc. If you would like to attend, please respond in the thread and we'll get a list going. *IF* we have enough people to justify renting out the meeting room, I would ask that people help out with contributing a few bucks toward the rental fee as I've already put out quite a bit for amplifiers, parts, supplies, shipping costs, etc. 
I'll be developing the track list, burning discs for each of the participants and creating the testing parameters/procedure as well as making up some scoring sheets for the testers. We will have some excellent amplifiers in the lineup for this and it will be a good chance to demo them on an equal playing field to find the answers for yourselves about sonic differences in amplifiers, topologies, etc. Should be a fun time!

One thing to note regarding the larger room...I may be looking for a volunteer to bring a good set of tower speakers along for the testing. While the Monitor II's I have are very good and capable of more output than a standard recording console set, I won't know what to expect with the larger room size. I'm open to suggestions here.


If you plan to bring a guest, please add them to the list as well. This _will_ be limited as it's going to be difficult to accommodate testing with too large of a group with the time we have. Thanks!

*Attendee List:*

1. Captainobvious (Steve) 
2. Guest of Captainobvious (Mike)
3. ChefHow (Howard)
4. Mic10is (Mic)
5. dgr932 (Dustin)
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.


----------



## Hanatsu

Get some Vandersteen's or a pair of ATC. Very "revealing" speakers


----------



## rton20s

Great idea, renting the meeting room. Can't wait to see how this turns out. Make sure you take a lot of photos so we can see how everything is setup.


----------



## captainobvious

rton20s said:


> Great idea, renting the meeting room. Can't wait to see how this turns out. Make sure you take a lot of photos so we can see how everything is setup.


That's the plan. Assuming there's a good enough turnout and some people help out with the cost. 

I'll probably over-document this to the point that you'll get sick of data and pictures  No worries there!


----------



## rton20s

captainobvious said:


> I'll probably over-document this to the point that you'll get sick of data and pictures


In this group? I doubt it.


----------



## captainobvious

rton20s said:


> In this group? I doubt it.


True...

Shame you're on the wrong coast!


----------



## 07azhhr

captainobvious said:


> True...
> 
> Shame you're on the wrong coast!


 No no no, you are the one that is on the wrong side of the states.


----------



## captainobvious

07azhhr said:


> No no no, you are the one that is on the wrong side of the states.


True story. I often wish I had been raised out on the west coast. I would greatly prefer the milder weather and ability to be outside almost year round. Can't leave once you're anchored in though!


----------



## 07azhhr

I was born and raised in Cali. Unfortunately I am now living in AZ but we still have sand out here lol. Just no water to go with it. But I do get to wear shorts year round. If I won the Lottery I would probably end up back in Cali but it would have to be a very large payout to be able to afford it lol.


----------



## casey

cool that youve got some additional people for your auditioning. cant wait to see this come together


----------



## captainobvious

casey said:


> cool that youve got some additional people for your auditioning. cant wait to see this come together



Same here brother!


----------



## Qmotion

I have some Soundstream Tarantula amps that are brand new in the box and never installed. I'd like to throw them into this blind test. I had two TR-500/4 and a TR-1600/2. I recently had a system installed in my car and the installer didn't want to use my old amps and convinced me that the newer amps would sound much better. I thought of the Richard Clark challenge.

Falling for the hype I purchased a pair of Audison Voce AV 5.1's and had them installed instead. Now I'm left wondering what these amps that I bought over 10 years ago would have sounded like.

So Captain I live in Philly and could easily get these amps to you. If you'd be interested in adding Sounstream Tarantulas to the mix email me @ [email protected]


----------



## captainobvious

Qmotion said:


> I have some Soundstream Tarantula amps that are brand new in the box and never installed. I'd like to throw them into this blind test. I had two TR-500/4 and a TR-1600/2. I recently had a system installed in my car and the installer didn't want to use my old amps and convinced me that the newer amps would sound much better. I thought of the Richard Clark challenge.
> 
> Falling for the hype I purchased a pair of Audison Voce AV 5.1's and had them installed instead. Now I'm left wondering what these amps that I bought over 10 years ago would have sounded like.
> 
> So Captain I live in Philly and could easily get these amps to you. If you'd be interested in adding Sounstream Tarantulas to the mix email me @ [email protected]



Very generous offer Melvin, thanks! I do already have an offering from Soundstream in the mix with the Reference amp, but could make room to squeeze one more in if it's an Audison since I don't have one of them in the test yet. If you're willing to add one of the Voce amps, that would be great, just let me know.
I just had another member graciously volunteer to send over his Zed Leviathan amplifier as well so it's getting a little crowded now 



-Steve


----------



## captainobvious

Working on wiring and initial testing...























As you can see, the test speakers can now be upgraded to Martin Logan electrostats. 


.


----------



## Qmotion

The Audison Voce AV5.1 Is all wired up as my current install. I would really hate to alter anything to remove one of the amps. 

It would be interesting to hear how the Tarantulas even compares to the slightly older reference series. I have the Audison tuned in near perfection.


----------



## bigaudiofanatic

Are they martin logan aerius? I love mine!


----------



## captainobvious

Qmotion said:


> The Audison Voce AV5.1 Is all wired up as my current install. I would really hate to alter anything to remove one of the amps.
> 
> It would be interesting to hear how the Tarantulas even compares to the slightly older reference series. I have the Audison tuned in near perfection.



No problem at all. I can understand that 

And we certainly have plenty of amps here for the test as-is currently anyway. I think I'm going to cap it at this point with the amps since time will be an issue, unless I can get a Mosconi AS in there. Outside of that, we are good to go on amps!


----------



## captainobvious

bigaudiofanatic said:


> Are they martin logan aerius? I love mine!



Good eye there sir! They are the Aerius i so very similar to yours. Only difference I know of is the panel is 42" in the "i" model vs 38" in the standard Aerius. They may have different 8" woofers too but I don't know.

I haven't really turned these up much yet as I'm just testing things, but they do have that beautiful ML sound with excellent space and imaging. Bought these used a few days ago from a fellow in NY and got them at a STEAL.

Should be a nice addition to the tests for the people coming out 



.


----------



## captainobvious

BTW- 

PLEASE confirm if you will be attending this event. It is scheduled for Saturday February 8th in King of Prussia, PA starting at 11:00am

I need to have a good idea of head count. The meeting room rental at the hotel is $250. If I'm not going to have enough people attend and help out with the cost, then I'll need to change things up a bit.


Thanks

-Steve


----------



## cajunner

will you be able to provide an impedance graph of the electrostatic speakers?

I think some electrostatic speakers present relatively difficult impedance variations, that will be a fine test of some of the more marginal circuit designs.

this test is really shaping up to be something special in the diyma chronicles, hat is off to sirs and madams involved.


----------



## bigaudiofanatic

captainobvious said:


> Good eye there sir! They are the Aerius i so very similar to yours. Only difference I know of is the panel is 42" in the "i" model vs 38" in the standard Aerius. They may have different 8" woofers too but I don't know.
> 
> I haven't really turned these up much yet as I'm just testing things, but they do have that beautiful ML sound with excellent space and imaging. Bought these used a few days ago from a fellow in NY and got them at a STEAL.
> 
> Should be a nice addition to the tests for the people coming out
> 
> 
> 
> .


You also have dual binding posts. I think we have the same woofers. I love mine, running them off a carver amp and just ordered my parasound pre amp. I got mine for a steal as well, make sure you give them a shower cleaning every other year or unplug them when not in use.


----------



## thehatedguy

MartinLogan Aerius loudspeaker | Stereophile.com

Go to the measurements section.




cajunner said:


> will you be able to provide an impedance graph of the electrostatic speakers?
> 
> I think some electrostatic speakers present relatively difficult impedance variations, that will be a fine test of some of the more marginal circuit designs.
> 
> this test is really shaping up to be something special in the diyma chronicles, hat is off to sirs and madams involved.


----------



## captainobvious

cajunner said:


> will you be able to provide an impedance graph of the electrostatic speakers?
> 
> I think some electrostatic speakers present relatively difficult impedance variations, that will be a fine test of some of the more marginal circuit designs.
> 
> this test is really shaping up to be something special in the diyma chronicles, hat is off to sirs and madams involved.



Ask and ye shall receive  (Courtesy of Stereophile)

MartinLogan Aerius loudspeaker Measurements 1998 | Stereophile.com



EDIT: I believe Winslows link is to measurements of the Aerius where this link is of the measurements of the Aerius "i" (also some comparison of the two).
Thanks


----------



## Golden Ear

cajunner said:


> this test is really shaping up to be something special in the diyma chronicles, hat is off to sirs and madams involved.


I couldn't agree more! I thought I was strictly an A/B fan but now I'm running all class D in both my vehicles and I'm lovin it. Really looking forward to the results!


----------



## frankc6

I can't wait to see the results of this..


----------



## tnbubba

where is power coming from for the amps?
because all will have to stay powered up some have an auto turn on circuit that takes like 4 sec.  an you gonna need one HELL of a PS or some serious batter reserves


----------



## Viggen

Also looking forward to the results.... And like stated we all greatly appreciate your work and effort on this

I hope pg's elite amp cleans house....... Due to presently running those amps

However next build.... Will be class d thus looking forward to how it all compares!


----------



## captainobvious

tnbubba said:


> where is power coming from for the amps?
> because all will have to stay powered up some have an auto turn on circuit that takes like 4 sec. an you gonna need one HELL of a PS or some serious batter reserves


I will be using a bench 75amp power supply 

All amps are powered on at all times, but the speaker impedence load is only applied to one amp at a time.


----------



## spyders03

Sub'd and anxious!


----------



## vivmike

Take care of that Zuki. lol.


----------



## SilkySlim

Sub'd will be interested to see if you came up with similar results. Wish I had the time to compile my results. Once you narrow them down Let me know you would be a miss if you didn"t try a Lanzar Opti. Especially a 500/2500. Just ask Mr. westco. You have fine list of amps and a challenging load. should be revealing. Those speakers will give some amps fits. I would if I could get a more traditional car speaker loads like insert favorite bookshelf or tower speaker. The amps may surprise you on how they differ between loads. Even if you try them on some BG Z series. I used in my auditions Morel Octaves ( very sad on voice coil was slightly damaged from a cap giving way on an old amp), BG Z92 great if you can get ahold of a pair they are very similar to your newer car setup. I also use a couple more sets for the final judgements. Good luck my friend and I hope all goes well. I am curious to see your results. I will save my options for then.


----------



## SilkySlim

My guess given those amps listed they will have fairly similar tuning curves so they aren't going to have as much difference as if you threw in some older A/B Lanzar Opti blue-gray and Black/Gold, Adcom, ADS, PPI, Soundstream, Linear Power, etc. they seemed to have a different ideal curve they shot for. They also seemed to have more voicing differences from manufacturer to manufacturer. It seems many of the newer model amps I auditioned were more similar to each other in sound curves (voicing) at least, which is the most glaring difference in my book. Thanks again for your dedication and hard work at this. Anything like this helps the community. I also built a custom relay switch that handles I think 40 amps of current per speaker terminal for 3 amps. It works real well.


----------



## captainobvious

**UPDATE**

Time/Date/Location has now been confirmed.

Saturday, February 8th at 11:00am.
Courtyard by Marriot
600 Campus Drive, Collegeville Pennsylvania 19426


We will have a good sized room over 500sqft


This space will cost me $200 to rent for the day. For anyone that may be looking forward to the results or who will appreciate the info/data, please consider donating a couple bucks to the cause to help pay for the space. You're dollars will help prevent me from getting lynched by the wife 


paypal: [email protected]

Thanks!


----------



## quietfly

Sub'd 
damn you for choosing a day i leave for my Vaca.......
check your paypal i've left a small gift.....


----------



## LovesMusic

quietfly said:


> Sub'd
> damn you for choosing a day i leave for my Vaca.......
> check your paypal i've left a small gift.....


You da man. 

Blindfolds aclamate, senses heightened, could prove useful. 
Captain nice work!


----------



## SilkySlim

Wish I could get that far north but I am part of a tournament that day. Have a great time.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


----------



## seafish

$10 paypal sent to you.
Thanks for all of your efforts...looking forward to reading about the test and results!!!


----------



## captainobvious

seafish and quietfly- Thank you gents for your contribution, it's greatly appreciated!

As a courtesy/thank you, my full compiled data and results will be sent out to those who donate funds, lent amps to the cause or attend to be part of the testing group- Prior to anything being posted up. 

cheers!


----------



## captainobvious

Jay Bertholomey-

Thanks for your contribution toward the event sir !


----------



## Golden Ear

Steve, I'm extremely curious about power usage and headroom. I know you have your plate full and you'll be testing ht speakers vs car speakers but what I'm dying to know is how much power do we actually put to our speakers at moderate to loud listening levels. Do we need 200 watts to a tweeter and 400 to a midbass or do we actually only use 40-50 watts? And is it true that having 10x the power actually does make a difference in the sound or is it all psychoacoustics? This might not have been on your agenda and I'd be happy to start a new thread on it if necessary.


----------



## tjswarbrick

Sub'd and sent.
Sounds like a fun time.
Love the Aerius. A very revealing transducer.


----------



## bertholomey

captainobvious said:


> Jay Bertholomey-
> 
> Thanks for your contribution toward the event sir !


Your welcome bro! I know it is for a great cause.



Golden Ear said:


> Steve, I'm extremely curious about power usage and headroom. I know you have your plate full and you'll be testing ht speakers vs car speakers but what I'm dying to know is how much power do we actually put to our speakers at moderate to loud listening levels. Do we need 200 watts to a tweeter and 400 to a midbass or do we actually only use 40-50 watts? And is it true that having 10x the power actually does make a difference in the sound or is it all psychoacoustics? This might not have been on your agenda and I'd be happy to start a new thread on it if necessary.


Going out on a limb here..........I think this is a fantastic question......... 

The analogy of the kid jumping on the bed with a short ceiling and a tall ceiling just doesn't seem to explain it thoroughly.


----------



## Hanatsu

I've heard from a very knowledgable EE and circuit designer that an amp needs about 18dB headroom to avoid transient clipping altogther. He was referring to "normal speakers" with difficult loads. As I said before, reactive loads can make an amp behave in an undesired manner. If there's any truth to that '18dB' rule, idk. Maybe, maybe not. I'm no circuit expert so I'm not qualified to answer that


----------



## WestCo

Looking forward to the listening results with the cables I sent captain 
These types of tests I love!


----------



## captainobvious

Golden Ear said:


> Steve, I'm extremely curious about power usage and headroom. I know you have your plate full and you'll be testing ht speakers vs car speakers but what I'm dying to know is how much power do we actually put to our speakers at moderate to loud listening levels. Do we need 200 watts to a tweeter and 400 to a midbass or do we actually only use 40-50 watts? And is it true that having 10x the power actually does make a difference in the sound or is it all psychoacoustics? This might not have been on your agenda and I'd be happy to start a new thread on it if necessary.



Well...I guess I can give a rough ballpark of the voltage being output at the reference level as a baseline, but I think it helps to have reserves for dynamic peaks, especially if you're already close to a given amps clean, unclipped output potential.


----------



## SoundQ SVT

Contribution sent from the cheering section for the Xtant X604.


----------



## captainobvious

tjswarbrick said:


> Sub'd and sent.
> Sounds like a fun time.
> Love the Aerius. A very revealing transducer.



Thank you for the contribution Tom!

I've listened extensively to my friend's Ascent and they are phenominal. The Aerius i don't have quite as much low end as those, but they are certainly very good. It's hard to beat the incredible midrange of a Martin Logan electrostat panel


----------



## captainobvious

SoundQ SVT said:


> Contribution sent from the cheering section for the Xtant X604.



They certainly are pretty 

I've always wanted to try one.


----------



## nineball76

Dang. Would loved to have sent my digital designs s4b in for this. Just to test their "true to the source" claims. 

sent from Tapatalk, via Sony Z1 badassness!


----------



## captainobvious

SoundQ SVT said:


> Contribution sent ...



Received, and thank you for helping to make it happen!


----------



## Golden Ear

captainobvious said:


> Well...I guess I can give a rough ballpark of the voltage being output at the reference level as a baseline, but I think it helps to have reserves for dynamic peaks, especially if you're already close to a given amps clean, unclipped output potential.


That would be great. I figured speakers and amps both have rms and max ratings for that reason. So, in effect, an amp wouldn't need to have an rms beyond the speakers max wattage because that's why the amp has a max wattage rating as well. I could be wrong but that's been my understanding thus far and maybe it does make a difference :shrug:


----------



## captainobvious

Dennis (OSN)- Thank you for your very generous contribution to the testing. Looking forward to seeing you and your dad out there Saturday.


----------



## quietfly

I can't wait to see the results once i get back from Vacation!


----------



## damonryoung

Selfishly pulling for the PG SD1300.5 

Thanks for doing these tests!!


----------



## casey

team elite.4


----------



## Bdub

casey said:


> team elite.4


Ditto

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## captainobvious

DRTHJTA said:


> Selfishly pulling for the PG SD1300.5
> 
> Thanks for doing these tests!!



Thank you for your paypal contribution, greatly appreciated!

Small problem with the SD1300.5....The company I "purchased" it from apparently sold stock they didn't have. My order got refunded about 2 weeks after I payed them 
I've tried for a couple weeks to acquire an SD1300.5 to include in the tests but haven't been able to find any unfortunately. I was REALLY hoping to get an SD1300.5 and a Ti2 1600.5 up here. Sadly, no dice.
We DO have the Ti800.4 and Elite.4 though, so still a good showing of PG gear. 


That said, I suppose a refreshed list of the contenders is in order...

Arc Xdi804
Diamond Audio D7054
JL Audio HD900/5
Phoenix Gold Elite.4
Phoenix Gold Ti800.4 (2011 model)
Soundstream Ref4.920
Xtant X604
Zapco Z-150.6
Zed Audio Leviathan


.


----------



## scoobysmak

captainobvious said:


> **UPDATE**
> 
> Time/Date/Location has now been confirmed.
> 
> Saturday, February 8th at 11:00am.
> Courtyard by Marriot
> 600 Campus Drive, Collegeville Pennsylvania 19426
> 
> 
> We will have a good sized room over 500sqft
> 
> 
> This space will cost me $200 to rent for the day. For anyone that may be looking forward to the results or who will appreciate the info/data, please consider donating a couple bucks to the cause to help pay for the space. You're dollars will help prevent me from getting lynched by the wife
> 
> 
> paypal: [email protected]
> 
> Thanks!


Donation made, this should be interesting. Thanks for putting it together.


----------



## captainobvious

scoobysmak said:


> Donation made, this should be interesting. Thanks for putting it together.



Thanks Scoob! 

The donation is much appreciated!


----------



## Woosey

Subbed!

Too bad i'm on the other side of the pond, I could throw in some mosconi AS, one, Zero and class A, I even own a STEG K2.02 new in box in my man-cave.. 

Great work here Steve!!


----------



## LovesMusic

captainobvious said:


> Well...I guess I can give a rough ballpark of the voltage being output at the reference level as a baseline, but I think it helps to have reserves for dynamic peaks, especially if you're already close to a given amps clean, unclipped output potential.


I've picked bits and parts from an EE professor but You are correct it allows you to crest over those dynamic big humps more smoothly with your reserve, your magnet depending on how big is your reference and the more amperage you throw at it gives your reference more control, I like topics like this i have class with him next Monday il walk up to him with the question and "quote" his thoughts.


----------



## tjswarbrick

Golden Ear said:


> Steve, I'm extremely curious about power usage and headroom. I know you have your plate full and you'll be testing ht speakers vs car speakers but what I'm dying to know is how much power do we actually put to our speakers at moderate to loud listening levels. Do we need 200 watts to a tweeter and 400 to a midbass or do we actually only use 40-50 watts? And is it true that having 10x the power actually does make a difference in the sound or is it all psychoacoustics? This might not have been on your agenda and I'd be happy to start a new thread on it if necessary.


I may just be stating the obvious - if so, feel free to ignore me. But I know from some of those home stereo amps with output gauges, you rarely pull more than a few watts steady-state. Headroom is great for peaks and transients. You can do the math.

I'm about a meter from my right channel front stage. My JL C5 components put out nominally 89.5dB /1W/1M. Now, It's not clear if that's per channel or total. I think it's probably per channel, which would give me another, what, 6dB when I add in another set of speakers and another watt of power. But I won't include that here since I can't say for sure.
My distance from the speakers isn't going to move.
Double the power increases SPL by 3dB.
2 Watts would be 92.5dB; 4 is 95.5; 8 is 98.5; 16 is 102.5; 32 is 105.5; 64 is 108.5. My JX360/2 is rated at 110wpc, so that would give me just over 110dB. How loud do you listen to your music?
Of course in reality it's more complicated than that - loudspeaker impedance isn't constant, and music isn't a sine wave but a dynamic signal with peaks and valleys. But I rarely listen at or above 90dB average musical signal (it's likely to damage my hearing long-term, but mostly more than that is just uncomfortable) which leaves me a nominal 20dB of headroom. So 55 watts is probably enough - I wouldn't want much less than that, but I can't see a NEED for much more than 120wpc on main speakers.
Of course, subwoofers are a whole different ballgame - they typically aren't as efficient as mids, they're often farther away, may be hiding away behind a panel or seat, big bass is fun, and low frequencies aren't as damaging to your hearing. I only have ~ 300W on mine, but I can see going up to the killowatt range for additional headroom, control and drive.

I'm still curious to see what comes out of this weekend's test. Martin Logan's are typically a fairly difficult load for an amplifier to drive (low impedance, and high phase angles.) But just measuring voltage isn't likely to show that part of the equation - it'll vary the current as it pulls more power from the amp.
Or at least that's the theory.


----------



## cajunner

and for all the people hinging the results of this latest test on whether they support or debunk the supposition that all amps are somehow good enough, or very few amps are...

let's not forget that by raising the bar, using harder than normal loads with the electrostats, and also getting another level of transparency or maybe, just a clean 300 to 3000 hz zone to judge with...

the amp test is only symbolic of the differences of amps in cars, using conventional drivers.

some of the most different sounding parts of an amp from others, is their pre-amplifier and when people drive their amps actively, the amount of influence in the signal from the pre-amp's contribution may be negated. The filters used in an amp may be better or worse than what you find in a deck, or an outboard unit designed expressly for the purpose.


then you get into the debate over potentiometers, and how they can vary, or create issues with dead zones or pitting in the traces, etc.

so if you believe that what makes the test more even is when you run them full-range, you also eliminate a real possibility for differences, by cutting out the pre-amp section.

some amps will have better pre-amp sections, and that's where the biggest change may occur between amps. 

Grizz Archer was proud of his input into the pre-amp designs at his old company, and I think a lot of people may miss that part. That the pre-amp design is usually quite a bit more susceptible to changing the amp's sonic characteristics, than the gain sections will be able to.

the MS series of amps from JBL may also fit this schematic, as they use a DSP to create precision in their pre-amp section. Some people will want to claim that the use of DSP contributes more to signal degradation than the use of a pure gain block with outboard processing, or no processing.

And who can argue that adding another point of vulnerability doesn't degrade the signal?

Well, I will. I say that the amp's ability to utilize power effectively, cancels out whatever claims the anti-digital crowd uses to justify a non-DSP approach. The extra A-D, D-A conversion not congesting the signal more than not being able to distribute power to separates in the car environment.


in the home, not sure.... haha..


----------



## captainobvious

cajunner said:


> and for all the people hinging the results of this latest test on whether they support or debunk the supposition that all amps are somehow good enough, or very few amps are...
> 
> let's not forget that by raising the bar, using harder than normal loads with the electrostats, and also getting another level of transparency or maybe, just a clean 300 to 3000 hz zone to judge with...
> 
> the amp test is only symbolic of the differences of amps in cars, using conventional drivers.
> 
> some of the most different sounding parts of an amp from others, is their pre-amplifier and when people drive their amps actively, the amount of influence in the signal from the pre-amp's contribution may be negated. The filters used in an amp may be better or worse than what you find in a deck, or an outboard unit designed expressly for the purpose.
> 
> 
> then you get into the debate over potentiometers, and how they can vary, or create issues with dead zones or pitting in the traces, etc.
> 
> so if you believe that what makes the test more even is when you run them full-range, you also eliminate a real possibility for differences, by cutting out the pre-amp section.
> 
> some amps will have better pre-amp sections, and that's where the biggest change may occur between amps.
> 
> Grizz Archer was proud of his input into the pre-amp designs at his old company, and I think a lot of people may miss that part. That the pre-amp design is usually quite a bit more susceptible to changing the amp's sonic characteristics, than the gain sections will be able to.
> 
> the MS series of amps from JBL may also fit this schematic, as they use a DSP to create precision in their pre-amp section. Some people will want to claim that the use of DSP contributes more to signal degradation than the use of a pure gain block with outboard processing, or no processing.
> 
> And who can argue that adding another point of vulnerability doesn't degrade the signal?
> 
> Well, I will. I say that the amp's ability to utilize power effectively, cancels out whatever claims the anti-digital crowd uses to justify a non-DSP approach. The extra A-D, D-A conversion not congesting the signal more than not being able to distribute power to separates in the car environment.
> 
> 
> in the home, not sure.... haha..


You make some good- and valid points regarding on-board circuitry like dsp and crossovers/filters. Because all of the amps can be run without filters engaged, I figured this is the easiest way to give a fair shake to all amps in the test. I also figured (maybe correctly, maybe not) that most of us are using filters and processing _outside_ of the amplifiers so it makes sense to not factor that into the test.
Glad you're following along and Im looking forward to your feedback after the testing results are posted. 

-Steve


----------



## captainobvious

Tomorrow's the day!

Looks like it will be a small group, but that's ok. Still room if anyone else can make it out.


----------



## captainobvious

Reminder for those that are/want to attend:

Saturday, February 8th at 11:00am.
Courtyard by Marriot
600 Campus Drive, Collegeville Pennsylvania 19426

Ask for the Martin Murphy room at the front desk, we are labeled as the DIY Audio Group.

Come casual and relaxed. This should be a laid back and fun atmosphere 

-Steve


**EDIT**

We will have several demo/listening sessions focusing on different aspects of testing. Here is the loose "itinerary":

11:15 Introduction and Meet/Greet 
11:30 System and component inspection
11:45 Seating and assign Testers random "tester number"
12:00 First session- Non Blind Evaluations of the amplifiers
12:30 Break
12:45 Blind Evaluation of the amplifiers
1:15 Break
1:30 Blind AX testing of 5 amplifiers
?? Closing remarks and exit poll

I may order up some pizza for a quick lunch break for us.


----------



## james2266

Man, if this was only in my home town. I would be all over this if I could. Sadly, you are a world away from me. Did you happen to source an Audison amp for this?:

I'll see about dropping a few bucks to your PayPal when I get home for work. Great job on setting this up too.


----------



## casey

sounds like youve got it all planned out. if it werent a days drive away id love to come!

the non blind eval of the amps, so youre going to have everyone listen to them once before blindfolding?


----------



## cajunner

pizza...

definitely pizza, or maybe a Philly Cheese Steak option?

if I held this I'd have to put out a pot of gumbo and some fried seafood, haha...

looks great, cap.

I hope the finality of this starts to sink in and some extras float in, with the food now on the table, ha!


----------



## captainobvious

cajunner said:


> pizza...
> 
> definitely pizza, or maybe a Philly Cheese Steak option?
> 
> if I held this I'd have to put out a pot of gumbo and some fried seafood, haha...
> 
> looks great, cap.
> 
> I hope the finality of this starts to sink in and some extras float in, with the food now on the table, ha!


Hah! How about we combine my amp demo and your picnic table ?


----------



## captainobvious

casey said:


> sounds like youve got it all planned out. if it werent a days drive away id love to come!
> 
> the non blind eval of the amps, so youre going to have everyone listen to them once before blindfolding?



Yessir!

I decided to do random tester numbers assigned to each individual as well. The goal isn't to determine who hears better than who and I didn't want anyone to feel uncomfortable in that regard so it keeps it "anonymous". In addition, the testers will be given a poll before starting and then after the completion so that they can provide feedback on their thoughts of the tests, the methodology and accuracy, and give suggestions to better the event next time. It also helps to gauge any change in perception before and after the tests which I think is beneficial.

I don't want to delve too deep into the procedure and methods/reasoning yet, but will provide a full disclosure after all is said and done and will be welcoming feedback and constructive criticisms from all of you as well. 

Thanks again to those who have contributed to help make this possible, via paypal donations, amplifier loaners and sitting in on testing.

If anyone would still like to contribute, I will still have a good chunk to put out for return shipping on amplifiers to the donors and welcome any donations toward that.

cheers ! 

-Steve


----------



## captainobvious

james2266 said:


> Man, if this was only in my home town. I would be all over this if I could. Sadly, you are a world away from me. Did you happen to source an Audison amp for this?:
> 
> I'll see about dropping a few bucks to your PayPal when I get home for work. Great job on setting this up too.



Thanks James, very kind of you ! 

Unfortunately, no Audison amp or Mosconi. We were close to getting both, but some issues came up and they were unavailable for one reason or another. I feel we have a very good representation here though and feel very good about the amps included.


----------



## cajunner

captainobvious said:


> Hah! How about we combine my amp demo and your picnic table ?


Mayor Nutter was supposed to deliver some cheese steaks and pretzels, not sure if he did...



if I could afford it I'd have helped sponsor, but it's easy giving somebody else's money away...


----------



## WestCo

captainobvious said:


> Reminder for those that are/want to attend:
> 
> Saturday, February 8th at 11:00am.
> Courtyard by Marriot
> 600 Campus Drive, Collegeville Pennsylvania 19426
> 
> Ask for the Martin Murphy room at the front desk, we are labeled as the DIY Audio Group.
> 
> Come casual and relaxed. This should be a laid back and fun atmosphere
> 
> -Steve
> 
> 
> **EDIT**
> 
> We will have several demo/listening sessions focusing on different aspects of testing. Here is the loose "itinerary":
> 
> 11:15 Introduction and Meet/Greet
> 11:30 System and component inspection
> 11:45 Seating and assign Testers random "tester number"
> 12:00 First session- Non Blind Evaluations of the amplifiers
> 12:30 Break
> 12:45 Blind Evaluation of the amplifiers
> 1:15 Break
> 1:30 Blind AX testing of 5 amplifiers
> ?? Closing remarks and exit poll
> 
> I may order up some pizza for a quick lunch break for us.


Don't forget the cable comparison 
lol


----------



## captainobvious

WestCo said:


> Don't forget the cable comparison
> lol



Yep, we'll wrap up with that as the final test.


----------



## WestCo

Thanks a ton Steve!

Feel free to raffle off the SounDrive Cables (my Westco brand) and the stingers after the test.

The one Red SD cable I consider to be B-stock, because the ferrule would not completely screw into the end connector by about 1mm. It is fully functional, but I do not sell B-stock. Both of them come with my standard 5 year warranty against defect and noise.

Sorry no warranty on the Stingers!


----------



## james2266

captainobvious said:


> Thanks James, very kind of you !
> 
> Unfortunately, no Audison amp or Mosconi. We were close to getting both, but some issues came up and they were unavailable for one reason or another. I feel we have a very good representation here though and feel very good about the amps included.


That's too bad you couldn't source an Audison for this. Hell, if you were here for this, I would of yanked mine out for ya to use. I am very curious as to how Audison compares to some others. Unfortunately, I have zero experience with any of the amps you are testing but then again maybe that will be a good thing too. I just paypal's you a couple bucks to hopefully help offset some of your costs for this. Good luck with the testing and have fun guys! Wish I could be there for it.


----------



## captainobvious

Received James, thank you again!

-Steve


----------



## WestCo

What version leviathan?
The v3 had a lot of improvements.


----------



## piyush7243

captainobvious said:


> Received James, thank you again!
> 
> -Steve


Another payment coming through. Thanks for this initiative looking forward to results 

Sent from my Find 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## brandont

Donated.........

Have fun


----------



## captainobvious

piyush7243 said:


> Another payment coming through. Thanks for this initiative looking forward to results
> 
> Sent from my Find 5 using Tapatalk





brandont said:


> Donated.........
> 
> Have fun



Thank you both for the support, much appreciated !! 


-Steve


----------



## captainobvious

All-

I just wanted to say thank you again for the donations of money, equipment and time to help bring this thing together.

We had a great time yesterday and I think the group left, if nothing else, feeling a little more enlightened. It was a great experience and testing went smoothly. The only drawback was low attendance. More than half of the people who initially intended to come could not make it for one reason or another yesterday so we only ended up with 5 testers for the group. At least 2 of those are members on this site though so they will be able to provide their feedback for you here.

There was one switch up to the testing method that I should make note of. Instead of ABX testing, I conducted AX testing. There has been some scrutiny of the ABX test and most of that is focused on the listeners ability to be able to remember/recall 2 different sources to compare to an X source. The AX test is an easier comparison for the testing group and also helps to cut back on the amount of time it takes to complete. This is especially important when you have a large number of groups and trials per group. (We had 8 amplifiers to compare and several different tests, including these AX tests).

I still have to compile all of the recorded data to provide some 'readable' results. Again, as a courtesy, the results and writeup will be sent to all donators in advance of posting on the site.


-Steve


----------



## Wesayso

Where's the thank you button when you need one.... (I'll add Rep Power instead)

Can't wait to see the results, very curious...


----------



## captainobvious




----------



## rdubbs

Quite the setup  Thanks again for making time to run this test!


----------



## WestCo

captainobvious said:


> All-
> 
> I just wanted to say thank you again for the donations of money, equipment and time to help bring this thing together.
> 
> We had a great time yesterday and I think the group left, if nothing else, feeling a little more enlightened. It was a great experience and testing went smoothly. The only drawback was low attendance. More than half of the people who initially intended to come could not make it for one reason or another yesterday so we only ended up with 5 testers for the group. At least 2 of those are members on this site though so they will be able to provide their feedback for you here.
> 
> There was one switch up to the testing method that I should make note of. Instead of ABX testing, I conducted AX testing. There has been some scrutiny of the ABX test and most of that is focused on the listeners ability to be able to remember/recall 2 different sources to compare to an X source. The AX test is an easier comparison for the testing group and also helps to cut back on the amount of time it takes to complete. This is especially important when you have a large number of groups and trials per group. (We had 8 amplifiers to compare and several different tests, including these AX tests).
> 
> I still have to compile all of the recorded data to provide some 'readable' results. Again, as a courtesy, the results and writeup will be sent to all donators in advance of posting on the site.
> 
> 
> -Steve


Steve,

5 is better than four. For the size room that is a good number of listeners. And it appears that they were comfortable and not packed in like sardines. 

Thank you guys for doing this! In my honest opinion doing such tests and understanding the differences between products (even if those differences are minor or even negligible to some listeners) is a HUGE step into understanding the hobby and forming your own opinions about gear and system pairing. 

Even IF you come to the conclusion that the differences are so minor that amplifier selection "does not matter," at least you put the due time and effort to come to that conclusion and didn't just "take someone's word for it." Because as I said from the start of this thread, there is an audible sonic difference in some of those amplifiers (to my ears). That being said, I doubt there was a clear "best" amp in that group. But I could be wrong.

I look forward to reading your results and I applaud your efforts.


----------



## Blu

WestCo said:


> What version leviathan?
> The v3 had a lot of improvements.


From the photo's posted today it looks like it was the original version not the v3.


----------



## WestCo

Blu said:


> From the photo's posted today it looks like it was the original version not the v3.


Agreed.


They are so beautiful.


----------



## piyush7243

Great looking forward to the results.I do hope, there are good, better and best here as well even if the differences are minuscule.


----------



## captainobvious

WestCo said:


> Even IF you come to the conclusion that the differences are so minor that amplifier selection "does not matter," at least you put the due time and effort to come to that conclusion and didn't just "take someone's word for it."
> 
> I look forward to reading your results and I applaud your efforts.



Great point. I think it's important for people to hear for themselves and come to these conclusions by their own ear.


----------



## spyders03

Any idea how the results will be posted? 

Swyped while Swerving


----------



## captainobvious

The results have just been emailed out to each of the donators. If you donated funds or equipment and haven't received the email yet, please PM me your email address.

Thanks !


----------



## frankc6

When do we get the results? Thanks.


----------



## james2266

Got the emailing thanks. It was kind of interesting but no rankings were really given out. From the look of it there were not many glaring diff3erences between them. I could be wrong however. It'll be interesting if what I got is the final 'results' that will be posted or not. 

Thanks for getting this together even if I have not heard any of the amps tested and would of liked to have seen an Audison or Mosconi in there so I could have a better perspective personally. Looks like it was a success nonetheless tho. Hopefully this might spurn repeat testings at a later date and maybe a little closer


----------



## captainobvious

spyders03 said:


> Any idea how the results will be posted?
> 
> Swyped while Swerving


I have them in word doc and excel form (2 separate docs).
They'll be posted up in a few days after the contributors have confirmed receipt.

Thanks


----------



## james2266

captainobvious said:


> I have them in word doc and excel form (2 separate docs).
> They'll be posted up in a few days after the contributors have confirmed receipt.
> 
> Thanks


Curious if it is supposed to be two files with different info in each? I received two files as you stated but the word file had no info in it. The word file looked like the empty form for the evaluators to fill out. There was no info in this file for me. There was info in the excel file however. Just curious if I got everything or maybe there was issues with the email?


----------



## captainobvious

What was the title at the top of the word file you were reading ?


----------



## james2266

captainobvious said:


> What was the title at the top of the word file you were reading ?


Once I open the word file the first line is:

2/9/2014 Amplifier Blind Testing for the mobile audio community

The file is called: results.docx


----------



## james2266

I think I figured it out. I'm slow sometimes the word file outlines the process and an example of each evaluators 'score card' and the Excel file has their comments. Do I have it right finally?


----------



## turbo5upra

Wish I wasn't occupied this weekend- could have been fun! In for results...


----------



## captainobvious

james2266 said:


> I think I figured it out. I'm slow sometimes the word file outlines the process and an example of each evaluators 'score card' and the Excel file has their comments. Do I have it right finally?


Bingo


----------



## Pimpnyou204

If you have the results done why not post it all up? Why wait?


----------



## seafish

Captainobvious, Thank you... I did get the results in my email.

I have already been going over them and seem some DEFINITE as well as INTERESTING anomalies in the "blind" verus "non-blind" evaluatiuons. 

I DO have one question on Tester #4 "Blind" evaluations...what do his numbers refer to...no one else uses them, I am having trouble understanding them. 

My first first review of the data indicates that this test is VERY telling in someways, though more about the individuals listeners preferences and critical listening abilities as well as the subjective nature of audio equipment evaluation, and NOT necessarily about the amps themselves... although it DOES look like most everybody had only neutral and mostly good things to say about the Soundstream Ref4, which cannot be said about ANY of the other amps, except perhaps the Zed Leviathan, but to a lesser consistency.

NONE of the above is meant to be anything negative about this test...MANY THANKS to you and each of the participants for providing the time, energy and money to make it happen!!!!

Looking forward to hearing more feedback about the results from others as they get the time.


----------



## papasin

Pimpnyou204 said:


> If you have the results done why not post it all up? Why wait?



Post #180 and 183.


----------



## cajunner

seafish said:


> Captainobvious, Thank you... I did get the results in my email.
> 
> I have already been going over them and seem some DEFINITE as well as INTERESTING anomalies in the "blind" verus "non-blind" evaluatiuons.
> 
> I DO have one question on Tester #4 "Blind" evaluations...what do his numbers refer to...no one else uses them, I am having trouble understanding them.
> 
> My first first review of the data indicates that this test is VERY telling in someways, though more about the individuals listeners preferences and critical listening abilities as well as the subjective nature of audio equipment evaluation, and NOT necessarily about the amps themselves... although it DOES look like most everybody had only neutral and mostly good things to say about the Soundstream Ref4, which cannot be said about ANY of the other amps, except perhaps the Zed Leviathan, but to a lesser consistency.
> 
> NONE of the above is meant to be anything negative about this test...MANY THANKS to you and each of the participants for providing the time, energy and money to make it happen!!!!
> 
> Looking forward to hearing more feedback about the results from others as they get the time.


so the Soundstream Ref4 is the winner, and the Leviathan took second?


good to know...


----------



## Pimpnyou204

papasin said:


> Post #180 and 183.


What does a read receipt have to do with posting? Email them and post on here for download to the rest..


----------



## DBlevel

Thank you Steve! Got my email, very interesting results.......


----------



## seafish

cajunner said:


> so the Soundstream Ref4 is the winner, and the Leviathan took second?
> 
> 
> good to know...


NOT necessarily, though that is MY opinion of the Soundstream based on what I am reading as it SEEMS that almost all the comments about the Soundstream Ref4, in both the blind and non-blind evalutaions, are mostly neutral to positive comments...others might interpret the comments differently then I did....sorry NOT tying to be obfuscatious, just that there is not necessarily a CLEAR winner based on how I am reading the results...you'll see what I mean as they get posted.


----------



## cajunner

seafish said:


> NOT necessarily, though that is MY opinion of the Soundstream based on what I am reading as it SEEMS that almost all the comments in both the blind and non-blind evalutaions are mostly neutral to positive comments...others might interpret the comments differently then I did....sorry NOT tying to be obfuscatious, just that there is not necessarily a CLEAR winner based on how I am reading the results...you'll see what I mean as they get posted.


you are the winner, you're the first to post spoiler results!

maybe we could let captainobvious post his findings for everyone, since it was his hard work that made this possible.


----------



## seafish

cajunner said:


> you are the winner, you're the first to post spoiler results!
> 
> maybe we could let captainobvious post his findings for everyone, since it was his hard work that made this possible.


Wow definitely agree that it was HIS hard work that made this possible, and NOT trying to spoil anything, just giving my cursory opinion to the data that he sent to those who financially supported this endeavor, the results of which certainly remain open to INTERPRETATION. Nonetheless, in deference to your tender feelings on the matter, I will stop posting my opinion until YOU decide that it is OK for me to post an opinion on the results.


----------



## WestCo

I am sure seeing that beautiful Zed amp gives +3/4 points for psycho acoustics along with hearing it simultaneously. 

I felt the v2 I had was a bit sharp here and there. The v3 was smooth like butter, maybe a tiny bit harsh around 5-6 k... just needs a touch of EQ depending on the source unit and drivers.


----------



## REGULARCAB

Here, everyone needs to eat one. Half the new threads on this forum have degraded into bickering. This is a good thread and lets not poo poo the whole thing.

Also sub'd :laugh:


----------



## cajunner

seafish said:


> Wow definitely agree that it was HIS hard work that made this possible, and NOT trying to spoil anything, just giving my cursory opinion to the data that he sent to those who financially supported this endeavor, the results of which certainly remain open to INTERPRETATION. Nonetheless, in deference to your tender feelings on the matter, I will stop posting my opinion until YOU decide that it is OK for me to post an opinion on the results.


I didn't see where captainobvious requested anyone who got results emailed to them, remain silent.

So my tender feelings, may not be that tender.

but the fact that he did say he would give the ones who paid the first look, does mean he intends to publish the results later for a reason.


and anyone discussing the findings would be circumventing captainobvious' intentions.

but hey, whatever works, right?


----------



## BigRed

I don't really understand why everybody that didn't participate can't see the results for a few days. I find it strange but that's probably just me 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jsketoe

Maybe we need to do a blind test on results and see if we can tell the difference in the type of results. Lol. Jk


----------



## PsyCLown

Hmm, been waiting for the tests to happen since the beginning of this thread. 

Really curious about the results! 
This past weekend I upgraded from a cheap Starsound class AB amp to the PPI P900.4 and noticed a difference. 

Would be interesting to see how the array of amps you managed to get compare. 

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk


----------



## vivmike

Seems like all blind test posts end up being 10-20 pages of bitching, then 10 more pages of bitching once the results are posted.


----------



## DrFred

Seems only fair that those that ponied up their own time , money or equipment to help make this event happen should get the first look at the results - the rest of us had the opportunity to do so and didn't and at least , can show some class and wait patiently .


----------



## captainobvious

papasin said:


> Post #180 and 183.


Thanks Rich


----------



## captainobvious

WestCo said:


> I am sure seeing that beautiful Zed amp gives +3/4 points for psycho acoustics along with hearing it simultaneously.
> 
> I felt the v2 I had was a bit sharp here and there. The v3 was smooth like butter, maybe a tiny bit harsh around 5-6 k... just needs a touch of EQ depending on the source unit and drivers.



The Zed is certainly a beautiful amplifier. My wife liked it the best 

:laugh:

.


----------



## captainobvious

BigRed said:


> I don't really understand why everybody that didn't participate can't see the results for a few days. I find it strange but that's probably just me
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Because its a courtesy. Nothing against everyone else. You guys are all great too 

Once I confirm all the supporters have received their copies, I will post it up.
It's like going to a party where 5 people pay for all the pizza and then everyone eats it up before they get a chance to get a slice.

Most have confirmed, so it shouldn't be long.


----------



## DBlevel

vivmike said:


> Seems like all blind test posts end up being 10-20 pages of bitching, then 10 more pages of bitching once the results are posted.


It's amazing but I'd expect more to come I'm sure 

Steve took his time to do the test as well as others that were involved. I thank Steve for doing the test and those that volunteered their time!

Possibly plans of a second blind test with a totally different line up? Maybe?


----------



## captainobvious

seafish said:


> Captainobvious, Thank you... I did get the results in my email.
> 
> I have already been going over them and seem some DEFINITE as well as INTERESTING anomalies in the "blind" verus "non-blind" evaluatiuons.
> 
> I DO have one question on Tester #4 "Blind" evaluations...what do his numbers refer to...no one else uses them, I am having trouble understanding them.
> 
> My first first review of the data indicates that this test is VERY telling in someways, though more about the individuals listeners preferences and critical listening abilities as well as the subjective nature of audio equipment evaluation, and NOT necessarily about the amps themselves... although it DOES look like most everybody had only neutral and mostly good things to say about the Soundstream Ref4, which cannot be said about ANY of the other amps, except perhaps the Zed Leviathan, but to a lesser consistency.
> 
> NONE of the above is meant to be anything negative about this test...MANY THANKS to you and each of the participants for providing the time, energy and money to make it happen!!!!
> 
> Looking forward to hearing more feedback about the results from others as they get the time.



Hi Seafish, thanks again for your contribution 

I'm not sure why tester #4 used numbers on the blind evaluation. I'm "assuming" he was ranking them on a 1-10 scale? To be honest though, the non blind vs blind evaluations were done more for fun to see what testers impressions would be when they knew what amp it was, vs when they didn't. The real good stuff is in the AX comparisons.

I'll post up more for everyone once I get confirmed receipt shortly.


----------



## tjswarbrick

Received my copy - was awaiting posting of final results before commenting.
Thank you.


----------



## captainobvious

DBlevel said:


> It's amazing but I'd expect more to come I'm sure
> 
> Steve took his time to do the test as well as others that were involved. I thank Steve for doing the test and those that volunteered their time!
> 
> Possibly plans of a second blind test with a totally different line up? Maybe?



Well...I'll have to get with Bertholomey to see if he'd like to do something around the Spring NC meet which I'll be attending. Maybe we can arrange to do something for you fellas down there


----------



## scoobysmak

I got the results, thanks for putting it together.


----------



## captainobvious

OK, at this point, I believe everyone has received and had the chance to view the docs (and they are probably anxious to discuss), so I'm going to go ahead and post up the information for review and comments.



Without further ado, below is the content. * (in PDF format)*


----------



## captainobvious

I've attached the results in PDF format here as that's the only easy way. When you get to the bottom where I pasted in the Excel stuff, it will be smaller font. Just zoom in on the page unit you can see it.


----------



## ErinH

Steve, thanks for taking to the time to do this. I just dropped you a PM about bridging the gap here a bit. LMK what you think.


----------



## Hanatsu

Thanks! Interesting results. It seems like there could be subtle differences as one or two showed a fairly high correct percentage. Others were random and some comments were slightly contadicting. Conclusion; There can be subtle audible differences in a controlled environment?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## ErinH

Just read through this quickly. If nothing else this test can serve as a reference the next time someone performs a sighted test and says they didn't have any bias. I believe this simple test proves that to be false, as reserach hsa shown already. But now we have something from our own group of people to reference. Now maybe people will be less inclined to buy based on brand or amp topography blindly (no pun intended). 

Ultimately there was no clear 'winner' here, that I see. What I do see is a clear indication that knowing what you're listening to changes your impression of the sound. Look at all the contradictions in assessments between the blind and sighted tests. 

It's also interesting to note that when doing direct A/X comparison, the average abillty to pick the correct answer "different or same" was little more than the flip of a coin (to quote a friend). Really... 56% ability within the group to identify even hearing if the amp is different. Think about that, guys. That's very low. That's essentially no confidence. Remember all those threads you read about amp A sounding better than amp B? Makes you question those that told you one was better than the other, doesn't it? 

There's some good information to be gleaned from this exercise. I expected people to hear things differently. And they did. And I expected people to hear things differently when they knew what was playing. And they did. It's just very interesting to see a listener's words on paper and to compare that between what they saw and what they heard and then see the ability of the listeners to correctly identify an amp in the A/X testing. 

Good stuff, Steve.


----------



## BigRed

bikinpunk said:


> Just read through this quickly. If nothing else this test can serve as a reference the next time someone performs a sighted test and says they didn't have any bias. I believe this simple test proves that to be false, as reserach hsa shown already... now we have something from our own group of people to reference. Now maybe people will be less inclined to buy based on brand or amp topography blindly (no pun intended). Ultimately there was no clear 'winner' here, that I see. What I do see is a clear indication that knowing what you're listening to changes your impression of the sound. Look at all the contradictions in assessments between the blind and sighted tests.
> 
> There's some good information to be gleaned from this exercise. I expected people to hear things differently. And they did. And I expected people to hear things differently when they knew what was playing. And they did. It's just very interesting to see a listener's words on paper and to compare that between what they saw and what they heard.
> 
> Good stuff, Steve.


TOTALLY AGREE!! ^ There was no clear winner. A learned a lot from this test. 

Thanks for all the hard work guys.


----------



## bertholomey

captainobvious said:


> Well...I'll have to get with Bertholomey to see if he'd like to do something around the Spring NC meet which I'll be attending. Maybe we can arrange to do something for you fellas down there


hmmmmm.....could be interesting.......


----------



## captainobvious

bikinpunk said:


> Just read through this quickly. If nothing else this test can serve as a reference the next time someone performs a sighted test and says they didn't have any bias. I believe this simple test proves that to be false, as reserach hsa shown already. But now we have something from our own group of people to reference. Now maybe people will be less inclined to buy based on brand or amp topography blindly (no pun intended).
> 
> Ultimately there was no clear 'winner' here, that I see. What I do see is a clear indication that knowing what you're listening to changes your impression of the sound. Look at all the contradictions in assessments between the blind and sighted tests.
> 
> It's also interesting to note that when doing direct A/X comparison, the average abillty to pick the correct answer "different or same" was little more than the flip of a coin (to quote a friend). Really... 56% ability within the group to identify even hearing if the amp is different. Think about that, guys. That's very low. That's essentially no confidence. Remember all those threads you read about amp A sounding better than amp B? Makes you question those that told you one was better than the other, doesn't it?
> 
> There's some good information to be gleaned from this exercise. I expected people to hear things differently. And they did. And I expected people to hear things differently when they knew what was playing. And they did. It's just very interesting to see a listener's words on paper and to compare that between what they saw and what they heard and then see the ability of the listeners to correctly identify an amp in the A/X testing.
> 
> Good stuff, Steve.


Thanks for the comments Erin. This is specifically why I chose to run these specific tests and in this order. I also felt the AX test was more appropriate and valid for this study. In addition, I think it should be noted that while the data is interesting and does mirror some previous testing results from other studies, due to the small number of testers and trials, I leave up to you guys to determine whether the results are "statistically significant". What I "believe", is that with a larger group and more trials, that number would indeed be close to a coin flip across the board. 

I'll wait for some of the testers to comment, but the general consensus in talking after the tests was that all of the testers were surprised by just how close everything sounded and how hard it was to distinguish any differences in the blind tests.
It was a fun and worthwhile experiment and we all had a good time and left with a little better feeling on the subject than when we arrived, which is what all of this DIY audio is about- learning for yourself


----------



## mmiller

Thanks for taking the time to put this all together.


----------



## captainobvious

Hanatsu said:


> Thanks! Interesting results. It seems like there could be subtle differences as one or two showed a fairly high correct percentage. Others were random and some comments were slightly contadicting. Conclusion; There can be subtle audible differences in a controlled environment?
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.



To be honest, I was surprised by that portion of the data as well. I wish we had had more testers and more trials to really make these even more significant. This is part of the problem with just 4 testers doing the AX tests. With more data comes more accurate results.


----------



## captainobvious

BigRed said:


> TOTALLY AGREE!! ^ There was no clear winner. A learned a lot from this test.
> 
> Thanks for all the hard work guys.



Thanks Jim, glad you got something out of it 


-Steve


----------



## ErinH

I want to quickly state that my previous post wasn't intended to pick on the listeners. I don't think I would have fared any better than they did. 

Like I said, it's just interesting to see just how different the results are between sighted and blind, and also to see the relative inability to distinguish between amps during the A/X.


----------



## casey

thanks for taking the time, effort, and money to do a test like this steve. I know it was a good bit of money out of your pocket, surprised there was so much bickering earlier. 

the blind ax eval is interesting  happy to see the elite got highest for accuracy by 15% over the next closest.


----------



## charliekwin

Interesting results, and thanks to captainobvious for arranging the whole thing.

Two thinks that stand out to me after a brief look at the results:

1. The subjective comments from the same reviewer on the same amp in the blind and non-blind tests are often diametrically opposed to each other. Blind evaluations of the same amp across reviewers are inconsistent as well.

2. Someone with the stats experience could do the actual numbers, but 56% correct with this small a sample size is little more than chance.


All the amps there are solid products, so I think it would've been interesting to throw a $25 flea market amp in there just for comparison. All told, it's hard for me to believe there's any real audible difference to be found in properly built and engineered amps; though listening impressions may vary.


----------



## captainobvious

casey said:


> thanks for taking the time, effort, and money to do a test like this steve. I know it was a good bit of money out of your pocket, surprised there was so much bickering earlier.
> 
> the blind ax eval is interesting  happy to see the elite got highest for accuracy by 15% over the next closest.


And thank you for sending in that lovely behemoth Elite.  She's a beaut !


----------



## Old Skewl

Very Interesting results. Darn placebo effect! LOL! Definitely not much consistency in the opinions. And as Erin stated, a coin flip on the AX tests. Sure does make you wonder about all the opinions people have of a single favorite amp!


----------



## rton20s

Thank you captain and all of those who contributed and participated in making this happen. And rather than posting a bunch of redundant commentary, I will say that I think Erin's assessment of the results was spot on. 

The conclusion I have drawn is to go pick up some of these Planet Audio beauties. 









Seriously though, for the money, it might have been worth it to throw this XDi "clone" into the mix just to see how it fared. Oh well, hindsight.


----------



## captainobvious

I wanted to add my buddies Walmart special Jensen to the bunch but alas...didn't get the opportunity.


----------



## Hanatsu

captainobvious said:


> To be honest, I was surprised by that portion of the data as well. I wish we had had more testers and more trials to really make these even more significant. This is part of the problem with just 4 testers doing the AX tests. With more data comes more accurate results.


Yes, more data is always better 

But as Erin pointed out, this test does point out the biased results of a sighted evaluation and that alone explain lots of things. All in all the results kinda reflect my views on amp 'character' audibility.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## Golden Ear

Thanx, Steve and listeners! Great info. I'm going to the flea market with Dustin to go buy some cheap amps:laugh: 

Seriously tho, even tho the test shows that there isnt a clear winner, build quality and durability are important factors as well. Like anything else, I'm not gonna buy a cheaply built amp even tho it sounds the same as a more expensive amp if the cheap one is only gonna work for a year or two and a more expensive amp will last 10-15 year. I still have a couple Zapco z-220s that are around 25 years old that still work. Not sure too many cheap amps would last that long. Just my $.02


----------



## Golden Ear

Hanatsu said:


> Yes, more data is always better
> 
> But as Erin pointed out, this test does point out the biased results of a sighted evaluation and that alone explain lots of things. All in all the results kinda reflect my views on amp 'character' audibility.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


What I gather from this is that if I want to win some sq comps I need to buy the most expensive amps to help my chances. But I think we all already knew that


----------



## casey

Im game for another test at the spring meet or another time

we will have Jasons Mosconi zero A class
Russ will have the Mosconi AS series
Ill have the elites there


----------



## ErinH

I think if you want to do anything at the NC meet, given the venue, you may want to keep it short. Maybe just do the A/X testing.


----------



## bertholomey

bikinpunk said:


> I think if you want to do anything at the NC meet, given the venue, you may want to keep it short. Maybe just do the A/X testing.


Right......let's not get too ahead of ourselves - we do already have a plan for that meet. Erin, Steve, and I will discuss - may or may not be done then.


----------



## captainobvious

Golden Ear said:


> Thanx, Steve and listeners! Great info. I'm going to the flea market with Dustin to go buy some cheap amps:laugh:
> 
> Seriously tho, even tho the test shows that there isnt a clear winner, *build quality and durability are important factors as well.* Like anything else, I'm not gonna buy a cheaply built amp even tho it sounds the same as a more expensive amp if the cheap one is only gonna work for a year or two and a more expensive amp will last 10-15 year. I still have a couple Zapco z-220s that are around 25 years old that still work. Not sure too many cheap amps would last that long. Just my $.02


I should note that this is one thing I discussed with the testers at the end as well. The data shown can't be a be-all end-all solution. It's a small basic test that provides some insight, but for true statistical significance it should probably by conducted with about 25 testers and more trials. 
I don't think it should be taken with the message of "Go buy the cheapest thing because all amps are the same". There are a great many factors that go into an amplifier purchase. I personally feel that part quality and build quality are very important and contribute to the performance in the long run as well as reliability. I think aesthetics are important as well to many people and beautiful designs like the Audison AV/Thesis, Mosconi's, Zed's, etc are hard to acquire in a lower price range. I also think that things like power configuration and output, size , external noise (fans, etc), customer service, etc. play a very important role.

Choices in many of our car audio purchases are very emotional. Whatever configuration gives you the best overall emotional response to your sound/music is certainly a winning one. Sometimes it's about the "specs" for people, sometimes it's about performance vs low cost, sometimes it about loyalty to a manufacturer that has done right by you, sometimes it's simply a beautifully engineered piece of artistic audio brilliance that you have to have.


----------



## casey

yeah i forgot about the tuning session. id much rather demo cars than amp blind tests anyway


----------



## bertholomey

captainobvious said:


> I should note that this is one thing I discussed with the testers at the end as well. The data shown can't be a be-all end-all solution. It's a small basic test that provides some insight, but for true statistical significance it should probably by conducted with about 25 testers and more trials.
> I don't think it should be taken with the message of "Go buy the cheapest thing because all amps are the same". There are a great many factors that go into an amplifier purchase. I personally feel that part quality and build quality are very important and contribute to the performance in the long run as well as reliability. I think aesthetics are important as well to many people and beautiful designs like the Audison AV/Thesis, Mosconi's, Zed's, etc are hard to acquire in a lower price range. I also think that things like power configuration and output, size , external noise (fans, etc), customer service, etc. play a very important role.
> 
> Choices in many of our car audio purchases are very emotional. Whatever configuration gives you the best overall emotional response to your sound/music is certainly a winning one. Sometimes it's about the "specs" for people, sometimes it's about performance vs low cost, sometimes it about loyalty to a manufacturer that has done right by you, sometimes it's simply a beautifully engineered piece of artistic audio brilliance that you have to have.


Again......we are missing out on that Thank You button! Excellent Summary (IMHO)


----------



## captainobvious

casey said:


> Im game for another test at the spring meet or another time
> 
> we will have Jasons Mosconi zero A class
> Russ will have the Mosconi AS series
> Ill have the elites there





bikinpunk said:


> I think if you want to do anything at the NC meet, given the venue, you may want to keep it short. Maybe just do the A/X testing.





bertholomey said:


> Right......let's not get too ahead of ourselves - we do already have a plan for that meet. Erin, Steve, and I will discuss - may or may not be done then.



Indeed. If and only IF we were to make this happen, it would be an IN-CAR demo on the day of the meet which poses some issues. Plus I think we all want to enjoy our time there, including Jay, Erin and I . And I certainly don't want to detract from the great event Jay hosts either as everyone is there to chill and have fun. (including me  )

We shall see....


----------



## WestCo

I should have sent in my Matt Roberts c2k class A biased... 

Very, interesting results.
Good job man


----------



## WestCo

Also it's important to remember that even minor differences "Add up" when you put a system together all the components need to play well together


----------



## OSN

As someone participating in the listening tests, I will say that I pretty much expected the results, but still left a powerful impression on me when I was REALLY hearing the differences between 2 amps that turned out to be the same, within 30 seconds of each other. And yes, we all agreed that while outputting the same power across all amps was very hard to discern differences, that doesn't consider how much power the amps are capable of compared to each other, and the other factors that people consider when shopping for amps. It was very eye-opening even though I thought this would happen.


----------



## rton20s

WestCo said:


> Also it's important to remember that even minor differences "Add up" when you put a system together all the components need to play well together


You mean, like... interconnects.


----------



## Golden Ear

WestCo said:


> I should have sent in my Matt Roberts c2k class A biased...


This would have won, no doubt


----------



## Pimpnyou204

I also feel that depending on how aggressively you guys ran these amps the "higher end" amps might have a few more watts to give while some may have been topping out and also under more stressful loads things may become more noticeable aswell when power supplies are maxed out including electrical too. However with this test you can mostly take away that these amps can almost be interchangeable and no one notice a difference. However i ran a right side left side install a/b test and could hear subtle things in the highs between a Zuki and c2k in mid to high listening however much less so in lower listening and imo this relates too. You get what you pay for in some regulates bcuz some of these amps are built like tanks and can withstand huge watts and still maintaining sq while these smaller ones tap out much easier in transients and a few noted this aswell. However next time i think a blind test which absolute no knowledge of amps would be ever better and then do a open eye test and let the opinions come out when the boss power acoustic come out. But again time is always a limit and listener fatigue seemed to have hit also.

But none the less awesome test and shows a lot on opinions and i wish someone much more SE would be done too.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

What happened with the cable comparison?


----------



## jode1967

First off, I want to say thanks to Steve for taking the time to make this happen. I am sure it was a ton of work and a financial burden as well. He went in without worry.
I also want to state that many people will think rather than listen when they know what the equipment is (non bling tests). And many of these same people will never get over that thinking. Even if you could quantify SQ and know what was the better piece.
In the end I bet the whole gathering was a blast with tons of fun owned by all who attended.

great work


----------



## ErinH

Golden Ear said:


> This would have won, no doubt



I don't know why in you guys would say that. Especially after what's been posted. 


What I'm trying to say is that simply saying "oh, xxx amp would have beaten them all" like you and WestCo have implied is completely without merit. This test should only further proves that. There were numerous amps used here with great engineering and yet not one of them was deemed the best neither by sight or blind listening. And certainly not by a direct comparison. So, it flies in the face of everything here to come in and drop such a statement. Does it not? 

Preference is subjective. If the amp is designed to a certain set of goals and the specs are not intentionally exceeded, what you wind up with is what the results show. A lot of well performing amps with no obvious "best" but instead a whole lot of variability from listener to listener and within the same listener. 

If you want to go through the trouble of doing your own blind testing and can conclude with statistical certainty that one amp is indeed preferred by you, then buy that amp. But expecting everyone else to feel the same way, much less assume they could do so with a reasonable margin of repeatability is silly. 


It's funny. A thread like this shows all the above. Yet people will still try to claim something as the best based on zero statistical data. Just sole sighted tests where bias (whether admitted or not) is obviously king. 

What people need to focus on is simple: 
Does the amp do what you need (power, space, etc)?
Does the amp fit your budget?
Is the amp made by a respectable
Manufacturer who can back up their product with a warranty should something fail. 

It really shouldn't be more troublesome to buy an amp than that. Yet, we still see posts like this that throw people for a loop and in to a tailspin. 

Just my $.02.


----------



## cajunner

this looks to be a fair shoot and not comprised solely of the "golden ears" of sound-off judges.

tester 4 needs to practice long-hand.

there's an issue of fidelity with the more difficult load of the electrostats, in a quiet room being unable to "flesh out" a winner or two.

this does suggest that the 12V amplifier circuit is matured to the point where any reasonable test using amps that are of middle or top tiers, shows very little.

I am pretty sure I would have been as ambiguous in my analysis as the testers were, and that's not to say I'm bad, just that people in general can't hear **** for shine....


bwhahaha..

anyways, I've got more to say but I'll wait until more have said it first.


----------



## papasin

Erin, I think you missed Golden Ear's wink emoticon.


----------



## ErinH

papasin said:


> Erin, I think you missed Golden Ear's wink emoticon.


indeed. my bad, goldenEar.


let my reply stand as one to anyone with his same sentiment, minus the wink. lol.


----------



## scoobysmak

I wonder if SQ(L) judging should be done without the judges knowledge of what amps your using, wonder if anything would have changed in past sound events??

It takes more than amplifiers to make a good sounding system but wonder if a few people were really picked on sound wise due to the equipment they were running.


----------



## captainobvious

I800C0LLECT said:


> What happened with the cable comparison?


 I have a (VERY) small sampling of data with regards to the cables because we just ran out of time (and steam) at the end there. I still have to organize it, but I'm hesitant to even post it because it does not give a fair representation of a blind comparison. We didn't have an RCA switcher for clean quick changes and only had 3 participants at that point available for a single 10 sample test. I don't feel it was conducted properly to provide significant or meaningful data. We gave the amplifier test a fair shake and I certainly wouldn't want any opinions formed based on the results, considering the above.

I'll discuss it with West later this evening. Too much on the plate right now...


----------



## captainobvious

jode1967 said:


> First off, I want to say thanks to Steve for taking the time to make this happen. I am sure it was a ton of work and a financial burden as well. He went in without worry.
> I also want to state that many people will think rather than listen when they know what the equipment is (non bling tests). And many of these same people will never get over that thinking. Even if you could quantify SQ and know what was the better piece.
> In the end I bet the whole gathering was a blast with tons of fun owned by all who attended.
> 
> great work


Thanks Jode, it was a fun time. I wish more could have attended, but sometimes life gets in the way 


-Steve


----------



## cajunner

captainobvious said:


> I have a (VERY) small sampling of data with regards to the cables because we just ran out of time (and steam) at the end there. I still have to organize it, but I'm hesitant to even post it because it does not give a fair representation of a blind comparison. We didn't have an RCA switcher for clean quick changes and only had 3 participants at that point available for a single 10 sample test. I don't feel it was conducted properly to provide significant or meaningful data. We gave the amplifier test a fair shake and I certainly wouldn't want any opinions formed based on the results, considering the above.
> 
> I'll discuss it with West later this evening. Too much on the plate right now...


I think anything more than a cursory review of the amplifier results not revealing differences, means that the cables suffered from the same fate.

In a way, an inferior cable can act as a pre-amp, but even marginally successful attempts at cable design will be extremely hard to suss out any audible artifacts or tell-tale signs that can beat out the ABX buttons.

I vote not to put the cable results in play, because anything other than a clear difference found, will diminish the importance of paying more for them.

the balance of power must not shift...

wait, I don't have a vote. Sorry cap, carry on, good sir.


----------



## Hanatsu

Golden Ear said:


> Seriously tho, even tho the test shows that there isnt a clear winner, build quality and durability are important factors as well. Like anything else, I'm not gonna buy a cheaply built amp even tho it sounds the same as a more expensive amp if the cheap one is only gonna work for a year or two and a more expensive amp will last 10-15 year.


Agree fully with this. Mainly the reason why I go for the "better stuff" when I get amps... that and the "real" power specs. Some of the cheaper amps have imaginative power output numbers at best


----------



## Hanatsu

scoobysmak said:


> I wonder if SQ(L) judging should be done without the judges knowledge of what amps your using, wonder if anything would have changed in past sound events??
> 
> It takes more than amplifiers to make a good sounding system but wonder if a few people were really picked on sound wise due to the equipment they were running.


A good question indeed.


----------



## req

yay! reading now!


i was invited up north to do this test with the crew, but unfortunately i was in flordia for work related things that cropped up on tuesday.

thank you kindly for the invite, maybe next time!

//edit

just finished reading the document(s) and replies.


ill just say, that i am behind erin on this one - and the results are exactly what i expected them to be.

when buying an amplifier for a project, i first just want something that has a warranty in place that i can trust - even if i buy it used. then i try to find out if it is flexible in its usage (resistance levels, crossovers, other filters, equalizers, expansion modules, digital control etc...), and then i judge if it is in my budget.

i think the install and tune is 99.9% of the system.


----------



## Golden Ear

bikinpunk said:


> indeed. my bad, goldenEar.
> 
> 
> let my reply stand as one to anyone with his same sentiment, minus the wink. lol.


Lol! It's all good. I'm glad Richard caught it.


----------



## Hanatsu

req said:


> yay! reading now!
> 
> 
> i was invited up north to do this test with the crew, but unfortunately i was in flordia for work related things that cropped up on tuesday.
> 
> thank you kindly for the invite, maybe next time!
> 
> //edit
> 
> just finished reading the document(s) and replies.
> 
> 
> ill just say, that i am behind erin on this one - and the results are exactly what i expected them to be.
> 
> when buying an amplifier for a project, i first just want something that has a warranty in place that i can trust - even if i buy it used. then i try to find out if it is flexible in its usage (resistance levels, crossovers, other filters, equalizers, expansion modules, digital control etc...), and then i judge if it is in my budget.
> 
> i think the install and tune is 99.9% of the system.


^^

Couldn't have said it better myself 

This site kinda explains why sighted evaluations are iffy...

NwAvGuy: What We Hear


----------



## WestCo

rton20s said:


> You mean, like... interconnects.


You said it, not me!

Great minds think alike!


----------



## tjswarbrick

Thank you, Steve. While I was hoping to be surprised by the results and see a clear winner come out, I was not expecting to be. So I am not disappointed.

In my personal experience, while ABX blind testing is a great way to bring people together, and to build intrigue around a product/category, a true evaluation requires in-depth study and analysis over a longer period of time in a well-known environment, against known references, under a lot of different circumstances. I can't pick out my favorite component, or my favorite wine, or even my favorite scotch, 100% of the time. But over time, when presented with different options sometimes and my long-time favorites sometimes I will, over time, either rediscover what made them my favorites or discover something that I perhaps enjoy even more. It is important to note that the simple act of testing changes the nature of the experience.

There are others, more knowledgeable and experienced than I (who you may or may not choose to believe) that feel the same way:

Blind Listening Tests are Flawed: An Editorial | AVguide

The Great Debate...and Then Some | Stereophile.com

Differences in sound amongst amps, cables, even pre-amps, etc are by their very nature very subtle and some might say "minor." They are affected by a lot of different things: References, associated equipment, volume level. Perceptions, bias and preconceived notions. Mood, hunger, recent events. What you're heard lately, familiarity with the music, fatigue. If there was some circuit, topology, or brand name that was always clearly head-and-shoulders above the rest wouldn't everyone either buy it or reverse-engineer it?

Studies (which are ALL to be taken with a grain of salt) have shown that the larger the group, the more closely the results move toward 50/50. 

So, I hope the listening team does not feel in any way bad about their results or second-guess their listening skills. Though I wouldn't expect hugely different results, I think it would be fun to participate in an event like this in my area. 

Thanks again, Steve, for pulling this together and sharing your results.


----------



## BigRed

I still stand by the idea that 30 seconds is too long between comparison samples. Ok. Nuff from me 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rton20s

tjswarbrick said:


> Though I wouldn't expect hugely different results, I think it would be fun to participate in an event like this in my area.


My vote goes for Bing and JOey to play host at SiS.  Though, I am not sure what room they could use given the turn out we would likely get.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

captainobvious said:


> I have a (VERY) small sampling of data with regards to the cables because we just ran out of time (and steam) at the end there. I still have to organize it, but I'm hesitant to even post it because it does not give a fair representation of a blind comparison. We didn't have an RCA switcher for clean quick changes and only had 3 participants at that point available for a single 10 sample test. I don't feel it was conducted properly to provide significant or meaningful data. We gave the amplifier test a fair shake and I certainly wouldn't want any opinions formed based on the results, considering the above.
> 
> I'll discuss it with West later this evening. Too much on the plate right now...


I completely understand! Not a problem! I have a feeling the results would be similar to the amplifier results. Especially if people are using differential inputs 

...which happen to be on most amps these days.


----------



## 07azhhr

Cap - Thank you for doing this. Thank you for putting in the time and effort. 

Richard Clark says thanks for the back up.


----------



## WestCo

captainobvious said:


> I have a (VERY) small sampling of data with regards to the cables because we just ran out of time (and steam) at the end there. I still have to organize it, but I'm hesitant to even post it because it does not give a fair representation of a blind comparison. We didn't have an RCA switcher for clean quick changes and only had 3 participants at that point available for a single 10 sample test. I don't feel it was conducted properly to provide significant or meaningful data. We gave the amplifier test a fair shake and I certainly wouldn't want any opinions formed based on the results, considering the above.
> 
> I'll discuss it with West later this evening. Too much on the plate right now...


I will leave it to your judgement.
Listeners went through a long battery of tests.


----------



## Darth SQ

scoobysmak said:


> *I wonder if SQ(L) judging should be done without the judges knowledge of what amps your using, wonder if anything would have changed in past sound events??*
> 
> It takes more than amplifiers to make a good sounding system but wonder if a few people were really picked on sound wise due to the equipment they were running.


Heresy!!!! 


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## rton20s

scoobysmak said:


> I wonder if SQ(L) judging should be done without the judges knowledge of what amps your using, wonder if anything would have changed in past sound events??
> 
> It takes more than amplifiers to make a good sounding system but wonder if a few people were really picked on sound wise due to the equipment they were running.


That is all fine and good except a lot of times you can get a very good idea of exactly what amps/equipment someone is running without ever seeing the installation. Especially if it isn't the first time a car has been to a competition. And you don't even need to be a judge to figure it out.


----------



## ChrisB

Thanks for taking the time to perform this test Steve. I forget the home audio magazine that performed this test many years ago with nothing other than level matching and the results were similar. IIRC, most listeners in the blind test preferred a mainstream brand, mid level amplifier to their high dollar, uber elite gear.

This should also shed a little light on why no one ever won Richard Clark's money. Once the amplifiers are made to measure the same, you are hosed and will be hard pressed tell the difference between them with any statistical significance! 

Regardless, this was a great test and should have been eye opening to the participants. I'm sure there are many on this very forum who would be extremely butthurt to find out they couldn't tell the difference between their "precious" and some other similarly priced amplifier that they deem not worthy to be mentioned in the same sentence as their precious.


----------



## douggiestyle

Just wanted to quickly thank the Captain and everyone else who contributed to this.


----------



## Pimpnyou204

I dont think you mentioned this but i know you narrowed the voltage down to .03 of each other but about what listening level were you guys testing at? I know it wasn't maxed out bcuz you wanted headroom and i like to keep/say 100 wpc is max for what i like to set my gains at by dmm and then work downto level match etc etc. So I'd assume about 50 wpc or half max? More or less light to casual listening?


----------



## captainobvious

Thank you guys for the kind words. I'm happy to be able to contribute something actually useful back as I've learned so much from this site and the members of this community over the years.


----------



## buc385

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT IT WAS A REAL GOOD TIME TO BE WITH PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE SAME INTEREST WHICH MAKES THIS SPORT SO UNIQUE IS THAT IT IS SO OPINIONATED . WE SHOULD BE GLAD THAT WE HAVE SO MANY DIFFERENCES TO NOT TO AGREE ON . OUR SPORT IS NOT MONO TO BE RIGHT OR WRONG JUST LIKE THE MUSIC WE LISTEN TO IT'S THERE TO MAKE YOU FELL GOOD AT THE TIME YOU HEAR IT AND TO TAKE YOU TO PLACES IN YOUR LIFE THAT YOU WANT TO REMEMBER . WHAT I GOT OUT OF THE TEST WAS THERE ARE DIFFERENCE IN THE AMPS JUST NOT VAST DIFFERENCES THE AMPS SHOULD ONLY AMPLIFY THE SOUND OF THE SOURCE .BUILT QUALITY IS A BIGGER PART . I DON'T THINK YOU ARE GOING TO BUY SUPER CHEAP AMP AND GET THE SAME RESULTS THE AMPS IN THE TEST ARE FROM AMP COMPANIES THAT HAD YEARS OF RESEARCH TO BACK THEM. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK STEVE FOR THE INVITE AND THE HOSPITALITY AL JACKSON .


----------



## jriggs

buc385 said:


> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT IT WAS A REAL GOOD TIME TO BE WITH PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE SAME INTEREST WHICH MAKES THIS SPORT SO UNIQUE IS THAT IT IS SO OPINIONATED . WE SHOULD BE GLAD THAT WE SO MANY DIFFERENCES TO NOT TO AGREE ON . OUR SPORT IS NOT MONO TO BE RIGHT OR WRONG JUST LIKE THE MUSIC WE LISTEN TO IT'S THERE TO MAKE YOU FELL GOOD AT THE TIME YOU HEAR IT AND TO TAKE YOU TO PLACES IN YOUR LIFE THAT YOU WANT TO REMEMBER . WHAT I GOT OUT OF THE TEST WAS THERE ARE DIFFERENCE IN THE AMPS JUST NOT VAST DIFFERENCE THE AMPS SHOULD ONLY AMPLIFY THE SOUND OF THE SOURCE .BUILT QUALITY IS A BIGGER PART . I DON'T THINK YOU ARE GOING TO BUY SUPER CHEAP AMP AND GET THE SAME RESULTS THE AMPS IN THE TEST ARE FROM AMP COMPANIES THAT HAD YEARS OF RESEARCH TO BACK THEM. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK STEVE FOR THE INVITE AND THE HOSPITALITY AL JACKSON


SPORT: (noun) an activity involving *physical exertion* and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.


----------



## shavis

jriggs said:


> SPORT: (noun) an activity involving *physical exertion* and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.



Perhaps you weren't nearly as exhausted as I, after hours dialing in the P99RS. Exertion much akin to the sport of chess. However there is debate to the sporting nature there as well.


----------



## buc385

IS THAT WHAT YOU GOT OUT OF WHAT WAS SAID . ASK ANY ONE WHO COMPETES IN A SOUND CLASS DO THE FEEL PHYSICAL EXERTION AND THE PEOPLE THAT INSTALL AND DO MODS ABOUT SKILL . THE STATEMENTS WERE BASE ON MY OPINIONS THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS


----------



## rton20s




----------



## req

buc385 said:


> I would like to say that it was a real good time to be with people that have the same interest as me. The thing that makes this sport so unique is that it is so opinionated. We should be glad that we have so many differences that we do not agree on. Our sport does not have a clear right or wrong. The music we listen to is made to make you feel good at the time you hear it; to take you to places in your life that you want to remember. What I got out of the test was there are differences in the amps, just not vast differences. The amplifiers should only amplify the sound of the source. Build quality is a big part of an amplifiers quality. I don't think you are going to buy super cheap amp and get the same results as the amps in the test are from companies that had years of research to back them.
> I would like to thank Steve for the invite and the hospitality
> 
> Al Jackson


fixed that for you. it made my head spin.

thank you for your comments, ill assume that you used the numbers - you must have been tester #5 or maybe #2.

cheers.


----------



## Sound Suggestions

My ears hurt from all the yelling 

New to Tapatalk! It's not bad


----------



## captainobvious

Al, it was a pleasure having you fellas out there. Thanks again for taking the time out to participate. I need to get a listen in Mel's car sometime...when it's warmer


----------



## tnbubba

havent caught up on the thread yet i got to go back to page 5 but i can tell you 75 is no where near enough on a bench PS to run that SS 4.920! unless you are limiting the amps to maybe 40-5w max of output.. and several other there will tax a good PS on transients.. now to go read the reviews


----------



## tnbubba

now that i have read thru it doesnt surprise me a bit about the SS!!! great amp does what an amp is supposed to do ..AMP!


and thanks for the effort guys!


----------



## dgr932

Steve,

Thanks for the conducting the test and providing the results. Thank you to all the contributors (of all forms) who enable the test to be made possible so that people such as myself and other may benefit from your experiences.

-Dustin


----------



## vivmike

buc385 said:


> ASK ANY ONE WHO COMPETES IN A SOUND CLASS DO THE FEEL PHYSICAL EXERTION


This made me LOL.

I'm sure that really breaks a sweat.


----------



## captainobvious

tnbubba said:


> havent caught up on the thread yet i got to go back to page 5 but i can tell you 75 is no where near enough on a bench PS to run that SS 4.920! unless you are limiting the amps to maybe 40-5w max of output.. and several other there will tax a good PS on transients.. now to go read the reviews


Funny, it seemed to work just fine for all of the 8 amps...including the Elite.4 and Zapco Z which are even more powerful 

Remember, we're not playing sine tones through these things, it's a dynamic music signal


----------



## jsketoe

Just want to say thanks!


----------



## PsyCLown

vivmike said:


> This made me LOL.
> 
> I'm sure that really breaks a sweat.


But of course... if it is hot outside, you do not want to turn on your AC as that effects the ambient noise level, that will lead to a few sweet beads.


----------



## ROWDY

Just goes to also show that with driving the car and road noise things would be even harder to pickup on differences. Would be interesting to have a few SQ judges do this same comparison as those results really shouldn't be so contradicting between sighted and blind. Were all the testers normal peeps like us or some sound gurus thrown in as not having a go at all but those blind / sighted test results have just got me scratching my head big time


----------



## captainobvious

Rowdy- I think it's a good example of psycho-acoustics at work. Your mind plays tricks on you 

The blind test helps you to remove some of the external (and internal)factors from the equation.


----------



## bertholomey

jriggs said:


> SPORT: (noun) an activity involving *physical exertion* and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.





vivmike said:


> This made me LOL.
> 
> I'm sure that really breaks a sweat.



I for one am glad buc385 took the time out of his week to invest in this activity, I'm glad he provided feedback on the result sheets and on this thread, and I'm thankful that he is part of this community. These types of comments makes folks feel that they don't want to be part of this community - probably meant for humor, but it ends up being insulting.


----------



## captainobvious

bertholomey said:


> I for one am glad buc385 took the time out of his week to invest in this activity, I'm glad he provided feedback on the result sheets and on this thread, and I'm thankful that he is part of this community. These types of comments makes folks feel that they don't want to be part of this community - probably meant for humor, but it ends up being insulting.


Thanks Jay.
Agreed. Al is a very nice guy and was probably typing on his cell to make the post :blush: either way, go easy on him fellas


----------



## cajunner

ROWDY said:


> Just goes to also show that with driving the car and road noise things would be even harder to pickup on differences. Would be interesting to have a few SQ judges do this same comparison as those results really shouldn't be so contradicting between sighted and blind. Were all the testers normal peeps like us or some sound gurus thrown in as not having a go at all but those blind / sighted test results have just got me scratching my head big time


I think there was one big time guru/SQ judge, in attendance...

or was supposed to be, I'm really not sure which tester remarks would have been attributable to that person?

and like has been said several times before, the sample size is small, the evaluation time was short, and the limitations of the testing equipment was considerable.

it was however a test without the potential biases of 'dealer incentive' and things of that nature, the commercial value was set aside for a genuine look into how closely the devices under test, actually were and escaped any conscious attempt at setting the stage for one to come out ahead of the others.

And that's what has been lacking, with all of these other tests of recent note, and I don't mean to imply that people were consciously attempting to skew the results, but the results played into it.

This was closer to what Npdang used to attempt, even if he had his own perception bias to overcome.

So even more kudos is justified, upon this undertaking and the participation of a listening panel is also worth the honors, as it removed the personal nature of the test to become one of some statistical significance.


----------



## decibelle

It's not a perfect scientific test, but I would say it was still very informative, moreso about human bias rather than the actual qualities of the amps in question. Thanks for putting so much time and effort into making this happen and sharing the findings with us, Steve! I have no doubt this experiment will prove useful for years to come. I definitely enjoyed reading the results


----------



## STEPHENM

To Steve from Steve at Zed Audio. A really wonderful effort on your part and well done. Thanks for the email letting me know about this test.

Here are my 2 cents worth.

Your test set up had only one flaw.... the ability to switch between amplifiers in less than 1.5 seconds. With a 20 second delay between switching, the brain looses it's ability to tell a difference between components of similar sound quality. My set up which I have used to compare my car amplifier designs against my McIntosh MI350 tube mono blocks allows me to switch in less than a second without shorting amplifier outputs together.

No problem for me to make a mulitamp switcher where you use impulse switches to make the selection. On hitting a new switch the selected amplifier's control relay is turned off instantly and 1 second later the new selected relay is energized so we are able to switch between amps very quickly.

This thread is refreshing on this forum which traditionally has simple bickering from members.

Just a small plug for Zed. The latest Leviathan (and in fact ALL our amps including the subwoofer preamp called RA use 4 layer PCBs for lower noise floor and immunity from hurting FM reception) has much improved SQ over version I and of course circuit designs have evolved for the better. 

The noise floor of our latest gen of amps is an order of magnitude lower than the early versions.

Once again a fine effort Steve.


Regards

Steve Mantz

PS. to the one member who asked about how many dB of headroom one requires to avoid clipping on transients.

So much attention is paid to sinewave power testing as well as THD and damping factor. These are great for testing frequency response but offer little to the consumer as what the amplifier will sound like and what it's transient capability in the real world will be especially with real world reactive loads.

Music being transient in nature (pipe organs the exception) typically have a peak to average ration of about 5:1 to 6:1 depending on the actual music. That is to say that your "1000w" amplifier is just really a good 150-200w amplifier with the ability to transient up to 1000w on musical peaks! That's it.

Crest factor is another way of stating this, Unfortunately too may believe that they can play their amplifier at "rated power". Well I guess you can if you enjoy listening to sinewaves.


----------



## captainobvious

STEPHENM said:


> To Steve from Steve at Zed Audio. A really wonderful effort on your part and well done. Thanks for the email letting me know about this test.
> 
> Here are my 2 cents worth.
> 
> Your test set up had only one flaw.... the ability to switch between amplifiers in less than 1.5 seconds. With a 20 second delay between switching, the brain looses it's ability to tell a difference between components of similar sound quality. My set up which I have used to compare my car amplifier designs against my McIntosh MI350 tube mono blocks allows me to switch in less than a second without shorting amplifier outputs together.
> 
> No problem for me to make a mulitamp switcher where you use impulse switches to make the selection. On hitting a new switch the selected amplifier's control relay is turned off instantly and 1 second later the new selected relay is energized so we are able to switch between amps very quickly.
> 
> This thread is refreshing on this forum which traditionally has simple bickering from members.
> 
> Just a small plug for Zed. The latest Leviathan (and in fact ALL our amps including the subwoofer preamp called RA use 4 layer PCBs for lower noise floor and immunity from hurting FM reception) has much improved SQ over version I and of course circuit designs have evolved for the better.
> 
> The noise floor of our latest gen of amps is an order of magnitude lower than the early versions.
> 
> Once again a fine effort Steve.
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Steve Mantz
> 
> PS. to the one member who asked about how many dB of headroom one requires to avoid clipping on transients.
> 
> So much attention is paid to sinewave power testing as well as THD and damping factor. These are great for testing frequency response but offer little to the consumer as what the amplifier will sound like and what it's transient capability in the real world will be especially with real world reactive loads.
> 
> Music being transient in nature (pipe organs the exception) typically have a peak to average ration of about 5:1 to 6:1 depending on the actual music. That is to say that your "1000w" amplifier is just really a good 150-200w amplifier with the ability to transient up to 1000w on musical peaks! That's it.
> 
> Crest factor is another way of stating this, Unfortunately too may believe that they can play their amplifier at "rated power". Well I guess you can if you enjoy listening to sinewaves.


Thanks for your comments Stephen. The initial plan for the testing was to manually swap the connections, however I did end up sourcing mechanical switch boxes which we used in the testing evaluations 
So switching between amplifiers was less than a one second process. It was definitely the right choice and made for more accurate results and easier evaluations for the testers.

As for the Leviathan amp- it was a version I and it performed excellent. In fact, I didn't recall any ambient noise in that version so if the newer version III has a more efficient layout that reduces noise floor even further and provides more power, it sounds excellent to me.  The reference speakers we used were Martin Logan Aerius I which present a difficult impedance curve seeing as how they drop as low as 1.5 ohms at 20Khz. 

I will say this about them- I love the fact that they have efficient and substantial power output in a reasonably compact chassis and utilize high grade parts. The fact that they are gorgeous AND made in the good old USA is a nice bonus. Well done sir!


----------



## strakele

Just want to toss in my thanks to everyone who contributed to this test as well. Validates what I have always though about amplifier sound.


----------



## Soundaddict

bertholomey said:


> I for one am glad buc385 took the time out of his week to invest in this activity, I'm glad he provided feedback on the result sheets and on this thread, and I'm thankful that he is part of this community. These types of comments makes folks feel that they don't want to be part of this community - probably meant for humor, but it ends up being insulting.


Yes.


----------



## tnbubba

hmm 4 layer boards>?>> shoot a good design should PCB for amp should only need 2 layers...? saving space maybe??


----------



## diy.phil

4 layers is definitely good... can have its dedicated/large power and ground planes.
Sometimes our guys here use 6 or 8 layers (complicated stuff, non-car audio).


----------



## tnbubba

i said amp..
not data acquisition or some 20GHz micorporcessor


----------



## captainobvious

Nothing wrong with overbuilt.


----------



## ChrisB

captainobvious said:


> Nothing wrong with overbuilt.


Well, if you think about it, Mr. Mantz was the pioneer of overbuilding amplifiers back in the day. His OG Hifonics amplifiers were built with excess capacity whereas some of his competitors were running all the internal components near their limits. 

I guess the point I am making is that it doesn't shock me that he would continue this overbuilding philosophy with his new products in some way, shape, or form.


----------



## tnbubba

eh I'm going over to the tna thread ! more entertaining


----------



## Darth SQ

tnbubba said:


> eh I'm going over to the tna thread ! more entertaining


Lmao!
Well I posted 30 more pics over there so have fun. 


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## Chaos

Fascinating.

Thanks for making such a worthwhile contribution to the autosound community.


----------



## Patrick Bateman

captainobvious said:


> I've attached the results in PDF format here as that's the only easy way. When you get to the bottom where I pasted in the Excel stuff, it will be smaller font. Just zoom in on the page unit you can see it.


I love reading this.
Completely confirms my suspicions about amplifiers.

In my situation, I got into audio when I was making about $25,000 a year. I couldn't afford the good stuff. I took what the magazines wrote on face value, and I looked forward to the day when I *could* afford the good stuff.

Once I reached a point in life that I could afford to drop a few thousand dollars on a toy, I started to notice that magazines dramatically exaggerating how "revealing" components are.

And I'm not just talking about amplifiers; I'm talking about *everything.* I've listened to $150,000 speakers that couldn't do things that $100 speakers can do. (Not saying one is better, just that there are things that $100 speakers can do that more complex designs cannot.)


That's the main reason that a lot of my projects are so bizarre; for the most part I'm working to eliminate the sound of the room, because the room affects the sound more than an amplifier or a set of cables.


----------



## Hanatsu

Patrick Bateman said:


> I love reading this.
> Completely confirms my suspicions about amplifiers.
> 
> In my situation, I got into audio when I was making about $25,000 a year. I couldn't afford the good stuff. I took what the magazines wrote on face value, and I looked forward to the day when I *could* afford the good stuff.
> 
> Once I reached a point in life that I could afford to drop a few thousand dollars on a toy, I started to notice that magazines dramatically exaggerating how "revealing" components are.
> 
> And I'm not just talking about amplifiers; I'm talking about *everything.* I've listened to $150,000 speakers that couldn't do things that $100 speakers can do. (Not saying one is better, just that there are things that $100 speakers can do that more complex designs cannot.)
> 
> 
> That's the main reason that a lot of my projects are so bizarre; for the most part I'm *working to eliminate the sound of the room, because the room affects the sound more than an amplifier or a set of cables.*


Sticky that someone... please


----------



## captainobvious

Chaos said:


> Fascinating.
> 
> Thanks for making such a worthwhile contribution to the autosound community.


Thank you sir, I appreciate that. 



Patrick Bateman said:


> I love reading this.
> Completely confirms my suspicions about amplifiers.
> 
> In my situation, I got into audio when I was making about $25,000 a year. I couldn't afford the good stuff. I took what the magazines wrote on face value, and I looked forward to the day when I *could* afford the good stuff.
> 
> Once I reached a point in life that I could afford to drop a few thousand dollars on a toy, I started to notice that magazines dramatically exaggerating how "revealing" components are.
> 
> And I'm not just talking about amplifiers; I'm talking about *everything.* I've listened to $150,000 speakers that couldn't do things that $100 speakers can do. (Not saying one is better, just that there are things that $100 speakers can do that more complex designs cannot.)
> 
> 
> That's the main reason that a lot of my projects are so bizarre; for the most part I'm working to eliminate the sound of the room, because the room affects the sound more than an amplifier or a set of cables.



Good points Patrick and thanks for your comments. I'll be honest...I was fully expecting to hear some significant differences in these amplifiers and was surprised to hear just how close everything was. It _could _lead some to say "well lets just buy the cheapest then", but I think there is quite a bit to consider when buying an amplifier even outside of the price. I just closed on a new set of amplifiers for my car and these tests were very helpful in helping me to make my decision.
I still maintain that the speakers and the install/tuning are the things that make the _drastic _difference in sound.


----------



## Golden Ear

The first amp I ever bought was a Boss 2 channel a/b sub amp around 15 years ago. That amp is still going strong pushing a couple subs in a friends truck. Other than it being the size of a skateboard, what more could you ask for? If amps pretty much sound the same then I'd say Boss is a pretty good buy. At least 15 years ago it was. Not sure about now.


----------



## strakele

If it can make the power you want, it'd probably be fine, especially on a sub. Problem with most of the super budget brands is that they don't make anywhere near rated power. But if all you need is 300W for a sub, a "5,000W" Boss amp would likely be indistinguishable from a much more expensive brand with the same real-world power.

The newer stuff may be less reliable too. But I don't know for sure. Everyone bashes it, but many may just be repeating what they heard from a guy their friend knew or some forum.

Seems like what you should really be paying for in an amp is real world power and features you require, followed by reliability/customer service/warranty, and aesthetics if they matter. Once you find a couple in your price range that meet all of your criteria in those areas, may as well flip a coin, cause they aren't gonna sound any different when correctly set up.


----------



## suitcase

Interesting results, thanks to the people who ran and participated in the tests.

Not very surprising that amplifier performance in the audible band was pretty hard to distinguish.

I've seen enough Z-rated tires on grocery-getters to know that we're all susceptible to marketing.


----------



## Victor_inox

diy.phil said:


> 4 layers is definitely good... can have its dedicated/large power and ground planes.
> Sometimes our guys here use 6 or 8 layers (complicated stuff, non-car audio).



Many of modern amp "overbuild" with 4 layers PCB- cheaper to make on robotic assembly line.
It`s good until you need to repair it, than it become nightmare. 
Most computer MB/memory build with 6-8 layers PCB- when it`s dead it goes directly to recycling in most cases.


----------



## grim83

Interesting tests I remember reading about one back in the 90s I believe it was where they did a pretty similar test with home audio amps comparing some very low end amps to some very high end ones and they had some staggering results. This just reaffirms my theory that as long as the amp is capable of metting the demands of the system and can do it with some headroom it doesn't matter much what name is on it.


----------



## frontman

Great work! Thank for your efforts!


----------



## jwdrums0

Hi there Cap,

I just read this thread through from beginning to end. I know it's belated but still i'd like to say a big Thanks! for your initiative here 

Here's an interesting story for you: Back when I worked at a generic brand, entry/ mid level car audio retail store, I did something for fun...

In our Kenwood demo board, I went and installed my then- brand new Genesis Dual Mono Class A in place of the cheapest, smallest 2-channel Kenwood. I hid it behind the demo board and wired it to it's own separate power supply...for my own perverse (?) pleasure I made sure the cheap Kenwood still had all the wires coming out of it and received power when activated on the comparitor so it lit up and everything  Speaker wires that came out of it just went behind the demo board to nowhere (I wired up some of my own big-dollar, solid core speaker wires to the Genesis). 

So I left that amp in that configuration for 6 months, at least, maybe longer...said very little to anyone about it, and just allowed sales reps/ customers/ long-time customers/ anyone who felt like doing some comparative listening switch between amps in our store. Then I'd VERY casually sneak into the conversation some questions canvassing for opinions on the sound of the different amps. There was no bling or anything cosmetic to influence perception of my precious amp's performance, and 99% of those people were completely oblivious to what I'd done. In fact it was probably 'anti' bling actually! I love it!

Anyway, moral of the story is that the amp sounded only a LITTLE different to all the other cheapie gear in that store. I can count on one hand the amount of customers that actually correctly stated that the rrp$99 Kenwood they thought they were listening to was a good amp. They were of course right LOL! 

That was a super valuable and rare experience for me to get such a wide sample of truly blind opinion on my baby; and an important lesson for me in my journey as an audiophile. 

In true honesty, and this is coming from me who knew exactly what that amp was in the demo board...the sound was merely _different_ to the other amps in the store. Not remarkably so, if I am being absolutely neutral and honest in my reaction and purely trusting my ears.

I love my Genesis amps! (Here comes a bomb drop though, guys!) *But it is my mind that tells me that they sound as good as they look.* 
I am not ashamed of this because it's true!
But for this reason I don't speak favourably about my equipment to anyone when they listen to my systems or ride with me in the car or look at my installs. It's never been my prerogative to color people's opinions about components. And I don't buy my stuff for anyone else's affirmation of me and my choices. 

Anyways, thanks again guys! Great, constructive thread that really adds to this forum


----------



## captainobvious

frontman said:


> Great work! Thank for your efforts!





jwdrums0 said:


> Hi there Cap,
> 
> I just read this thread through from beginning to end. I know it's belated but still i'd like to say a big Thanks! for your initiative here
> 
> Here's an interesting story for you: Back when I worked at a generic brand, entry/ mid level car audio retail store, I did something for fun...
> 
> In our Kenwood demo board, I went and installed my then- brand new Genesis Dual Mono Class A in place of the cheapest, smallest 2-channel Kenwood. I hid it behind the demo board and wired it to it's own separate power supply...for my own perverse (?) pleasure I made sure the cheap Kenwood still had all the wires coming out of it and received power when activated on the comparitor so it lit up and everything  Speaker wires that came out of it just went behind the demo board to nowhere (I wired up some of my own big-dollar, solid core speaker wires to the Genesis).
> 
> So I left that amp in that configuration for 6 months, at least, maybe longer...said very little to anyone about it, and just allowed sales reps/ customers/ long-time customers/ anyone who felt like doing some comparative listening switch between amps in our store. Then I'd VERY casually sneak into the conversation some questions canvassing for opinions on the sound of the different amps. There was no bling or anything cosmetic to influence perception of my precious amp's performance, and 99% of those people were completely oblivious to what I'd done. In fact it was probably 'anti' bling actually! I love it!
> 
> Anyway, moral of the story is that the amp sounded only a LITTLE different to all the other cheapie gear in that store. I can count on one hand the amount of customers that actually correctly stated that the rrp$99 Kenwood they thought they were listening to was a good amp. They were of course right LOL!
> 
> That was a super valuable and rare experience for me to get such a wide sample of truly blind opinion on my baby; and an important lesson for me in my journey as an audiophile.
> 
> In true honesty, and this is coming from me who knew exactly what that amp was in the demo board...the sound was merely _different_ to the other amps in the store. Not remarkably so, if I am being absolutely neutral and honest in my reaction and purely trusting my ears.
> 
> I love my Genesis amps! (Here comes a bomb drop though, guys!) *But it is my mind that tells me that they sound as good as they look.*
> I am not ashamed of this because it's true!
> But for this reason I don't speak favourably about my equipment to anyone when they listen to my systems or ride with me in the car or look at my installs. It's never been my prerogative to color people's opinions about components. And I don't buy my stuff for anyone else's affirmation of me and my choices.
> 
> Anyways, thanks again guys! Great, constructive thread that really adds to this forum



Thanks fellas, I'm glad it was entertaining and hopefully a little enlightening as well.


----------



## TurboTR

Ahh a subject dear to this old man's heart  YES, there are absolutely audible differences in power amplifiers. Big differences in fact, and also generally Big room for sonic improvement too. And in every other component too. Don't let the (massive amount of) misinformation to the contrary mislead you. Just listen.

Disclaimer- however, you need a high resolution system to be able to hear them clearly. Generally, for best test results this implies something of the high end home audio caliber system. Which can take considerable time and effort to assemble and get "right" (years, even decades), a seemingly continuous process (part of the fun). 

You could hear it ~ well in the car too but unfortunately most car audio components and signal chains generally come up far short sonically, not resulting in a very high resolution system. Unfortunately it's been that way a long time and appears it will stay that way a long time in the future as well. It does keep people on the "treadmill" and buying a lot of new stuff at least, trying to find good sound. 

And it's got little/nothing to do with frequency response. Once you have that flat enough at your listening position it does not mean the system is high res or even necessarily good sounding.

So then this high res test bed also makes a great way to evaluate the sonics of car amplifiers as well. I've done this, using a powerful (enough) test 12V power supply. Also to audibly test sources, and some car speakers too (Hybrid does very well IME for example).

When you do have a high resolution system you'll find that even the wire makes an audible difference. I mean the connecting wires between internal components. Speaker cable and interconnect, even bigger impact. 

As an aside for example, Naim Audio is right- their DIN style interconnect does sound better (more transparent to music and less sonic intrusion) than any RCA I've ever tried (have tried many). 

The resistors certainly do also have audible differences. Surprisingly big differences. I know, I was ~ skeptical at one point too. Capacitors and inductors yes, huge audible differences.

Been working hard lately on improving the sound of a classic Naim NAP180 (and NAP140) power amp. Have done several things like convert it to full complimentary output, etc, but among the many audible improvements so far, replacing the resistors with better sounding ones was a large audible step forward. Generally with PRP "audio" low TC film resistors which are good sounding IME yet still ~ affordable. They have a low TC which IMO probably is the lions share of the audible improvement (especially in the feedback loop). Plus the stock resistors in this case had ferro-magnetic end caps, very common unfortunately and a big No No in critical audio circuit applications. Also put in a couple of Takman "audio" carbon film in the very front end section; just a personal sound preference. 

Anyway if it made no difference, why bother? I wouldn't, because it's a lot of work. But it does matter because you can hear it. In critical audio, IMO tens of microvolts matter. Carefully preserving that level of signal and preventing that level of noise intrusion is not easy or trivial at all. Nor does it get done well by accident.

Consider for example injecting 10 uVolts of noise into the signal in the power amp front end via say, a high TC resistor. The open loop gain of the front end and VAS stage of the amp circuit is likely near 100 dB. 10 uVolts gained up by 100 dB becomes 1 Volt. Clearly not negligible.

You won't be able to measure any of these differences though or see it on a scope. But you can hear them, even if you can't quickly explain them scientifically. In the end that's what really matters anyway- how it sounds. Music reproduced very well is highly pleasurable, and that's what most of us are after. Otherwise we wouldn't bother.

Turbotr


----------



## SkizeR

so captain.. after all of this do you think "all amps sound the same"? slight difference? or noticeable difference?


----------



## captainobvious

TurboTR said:


> You won't be able to measure any of these differences though or see it on a scope. But you can hear them, even if you can't quickly explain them scientifically. In the end that's what really matters anyway- how it sounds. Music reproduced very well is highly pleasurable, and that's what most of us are after. Otherwise we wouldn't bother.
> 
> Turbotr


This portion I find the most interesting. It can't be measured with any equipment more sophisticated than your ears but you can hear it? :surprised:

Any test or claim of differences is totally useless unless you've completed a thorough blind evaluation that's not controlled by you. You may think you're hearing differences, but until you do it properly, you'll never know.


----------



## captainobvious

SkizeR said:


> so captain.. after all of this do you think "all amps sound the same"? slight difference? or noticeable difference?



I think that properly level matched amplifiers tested in a blind evaluation using all of the same equipment as done in these tests reveals that differences are *so *minute when using a musical signal that testers produce results equivalent to a coin flip- a guess. I think that buying an amplifier based on its "sound" is probably not a wise decision. 





captainobvious said:


> I should note that this is one thing I discussed with the testers at the end as well. The data shown can't be a be-all end-all solution. It's a small basic test that provides some insight, but for true statistical significance it should probably by conducted with about 25 testers and more trials.
> I don't think it should be taken with the message of "Go buy the cheapest thing because all amps are the same". There are a great many factors that go into an amplifier purchase. I personally feel that part quality and build quality are very important and contribute to the performance in the long run as well as reliability. I think aesthetics are important as well to many people and beautiful designs like the Audison AV/Thesis, Mosconi's, Zed's, etc are hard to acquire in a lower price range. I also think that things like power configuration and output, size , external noise (fans, etc), customer service, etc. play a very important role.
> 
> Choices in many of our car audio purchases are very emotional. Whatever configuration gives you the best overall emotional response to your sound/music is certainly a winning one. Sometimes it's about the "specs" for people, sometimes it's about performance vs low cost, sometimes it about loyalty to a manufacturer that has done right by you, sometimes it's simply a beautifully engineered piece of artistic audio brilliance that you have to have.


----------



## WestCo

TurboTR said:


> Ahh a subject dear to this old man's heart  YES, there are absolutely audible differences in power amplifiers. Big differences in fact, and also generally Big room for sonic improvement too. And in every other component too. Don't let the (massive amount of) misinformation to the contrary mislead you. Just listen.
> 
> Disclaimer- however, you need a high resolution system to be able to hear them clearly. Generally, for best test results this implies something of the high end home audio caliber system. Which can take considerable time and effort to assemble and get "right" (years, even decades), a seemingly continuous process (part of the fun).
> 
> You could hear it ~ well in the car too but unfortunately most car audio components and signal chains generally come up far short sonically, not resulting in a very high resolution system. Unfortunately it's been that way a long time and appears it will stay that way a long time in the future as well. It does keep people on the "treadmill" and buying a lot of new stuff at least, trying to find good sound.
> 
> And it's got little/nothing to do with frequency response. Once you have that flat enough at your listening position it does not mean the system is high res or even necessarily good sounding.
> 
> So then this high res test bed also makes a great way to evaluate the sonics of car amplifiers as well. I've done this, using a powerful (enough) test 12V power supply. Also to audibly test sources, and some car speakers too (Hybrid does very well IME for example).
> 
> When you do have a high resolution system you'll find that even the wire makes an audible difference. I mean the connecting wires between internal components. Speaker cable and interconnect, even bigger impact.
> 
> As an aside for example, Naim Audio is right- their DIN style interconnect does sound better (more transparent to music and less sonic intrusion) than any RCA I've ever tried (have tried many).
> 
> The resistors certainly do also have audible differences. Surprisingly big differences. I know, I was ~ skeptical at one point too. Capacitors and inductors yes, huge audible differences.
> 
> Been working hard lately on improving the sound of a classic Naim NAP180 (and NAP140) power amp. Have done several things like convert it to full complimentary output, etc, but among the many audible improvements so far, replacing the resistors with better sounding ones was a large audible step forward. Generally with PRP "audio" low TC film resistors which are good sounding IME yet still ~ affordable. They have a low TC which IMO probably is the lions share of the audible improvement (especially in the feedback loop). Plus the stock resistors in this case had ferro-magnetic end caps, very common unfortunately and a big No No in critical audio circuit applications. Also put in a couple of Takman "audio" carbon film in the very front end section; just a personal sound preference.
> 
> Anyway if it made no difference, why bother? I wouldn't, because it's a lot of work. But it does matter because you can hear it. In critical audio, IMO tens of microvolts matter. Carefully preserving that level of signal and preventing that level of noise intrusion is not easy or trivial at all. Nor does it get done well by accident.
> 
> Consider for example injecting 10 uVolts of noise into the signal in the power amp front end via say, a high TC resistor. The open loop gain of the front end and VAS stage of the amp circuit is likely near 100 dB. 10 uVolts gained up by 100 dB becomes 1 Volt. Clearly not negligible.
> 
> You won't be able to measure any of these differences though or see it on a scope. But you can hear them, even if you can't quickly explain them scientifically. In the end that's what really matters anyway- how it sounds. Music reproduced very well is highly pleasurable, and that's what most of us are after. Otherwise we wouldn't bother.
> 
> Turbotr


Getting a complete high resolution system is very difficult, and almost everything (being made for car audio anyways) can benefit from modifications. The same is true for home audio equipment...

Compression hurt the audio industry and everything has become a race to zero. So quality almost across the board has suffered for both home and car audio.

On the C2k modified by Matt R; I can distinguish sizable differences in interconnects (SounDrive vs Straightwire vs vampire wire - all of which are quality; not cheap junk). On my entry grade home Onkyo receiver; the differences are less pronounced. 

As you have suggested, everything matters. 

Captain - I would suggest changing components on a system in which you are very familiar with (+10 hrs of auditioning) and seeing how things change. The rapid switch out A/B tests will usually give 50/50 results. 

I've learned that you cannot have brand loyalty, talking to people who are knowledgeable helps a lot and can give you valuable insight. Learning the my Mcintosh car amps weren't nearly as good as some lightly modified old school lanzars amps was a big wake up call. In fact we found that my mcc302 was comparable to my Onkyo home receiver.


----------



## ErinH

WestCo said:


> Captain - I would suggest changing components on a system in which you are very familiar with (+10 hrs of auditioning) and seeing how things change. The rapid switch out A/B tests will usually give 50/50 results.


Baby seals cried when I read this aloud to them.

Speaking of which, I need to get off this shore and get back to work!


----------



## ErinH

TurboTR said:


> Don't let the (massive amount of) misinformation to the contrary mislead you. Just listen.


Where is the misinformation in this thread? Specifically. Don't be vague, please. 





TurboTR said:


> And it's got little/nothing to do with frequency response.


Huh...

But, what about this?...



TurboTR said:


> In critical audio, IMO tens of microvolts matter.
> 
> ...Consider for example injecting 10 uVolts of noise into the signal in the power amp front end via say, a high TC resistor. The open loop gain of the front end and VAS stage of the amp circuit is likely near 100 dB. 10 uVolts gained up by 100 dB becomes 1 Volt. Clearly not negligible.


That shows up SPL. SPL is magnitude. Mangitude+Phase = Frequency Response.






TurboTR said:


> You won't be able to measure any of these differences though or see it on a scope.


But, didnt' you just say....



TurboTR said:


> In critical audio, IMO tens of microvolts matter.
> 
> ...Consider for example injecting 10 uVolts of noise into the signal in the power amp front end via say, a high TC resistor. The open loop gain of the front end and VAS stage of the amp circuit is likely near 100 dB. 10 uVolts gained up by 100 dB becomes 1 Volt. Clearly not negligible.


Scopes can measure this 1 volt gain (not to mention micro-volts).


----------



## WestCo

ErinH said:


> Baby seals cried when I read this aloud to them.
> 
> Speaking of which, I need to get off this shore and get back to work!


Not getting drawn into a debate about it; because there is no winning. 
We should spare the baby seal's sorrow and leave audio to the humans. 

Seals have enough to worry about with the Inuits and their clubs. 

It's my hunt for the "perfect" signal chain... It is my white whale and I am on my own dingy in search of it. Even though I am alone in my search, I will not falter or give up hope. The journey is it's own reward.


----------



## ErinH

I won't debate it either. Simply put, fast switching ABX is the standard for marginalizing the psychoacoustics of a listening test and has still been hard to perfect by those in the know. I'm not talking about wanna be know it alls. I'm talking about the guys who have dedicated their lives through academia and real world experimentation and research on the subject and shaped the way the science is correlated to subjectivity. Toole, Olive, Dickason, Geddes, Linkwitz, et al. 

Listening to a setup for a length of time longer than even double digit seconds can diminish the ability to rule out the impact of psychoacoustics. If that's your goal. 


Appreciate you found the humor in the seals part. .


----------



## captainobvious

...and blind AX simplifies the process even further.

Play the reference, play the "X" unknown and state whether its the same as the reference or different. It can't be any easier than that. Yet still a coin flip.


----------



## strakele

Big differences are always claimed until it comes down to the blind test controlled by someone else, then the excuses start flowing. If there was a big difference, or even a small difference, it should be easy to pick out in a blind test with a real hi-fi system and source material you're familiar with. But it NEVER happens. Captain's test here supports that. He even expected - wanted - to hear differences, but neither he nor any of the other participants could pick any out.

Studies show that the aural memory of even very experienced listeners is still very short, so to claim that you notice a miniscule difference a week later after switching out an amp (that is properly level matched, blah blah blah) is complete nonsense.

Saying a certain resistor makes the music sound different is like saying your spaghetti and meatballs tastes different because the chef used an ABS plastic spoon instead of a polyethylene plastic spoon when stirring the sauce.


----------



## SkizeR

you should have thrown some really crappy amps in the test too. something like a boss or sony xpold lol


----------



## TurboTR

Oh it's ok guys  I know already that DIYMA is not at all the right place in general where much of this audio reality will take hold. For that DIYA is much better. But the question was asked in the thread title as a genuine question. I just gave my 2 cents worth, which is the truth as I have found it over decades of effort and am sticking to it. Based on decades of listening, sorting through literally hundreds of components, and also lately designing and building same (non-os DACs, amps, speakers). Nobody is expected or required to agree on my part. However I am trying to be seriously helpful and some may hear the message, which will benefit them.

Snark and insults are ok too. Go ahead, lay it on; I have a thick skin by now and can take it np  It's kinda fun actually in a somewhat sad way. But the truth remains and I will stick to it.

-If there is no real sonic difference between amps, as some here claim, why even bother then? Just get the shiniest object that pleases you (or your friends) at the lowest cost and you're done, right?

Stereo Review magazine used to maintain that very position back in the day as well lol. And snark and belittle those "golden ear snobs" who dared to claim to hear differences outside of "rigorous a/b testing". They don't have that position anymore of course.. Truth gets through eventually whether one likes it or not.

Many here will want to stick to the herd view, whatever it is as determined by the alpha poster or two. I understand and again, that's ok. Just how it is. But some, a select few will hear some of what I'm saying at least and ponder it in the background. They know already there are audible differences because everyone can hear them. They're looking for truth. You don't build Rome in a day. 

At the beginning of all this audio stuff I was just as pre-programmed, if not worse being an EE coming up through the university system. Thankfully was shown the truth for the first time in the mid 80's, when CD started to roll out (ack) by several non engineers with sharp minds and attentive hearing 

BTW the scope in the picture I posted is a "high resolution" model vs the usual high speed (very) stuff we use at work. It's 12 bits vertical resolution and takes very, very nice analog scope shots. It also does FFT's, etc which is why I have it at my lab station. 

However it cannot reveal FFT differences for example that explain why the imaging and sound stage improves and expands noticeably when DAC jitter (measured at the CLK pin) is reduced from ~ 100 ps RMS down to < 2 ps (the scope can't measure it). 

BTW 80 ps is ~ the time it takes for light to get from your nose tip to your eye. An extremely short time interval.

So in other words I can measure the jitter reduction. But I can only explain it audibly as, the background noise floor has dropped further such that more low level audible clues are being uncovered and revealed now. Very low level stuff that contains ambient space information that is normally ~ masked by the background noise level. And that's just a guesstimate on my part. Not very scientific. But that's ok because we can hear it either way. Our ears are incredibly sensitive.

It's all good. Just my .02.

Turbotr


----------



## Patrick Bateman

SkizeR said:


> you should have thrown some really crappy amps in the test too. something like a boss or sony xpold lol


I think that's one of the reasons that people like tube amps.
IMHO people don't want *better* they want *different*

And tube amps DO vary from model to model, but that's because they color the sound.

This is also the reason that I've backed off of ultra-low distortion designs; I believe that distortion can be pleasant in many cases, therefore there isn't a huge need to eliminate it entirely.


----------



## mires

Patrick Bateman said:


> This is also the reason that I've backed off of ultra-low distortion designs; I believe that distortion can be pleasant in many cases, therefore there isn't a huge need to eliminate it entirely.


Definitely agree with this.


----------



## TurboTR

PS- here's a scope shot that indicates justy one of the numerous big time audible problems with power amps, and can help explain big time differences in the sound. 

The shot is from the NAP140 project. The NAP140 is a ~ classic design, highly regarded class AB amp powered from a classic linear PSU design, wall supplied of course. 

The blue trace is a zoom of the positive power rail in the amp as seen at one of the transistors that uses it. It's supposed to be a flat line of course. But that is a very complex noise pattern on the rail. It has a large amplitude 120 Hz triangle wave on it, PLUS a fully correlated music signal imposed on it that is proportional to the amplitude of the output signal. In this case just a sine wave test signal being fed into the amp. You can see it imposed onto the power rail. It's the nature of the linear PSU in this case.

The spectrum of a triangle wave is the 120 Hz fundamental sinusoid in this case plus an infinite series of harmonically related sinusoids of decreasing amplitude. In other words it is full of other sine tones you do not want to hear (but are).

The front end circuits operate on very low level and they are fed this power rail. The positive side rail has almost no PSU noise rejection in this case so the noise basically comes walking right in to join your music, gets gained up, "corrected" somewhat after the fact at least in the steady state case by negative feedback and fed out the back side to your speakers.

It does not take long to realize that (and you don't have to be an EE), if you feed this into the low level front end this noise will in fact have a very big audible impact on what comes out of the amp. And all amps face this same problem basically. Just one of many problems they face.

Turbotr


----------



## strakele

TurboTR said:


> -If there is no real sonic difference between amps, as some here claim, why even bother then? Just get the shiniest object that pleases you (or your friends) at the lowest cost and you're done, right?
> 
> Umm, yes. That's kinda the whole point of this thread based on the results. Choose your amplifier based on your power requirements, feature requirements, budget, aesthetics, and reliability. If a $3000 Brax amp meets those requirements, cool. If a $200 PPI amp meets those requirements, cool. You're not going to hear a difference, ESPECIALLY in a car. ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY when it's moving, which is what you generally do in cars.
> 
> 
> But some, a select few will hear some of what I'm saying at least and ponder it in the background. They know already there are audible differences because everyone can hear them.
> 
> Clearly, from the results of Steve's test posted here, and the results of EVERY other blind, controlled test, NOBODY can hear these supposed differences.
> 
> So in other words I can measure the jitter reduction. But I can only explain it audibly as, the background noise floor has dropped further such that more low level audible clues are being uncovered and revealed now. Very low level stuff that contains ambient space information that is normally ~ masked by the background noise level. And that's just a guesstimate on my part. Not very scientific. But that's ok because we can hear it either way. Our ears are incredibly sensitive.
> 
> And assuming all of that is audible, it is completely masked in a moving vehicle



Not trying to be snarky or insulting. But just realize that this is a thread where several people took the time and effort to conduct a proper blind test of amplifiers, hoping and expecting to hear a difference, not being able to pick any out, and you're still sitting here claiming "everyone can hear them."


Here's an RTA graph of the inside of a car. The bottom line is with engine off, stereo off, car sound deadened, in the middle of nowhere Oklahoma on a Sunday morning (essentially, quieter than it'll ever be if you live near a city). The second line is with the car moving at just 25mph. As you can see, well over 30dB increase in noise floor. If these supposed sonic differences take 10+ hours over a week or more of time to even begin to notice in a quiet listening room with high resolution speakers, are you really telling me you'll be able to pick that out with more than 30dB of extra background noise?











If you truly believe amplifiers can sound different, save it for your home system. It's a waste in a car.

I'm also not arguing that every amp ever made sounds exactly the same. But I do argue that if there are differences, there is a certain threshold for it to be actually audible. And by that point, it will be measurable.


----------



## ErinH

TurboTR said:


> You don't build Rome in a day.
> 
> Turbotr


Conversely, Rome will never be torn down. People fail to acknowledge the power that is psychoacoustics. 

You were the one here who said it can't be measured. Then threw out voltages. So, it can be measured, no? I think most of us are willing to accept there is the potential for difference. My issue comes when people make nebulous claims and then simply say "if you can't hear it then you're wrong" as a means of evidence. 

Notice I haven't said amps sound the same. You providing data is completely acceptable IMHO and discussing that further is fine. I just don't prescribe to the notion that hearing an amp 5 years apart from another is a reasonable foundation for providing subjective 'data'.


----------



## SkizeR

Patrick Bateman said:


> I think that's one of the reasons that people like tube amps.
> IMHO people don't want *better* they want *different*
> 
> And tube amps DO vary from model to model, but that's because they color the sound.
> 
> This is also the reason that I've backed off of ultra-low distortion designs; I believe that distortion can be pleasant in many cases, therefore there isn't a huge need to eliminate it entirely.


they also should have thrown in a tube amp. but i think theres a difference between tube distortion, and flea market amp distortion lol


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> This portion I find the most interesting. It can't be measured with any equipment more sophisticated than your ears but you can hear it? :surprised:
> 
> Any test or claim of differences is totally useless unless you've completed a thorough blind evaluation that's not controlled by you. You may think you're hearing differences, but until you do it properly, you'll never know.


Who said that any equipment is more sophisticated than ears? 
THat is the part where you are mistaken. ears are most sophisticated part. 
Usually equipment measured well interpreted as better sounding.
Keyword usually. 
I never heard poorly measured quipment sounds good though.


----------



## Victor_inox

strakele said:


> Not trying to be snarky or insulting. But just realize that this is a thread where several people took the time and effort to conduct a proper blind test of amplifiers, hoping and expecting to hear a difference, not being able to pick any out, and you're still sitting here claiming "everyone can hear them."
> 
> 
> Here's an RTA graph of the inside of a car. The bottom line is with engine off, stereo off, car sound deadened, in the middle of nowhere Oklahoma on a Sunday morning (essentially, quieter than it'll ever be if you live near a city). The second line is with the car moving at just 25mph. As you can see, well over 30dB increase in noise floor. If these supposed sonic differences take 10+ hours over a week or more of time to even begin to notice in a quiet listening room with high resolution speakers, are you really telling me you'll be able to pick that out with more than 30dB of extra background noise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly believe amplifiers can sound different, save it for your home system. It's a waste in a car.
> 
> I'm also not arguing that every amp ever made sounds exactly the same. But I do argue that if there are differences, there is a certain threshold for it to be actually audible. And by that point, it will be measurable.


That is exactly what you said all amps sounds the same. 
THat is piss poor advice, or we all will be using cheap ass high power POS. 
Car is not always moving with 90DB of background noise, often but not always. If in your car every amp sounds the same it`s time to start rolling speakers. you`ll hear more differences doing just that.


----------



## TurboTR

Ouch! Zing!  Where's that Kevlar underwear?

Good points about the background noise level in a vehicle. And valid to some extent. However your ears/perception have the amazing ability to uncover audible information even with a high level of random background noise. You don't need me to tell you this; you can hear it as well.

Turbo


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> Who said that any equipment is more sophisticated than ears?
> THat is the part where you are mistaken. ears are most sophisticated part.
> Usually equipment measured well interpreted as better sounding.
> Keyword usually.
> I never heard poorly measured quipment sounds good though.



By the simple fact alone that testing equipment can measure amplitude to the nth of a db and your human ear can't detect it. 

Again certain types of distortion are pleasing to the ear. The measurements might mean that paper cone drivers sound like ass yet they are used in countless designs because of their "natural" sound.


----------



## strakele

TurboTR said:


> Ouch! Zing!  Where's that Kevlar underwear?
> 
> Good points about the background noise level in a vehicle. And valid to some extent. However your ears/perception have the amazing ability to uncover audible information even with a high level of random background noise. You don't need me to tell you this; you can hear it as well.
> 
> Turbo


Sure, you can 'focus' on certain things with your ears, but that doesn't mean you can 'hear through' a lot of background noise. Just because you can still understand the words your friend is saying in a loud restaurant does not mean it's still with the same clarity/ease that it would be in a quiet room. You're talking about microvolts and tenths of a decibel here...


----------



## strakele

Victor_inox said:


> That is exactly what you said all amps sounds the same.
> THat is piss poor advice, or we all will be using cheap ass high power POS.
> Car is not always moving with 90DB of background noise, often but not always. If in your car every amp sounds the same it`s time to start rolling speakers. you`ll hear more differences doing just that.


If you know of a "cheap ass high power" 4 channel amp that puts out the power it's rated for, could you let me know? I might want to use it for my next install 

The fact is, most powerful amps that actually do what they're rated for are pretty high quality anyway. I use "high end" Mosconi amps and processor in my car. Not because I think they sound better than something cheaper, but because they make the power I wanted, had the features I needed, are the size I needed, look nice, and I got a good deal on them. 

And yeah, I would hear a difference if I changed speakers... cause the speakers would be different. But I'm happy with my lowly Dynaudio and Morel..


----------



## spyders03

I do believe that amps can sound different, as I have changed out a same make/model amp (had problems) and when I put the new one in, it clearly sounded different. Not in a sense of channel separation, clean, open airy, or anything else in those terms, but it wasn't as (or more so) linear than the first one, it made more/less power in different parts of the audible range, since it was on my midrange playing from 300-7k. I wasn't expecting any difference at all, since it was the exact same model as the one I replaced, but when I put it in, it clearly sounded different tonally. One can always say "when you ABX test, and it's 50/50, there is clearly no difference", however, if they all sounded the exact same, wouldn't the comments be be the same for each amp? 

I am not saying you need expensive equipment to "sound better", as I am currently looking at "downgrading" to the PPI Phantom amps, as they have the power that I want in a size and price that I can afford. I don't think that if you bought one amp over another you would be missing anything, but I am sure (would hope) that a Mosconi amp would sound better being pushed to it's limits than a $119 PPI amp, however when you have 600w rms available to each driver, how often are you pushing your amp to it's limits? 

In the end, tuning and install will make the biggest difference in sound, as I don't think anyone could get in someones car and be disappointed by the sound because they weren't using X brand amps/cables.


----------



## Victor_inox

strakele said:


> If you know of a "cheap ass high power" 4 channel amp that puts out the power it's rated for, could you let me know? I might want to use it for my next install
> 
> The fact is, most powerful amps that actually do what they're rated for are pretty high quality anyway. I use "high end" Mosconi amps and processor in my car. Not because I think they sound better than something cheaper, but because they make the power I wanted, had the features I needed, are the size I needed, look nice, and I got a good deal on them.
> 
> And yeah, I would hear a difference if I changed speakers... cause the speakers would be different. But I'm happy with my lowly Dynaudio and Morel..


You advocating cheap power yet you use top shelf components yourself, interesting.


----------



## strakele

I advocate using what fits your requirements like I said before. Whether that be high dollar or not. If your requirements are 6x150W with onboard active crossovers and looks cool enough to display, you're probably going to need to pay more than if your requirements are an amp that does 4x75W with high level inputs and will be hidden from view.

No way would I be running what I'm running if I had paid retail for them either... speakers or amps. Only reason I'm not still using my MB Quart amps is cause they don't make them anymore and I was an idiot and fried one of them. I had the opportunity to get the Mosconis for a great price, so I did. They don't sound any different than the Quarts.


----------



## PPI_GUY

Patrick Bateman said:


> I think that's one of the reasons that people like tube amps.
> IMHO people don't want *better* they want *different*
> 
> And tube amps DO vary from model to model, but that's because they color the sound.
> 
> This is also the reason that I've backed off of ultra-low distortion designs; I believe that distortion can be pleasant in many cases, therefore there isn't a huge need to eliminate it entirely.


^^^THIS may be the single most important post in this entire, very informative thread. People say they want "better" but, in fact they may actually be seeking out something different. Something that appeals to my ear may not appeal to the next guy. In fact, a post here stated (it may have been Patrick himself) that they try to tune for the room they are in. That's a great approach but, couldn't we take it a step further and say we need to tune for the specific ear of the person doing the listening? We literally could take it to such exacting detail. Ultimately, sound and our perception thereof is such a subjective topic that we will never get a consensus...and that is something that should be celebrated rather than overcome. 

Re: tubes. 
Why do guitar players almost universally covet tube amps over solid state? Because they do sound different. But, a Fender always sounds different than a Marshall or a Hiwatt or a Mesa Boogie. That's because of how the tubes (an almost endless variety there as well) color the guitar signal. Not that a Mesa is better than a Fender, etc. Rather, what sounds good to my ear will most likely be different from the next guy.


----------



## TurboTR

Yes, euphonic coloration is very real. And can be quite subjective.

And in a way, you have ackowledged some important aspects here that I've been saying as well. Allow me to make the case please.

You have stated that tube amps generally sound different, and most everyone here likely agrees fully in principle, and most have likley read that same statement elsewhere (even those who have never actually heard tube gear lol). 

And you have differentiated the various guitar amps by brand, noting they do in fact sound different, and thus various artists prefer one over another in subjective manner. 

BUT- let us note that you did NOT differentiate them by _any_ measured aspects(!). Yet you accept that they do sound different. You did not need to provide or even mention any measurements to support your case. The sonic differences are there, regardless.

Because in the end you cannot in fact provide any measured differences that will fully explain the sonic differences. But again, you agree that you CAN in fact hear it regardless 

That's progress 

Turbo



PPI_GUY said:


> Why do guitar players almost universally covet tube amps over solid state? Because they do sound different. But, a Fender always sounds different than a Marshall or a Hiwatt or a Mesa Boogie. That's because of how the tubes (an almost endless variety there as well) color the guitar signal. Not that a Mesa is better than a Fender, etc. Rather, what sounds good to my ear will most likely be different from the next guy.


----------



## strakele

While I have never seen in depth technical analysis and test results for guitar amps, I would absolutely bet that any audible differences between them are measurable.

I was actually having this discussion with a guitar player buddy of mine at a concert recently. He made the interesting point that the makers of stuff like guitar amps are TRYING to make them sound different - to stand out. Varying methods/types of distortion, reverb, different contouring circuits/profiles/tone controls etc. Whereas the makers of the vast majority of home/car audio gear are trying to make their amplifiers as transparent as possible. The choice of guitar amp/speakers/distortion pedals, etc. is used by artists to create a specific sound in the PRODUCTION of music. Whereas in the REPRODUCTION of music, which is what we're doing, we want the amplifier to simply amplify the exact signal its fed, rather than adding in its own coloration to the sound. This is an important distinction IMO.


----------



## Jesus Christ

If you can hear it it can be measured. Just because you are unable to correlate what the measurements are showing with what you're hearing doesn't mean the difference isn't shown in the measurements.


----------



## SkizeR

​


Jesus Christ said:


> If you can hear it it can be measured. Just because you are unable to correlate what the measurements are showing with what you're hearing doesn't mean the difference isn't shown in the measurements.


Amen..


----------



## Victor_inox

SkizeR said:


> ​
> Amen..


Amen indeed.


----------



## seafish

strakele said:


> While I have never seen in depth technical analysis and test results for guitar amps, I would absolutely bet that any audible differences between them are measurable.


I would NOT take that bet as I am sure that you are right about it. And I'll add that likely the same is true using differnt tube amps and even tube preamps in audio systems.


----------



## Victor_inox

strakele said:


> While I have never seen in depth technical analysis and test results for guitar amps, I would absolutely bet that any audible differences between them are measurable.
> 
> I was actually having this discussion with a guitar player buddy of mine at a concert recently. He made the interesting point that the makers of stuff like guitar amps are TRYING to make them sound different - to stand out. Varying methods/types of distortion, reverb, different contouring circuits/profiles/tone controls etc. Whereas the makers of the vast majority of home/car audio gear are trying to make their amplifiers as transparent as possible. The choice of guitar amp/speakers/distortion pedals, etc. is used by artists to create a specific sound in the PRODUCTION of music. Whereas in the REPRODUCTION of music, which is what we're doing, we want the amplifier to simply amplify the exact signal its fed, rather than adding in its own coloration to the sound. This is an important distinction IMO.


Since you brought guitar amps comparison, you can measure everything and might or might not see difference but that is beyond the point.
Sound creation and sound reproduction is too very different things. and You are absolutely correct that in reproduction most true to source sounds desirable for some people but some want it sounds more concert like, therefore using tube gear but without guitar specific overdrives.
Tubes can sound damn true to source if not overloaded too much and even then they have much better threshold for overload. You got 2db over in digital circuit and it clipping bad. 2db for tubes -sounds even better.


----------



## TurboTR

I'd take the bet easy. You simply can't measure and quantify that way every aspect of audio quality. Sorry.

However if you know otherwise, please share with us. And you are sure about, so lets hear it? If 2 amps measure flat in the audio band, and both measure say less than 1% THD, but sound different- what other measurements would show that audible difference?

>In the end, tuning and install will make the biggest difference in sound, as I don't think anyone could get in someones car and be disappointed by the sound because they weren't using X brand amps/cables. 

Point taken. But consider this too for example- my home audio system, like most high end systems has NO tone controls or adjustments at all- none. No equalizers. No tuning available whatsoever, aside from positioning the loudspeakers. It just has a volume control. And it sounds amazing.

How is any of this relevant to mobile audio? There is no reasone we can't take what we learn in greatly improving the amp sonics in the home application and trickle it down into mobile audio. Much of it applies equally there. From what I've heard, mobile audio could sure use it. 

The big difference is the PSU design; in the car it requires a boost converter. But that can be made to work well too. Otherwise class AB is class AB pretty much.

Personally I do plan to explore this avenue as well as time permits. If/when something worth listening to is ready I'd be happy to then send it out to a high end, experienced mobile application for some audible testing. 

Turbo


----------



## PPI_GUY

TurboTR said:


> Yes, euphonic coloration is very real. And can be quite subjective.
> 
> And in a way, you have ackowledged some important aspects here that I've been saying as well. Allow me to make the case please.
> 
> You have stated that tube amps generally sound different, and most everyone here likely agrees fully in principle, and most have likley read that same statement elsewhere (even those who have never actually heard tube gear lol).
> 
> And you have differentiated the various guitar amps by brand, noting they do in fact sound different, and thus various artists prefer one over another in subjective manner.
> 
> BUT- let us note that you did NOT differentiate them by _any_ measured aspects(!). Yet you accept that they do sound different. You did not need to provide or even mention any measurements to support your case. The sonic differences are there, regardless.
> 
> Because in the end you cannot in fact provide any measured differences that will fully explain the sonic differences. But again, you agree that you CAN in fact hear it regardless
> 
> That's progress
> 
> Turbo


I agree with this and admit that I apologize if my use of tube-based guitar amplifiers came across as a comparison to solid state. Tube and SS are two different ways to achieve the same goal; amplification of sound. However, as some one smartly noted, those involved in music production (guitar amp manufacturers) actually _try_ to color or differentiate their individual sound to set themselves apart from other companies. This stands in direct opposition to what music reproduction manufacturers attempt to do. There are of course a few exceptions (Rockford Fosgate's built-in signature eq bump comes immediately to mind) but, on the whole solid state-based music reproduction manufacturers seem to want to build equipment that they hope will accurately and faithfully reproduce recorded music. 
However, we know that many companies choose to use tubes in their automotive amplifiers and even headunits. And generally we seem to accept that tubes do in fact color the signal and even add distortion more easily. So, there must be some thought process in the R&D departments that see some benefit to tube-based preamps. Surely it isn't all a marketing ploy? 

I wonder if such discussions take place on pro music production forums in regards to studio monitor and headphone amplifier manufacturers? I can see some parallels in the basic notion that those individuals would want a colorless and supremely accurate amplification/reproduction of what they are trying to record. Does anyone know what the preferences might be of a few world class engineers in some very busy recording studios?


----------



## Victor_inox

You can find a list of equipment used in production in say Abbey Road or Real World studios, there no secrets. For final mastering they use Classe amplifiers not even Hi End for most audiophiles. and B&W speakers - not most expensive nor exotic but average for audiophile standards.


----------



## cajunner

speed it up..

amp challenge:Bob Carver:you can do anything with a signal: the world is flat.


----------



## captainobvious

strakele said:


> While I have never seen in depth technical analysis and test results for guitar amps, I would absolutely bet that any audible differences between them are measurable.
> 
> I was actually having this discussion with a guitar player buddy of mine at a concert recently. He made the interesting point that the makers of stuff like guitar amps are TRYING to make them sound different - to stand out. Varying methods/types of distortion, reverb, different contouring circuits/profiles/tone controls etc. Whereas the makers of the vast majority of home/car audio gear are trying to make their amplifiers as transparent as possible. The choice of guitar amp/speakers/distortion pedals, etc. is used by artists to create a specific sound in the PRODUCTION of music. Whereas in the REPRODUCTION of music, which is what we're doing, we want the amplifier to simply amplify the exact signal its fed, rather than adding in its own coloration to the sound. This is an important distinction IMO.



Very well said. You saved me some typing.


----------



## subwoofery

SkizeR said:


> ​
> Amen..


Am I the only one to find it strange that you said "Amen" to "Jesus Christ"... :surprised:

Kelvin


----------



## SkizeR

subwoofery said:


> Am I the only one to find it strange that you said "Amen" to "Jesus Christ"... :surprised:
> 
> Kelvin


That was the point lol.. otherwise you would never hear that word come out of ny mouth


----------



## strakele

TurboTR said:


> I'd take the bet easy. You simply can't measure and quantify that way every aspect of audio quality. Sorry.
> 
> If you had said that about the resulting sound of the entire system in the room/car it's in, I would agree with you. But since we're just talking just about amps, I disagree. They're a relatively simple piece of electronic hardware. Every aspect of their performance can be measured.
> 
> However if you know otherwise, please share with us. And you are sure about, so lets hear it? If 2 amps measure flat in the audio band, and both measure say less than 1% THD, but sound different- what other measurements would show that audible difference?
> 
> It's been said by other very knowledgeable people before and I'll repeat it here. If the gain, power, frequency response, noise, and distortion are the same, it will sound the same. See this test, Richard Clark challenge, Bob Carver challenge, etc.
> 
> >In the end, tuning and install will make the biggest difference in sound, as I don't think anyone could get in someones car and be disappointed by the sound because they weren't using X brand amps/cables.
> 
> Point taken. But consider this too for example- my home audio system, like most high end systems has NO tone controls or adjustments at all- none. No equalizers. No tuning available whatsoever, aside from positioning the loudspeakers. It just has a volume control. And it sounds amazing.
> 
> How is any of this relevant to mobile audio? There is no reasone we can't take what we learn in greatly improving the amp sonics in the home application and trickle it down into mobile audio. Much of it applies equally there. From what I've heard, mobile audio could sure use it.
> 
> The Richard Clark challenge demonstrates that, assuming two amplifiers DON'T sound the same, they can be made to sound the same quite easily. Which is another reason why it isn't worth getting caught up in the 'sound' of amplifiers. Even if it turns out that you happen to like one more than another and can actually pick out differences when you don't know which one you're listening to, you can make the other amp sound the same way. We already have to do a lot of DSP in a car to try to overcome all the room effects anyway.
> 
> Turbo


Not saying there's no room for improvement. If you can build a more stable power supply that results in measurable benefits that are indeed audible, that would be cool


----------



## rton20s

TurboTR said:


> Point taken. But consider this too for example- my home audio system, like most high end systems has NO tone controls or adjustments at all- none. No equalizers. No tuning available whatsoever, aside from positioning the loudspeakers. It just has a volume control. And it sounds amazing.


Even as a lay person, I feel like I need to take exception to this. In your previous posts you went on and on about how you changed or customized all these different aspects of your amplifiers to get a specific sound you desired. Now you claim you have no tuning on the system? What is the work you performed, if not tuning? 

Just because you don't have the ability to twist a knob or push a slider (physical or virtual) once the system is up and running doesn't mean that it hasn't been tuned. What you have done doesn't differ at all (in my mind) from what I see the majority of car audio enthusiasts doing. They set their tune and then "it just has volume control. And it sounds amazing."


----------



## sqnut

TurboTR said:


> Point taken. But consider this too for example- my home audio system, like most high end systems has NO tone controls or adjustments at all- none. No equalizers. No tuning available whatsoever, aside from positioning the loudspeakers. It just has a volume control. And it sounds amazing.
> 
> How is any of this relevant to mobile audio? There is no reasone we can't take what we learn in greatly improving the amp sonics in the home application and trickle it down into mobile audio. Much of it applies equally there. From what I've heard, mobile audio could sure use it.
> 
> Turbo


Your other ponts are already being addressed so I'll take this one. *Very little of what applies in home 2ch is of any relevance in the car.* Why? Because the frickin rooms in which you are listening are totally different. 

The sonic signature of your living room and that of your car are as different as chalk and cheese. As a listening environment, your living room is *way* less intrusive when compared to your car. 

In a room you don't need dsp, in a car you can't do without it. Imagine if your living room was suddenly smaller by a factor of 1/15 and you had glass walls all round and you were sitting 2 feet from one speaker and five feet from the other, now see if you need dsp. 

I just hate conceited home audiophiles trying to preach and look down on car audio. More so when they have no clue about car audio. BTW amps that measure the same will sound the same. If you think that your $ 10,000 amp that cost the manufacturer $ 250 in parts and labour, gives you sonic nirvana more power to you. After all, there's one born every minute. 

I apologize for the curt post but you are factually wrong and have a condescending attitude to boot.


----------



## cajunner

strakele said:


> Not saying there's no room for improvement. If you can build a more stable power supply that results in measurable benefits that are indeed audible, that would be cool


this I can latch on to, for some extra befuddlement.

the problem with the amp challenge, and the supposition that because someone out there has the goods to make amps sound like "every amp" or perhaps, to match one amp to another, doesn't mean that our array of DSP products available to the regular public, will cut that mustard.

that's the fly in the ointment.

we as consumers, are pretty much relegated to doing as this amp test does, with our 'swap-out' comparative testing protocols.

check output voltage for equal gains, turn off all pre-amp features, and stay within an envelope of dynamics under clipping.

that's not going to tell you the way the amp sounds in actual use, though.

and if you think that is something, let's look at equalizers.

a pre-amp figures into this quite a bit, since even between production models, you may have filters that are off, and not just by the silkscreen markings.

same with crossover values. 

same with sub level controls, parametric equalization, subsonic filters, every single thing that comes as a feature, is tainted by tolerances.

so, once we engage all of that good featured stuff, one amp is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE in possibility, away from sounding the same.


----------



## Victor_inox

sqnut said:


> Your other ponts are already being addressed so I'll take this one. *Very little of what applies in home 2ch is of any relevance in the car.* Why? Because the frickin rooms in which you are listening are totally different.
> 
> The sonic signature of your living room and that of your car are as different as chalk and cheese. As a listening environment, your living room is *way* less intrusive when compared to your car.
> 
> In a room you don't need dsp, in a car you can't do without it. Imagine if your living room was suddenly smaller by a factor of 1/15 and you had glass walls all round and you were sitting 2 feet from one speaker and five feet from the other, now see if you need dsp.
> 
> I just hate conceited home audiophiles trying to preach and look down on car audio. More so when they have no clue about car audio. BTW amps that measure the same will sound the same. If you think that your $ 10,000 amp that cost the manufacturer $ 250 in parts and labour, gives you sonic nirvana more power to you. After all, there's one born every minute.
> 
> I apologize for the curt post but you are factually wrong and have a condescending attitude to boot.


Dude you have issues. 
Would you please show me an amplifier retailed for 10000 and cost 250 to make, please. Or your post will be taken as another ignorant remark. 
suddenly you`ve got car and home audiophiles separated? why is that? because you can`t afford a nice house and a good system in it and have to squeeze it in the vehicle? or there different reason?


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Dude you have issues.
> Would you please show me an amplifier retailed for 10000 and cost 250 to make, please. Or your post will be taken as another ignorant remark.
> suddenly you`ve got car and home audiophiles separated? why is that? because you can`t afford a nice house and a good system in it and have to squeeze it in the vehicle? or there different reason?


whoa now.

I think you're getting out of your comfort zone when you start trying to lump car audio consumers and home audio consumers into the same vat of cheese.

two different cottages.

the distinction between the two listening environments is well documented and valid.

although most home audio environments can use DSP for floor bounce or modal sub issues, it's not a deal breaker for good sound.

if you want to go there, I'll let you build a home system that doesn't use any DSP and sounds fantastic in a 14 X 20' room, and try to squeeze it into my car.

I bet I can beat it (in my car) with minimal DSP added, using less quality components.

the room dictates what you can and can't do, and the car is the worst room available, which is why we need the most processing available.


----------



## Victor_inox

NO I`m right in my comfort zone


----------



## SouthSyde

Save baby seals...


----------



## cubdenno

Why do personal finances always come into play in these discussions?

Remember that the DIY audio community is usually predicated on finding the solution that performs as good as or better than commercially available solutions. The DIY community is supposed to attempt to not fall victim to marketing. Or at least try not to.

Because of these things, the DIY community usually tries to deal within the realm of science. You know, in our case, what can be measured since it is audio.

So while someone may not fall for the marketing presentation on a high dollar product or care about the aesthetics of the product, that has no bearing on how much money they do or don't have. And really, to even bring that stuff up as an insult is on par with throwing out mom or race insults or the ever popular "I know you are but what am I?"

If we are going to have a discussion on the merits of electronic products and you disagree with the outcome, throw your own test, invite the very people you are having the discussion with and have a test to prove your opinion on whatever subjectivity you are trying to prove. Vet your test procedures to keep people from coming back at you with the test was inherently flawed from the get go. 

Remember thses tests inform and educate. We don't have enough of them on this site anymore. What makes this site successful was the premise that it was brand neutral. And time and time again it has been shown that if any brand is given favoritism due to sponsorship etc the truth can become skewed. So let's welcome these tests because in the end we all benefit greatly from them.


----------



## papasin

SouthSyde said:


> Save baby seals...


I have to admit, this one got me.   :laugh:


----------



## cajunner

I'll club a baby seal, I will...

I mean, in the interest of science I'd sacrifice that furry little bleater, to the gavel of human indifference towards this planet's inhabitants.

when they make a seal that says "stop!" before I make that fatal swing, I'll reconsider but so far it just sounds like "bleat!" to me...


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> NO I`m right in my comfort zone


must be nice to have a product that bridges the gap, crosses the divide, unites the continent...

"look ma! no hands.."


but that doesn't mean tubes are the tide that raises all ships.

maybe the additional distortion from the Victory Sonics, actually hides the differences that are rooted in scientific measurement and analysis, and illuminates the commonality of better sounding systems being equally diminished in the wake of fuzz-bomb pre-amps...


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> Would you please show me an amplifier retailed for 10000 and cost 250 to make, please.


ULA-A5 - IconTV & CriticalMASS Online Catalog - (Powered by CubeCart)

http://icondealerservice.com/catalog/index.php?_a=product&product_id=176


----------



## Victor_inox

THat some ultimate POS you found, no one really buying at those prices.
Even then I bet it cost more than 250 to make. 
it`s always people with no understanding of production cost always make such statements? can you make me that case for $250- I`ll buy 1000 of them at that price.


----------



## sqnut

Victor_inox said:


> Dude you have issues.
> Would you please show me an amplifier retailed for 10000 and cost 250 to make, please. Or your post will be taken as another ignorant remark.
> suddenly you`ve got car and home audiophiles separated? why is that? because you can`t afford a nice house and a good system in it and have to squeeze it in the vehicle? or there different reason?


The post wasn't addressed at you but I guess the bit about CP vs SP of amps struck a chord somewhere . Touche!!


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> can you make me that case for $250- I`ll buy 1000 of them at that price.


Considering this 2' long amp can be sold for $280 brand new I'd say getting a case made like that critical mass one for $250 should be no problem.
New Lanzar OPTI500X2 Optidrive 2000W 2 Channel Competition Opti Amp Amplifier 68888725705 | eBay


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> THat some ultimate POS you found, no one really buying at those prices.
> Even then I bet it cost more than 250 to make.
> it`s always people with no understanding of production cost always make such statements? can you make me that case for $250- I`ll buy 1000 of them at that price.


the issue here is not who isn't buying at those prices, but who is.

if a rap star wants the most expensive amp money can buy, there's a hierarchy and Critical Mass decided to stand on the top of the retail pricing mountain.



it says nothing of what went into that amp.


and economies of scale don't work on amps that are marketed and built that way anyway.

I think PPI lost money on their F2500 superjobbers, probably Sony did as well with their 2000 model, you can look at some statement pieces that are virtual one-offs, from several respected companies.

does that mean the Critical Mass is going to outplay your basic Mosconi, at a fraction of the price?

probably not, huh?


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> Considering this 2' long amp can be sold for $280 brand new I'd say getting a case made like that critical mass one for $250 should be no problem.
> New Lanzar OPTI500X2 Optidrive 2000W 2 Channel Competition Opti Amp Amplifier 68888725705 | eBay


If you see no difference in manufacturing of these two cases than I have no argument for you. lanzar is extruded, CM machined. It seems everybody quit making cast alu cases since extruded came down in price and very few machine their cases. ask anyone with machine shop experience how much time such case takes you`ll understands why it`s expensive. 
I kid you not make me 1000 of them and I will send you a 250 000 dollars check. 
I will not buy this amp for nowhere close to it`s retail but it`s not 250 dollars amp.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> the issue here is not who isn't buying at those prices, but who is.
> 
> if a rap star wants the most expensive amp money can buy, there's a hierarchy and Critical Mass decided to stand on the top of the retail pricing mountain.
> 
> 
> 
> it says nothing of what went into that amp.
> 
> 
> and economies of scale don't work on amps that are marketed and built that way anyway.
> 
> I think PPI lost money on their F2500 superjobbers, probably Sony did as well with their 2000 model, you can look at some statement pieces that are virtual one-offs, from several respected companies.
> 
> does that mean the Critical Mass is going to outplay your basic Mosconi, at a fraction of the price?
> 
> probably not, huh?


Definitely not. 
I agree people with more money than common sense is always gonna buy something because it`s most expensive whatever, car, audio, jeans, shoes.

would you pay $3000 for handbag? I know my wife would and she is not a pop star. but as far as she is spending her money and not mine I`m OK with that.
You know who makes best video cameras for TV and movie production?
Sony losing money on every Pro grade camera they build just for marketing reason. but they sell so many consumer products they can afford it. 
Many companies do that.


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> If you see no difference in manufacturing of these two cases than I have no argument for you. lanzar is extruded, CM machined. It seems everybody quit making cast alu cases since extruded came down in price and very few machine their cases. ask anyone with machine shop experience how much time such case takes you`ll understands why it`s expensive.
> I kid you not make me 1000 of them and I will send you a 250 000 dollars check.
> I will not buy this amp for nowhere close to it`s retail but it`s not 250 dollars amp.


When it's all made in china anyways and the people making these things are getting paid $2 an hour the labor difference isn't all that much. Sure, if you had a one off piece made here in the US it may cost you $250 or more but that's not the case here.


----------



## SkizeR

Jesus Christ said:


> ULA-A5 - IconTV & CriticalMASS Online Catalog - (Powered by CubeCart)
> 
> ULA-4x350CM-15² - IconTV & CriticalMASS Online Catalog - (Powered by CubeCart)


lol its critical mass. that doesnt count. they take chinese amps and rebadge them and charge 10k for nothing. no one buys them.


----------



## SkizeR

Victor_inox said:


> Definitely not.
> I agree people with more money than common sense is always gonna buy something because it`s most expensive whatever, car, audio, jeans, shoes.
> 
> would you pay $3000 for handbag? I know my wife would and she is not a pop star. but as far as she is spending her money and not mine I`m OK with that.
> You know who makes best video cameras for TV and movie production?
> Sony losing money on every Pro grade camera they build just for marketing reason. but they sell so many consumer products they can afford it.
> Many companies do that.


theres muuuchhhhh better then sony out there. but that is true about their prosumer cameras


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> When it's all made in china anyways and the people making these things are getting paid $2 an hour the labor difference isn't all that much. Sure, if you had a one off piece made here in the US it may cost you $250 or more but that's not the case here.


Dude I`m not arguing with you about silly Criticall crap ****, that POS will never find it`s way to my car not for retail not for a grand.
That is unique crap manufacturer who make it in hope to find a sucker and they do or they would quit it.


----------



## Victor_inox

SkizeR said:


> theres muuuchhhhh better then sony out there. but that is true about their prosumer cameras


I brought Sony as an example. and they do make bad ass pro garde cameras.http://pro.sony.com/


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> That is unique crap manufacturer who make it in hope to find a sucker and they do or they would quit it.


Just about any "high end" manufacturer charging $10k or more for an amp is looking for a sucker.


----------



## Victor_inox

SkizeR said:


> theres muuuchhhhh better then sony out there. but that is true about their prosumer cameras


Please show me muuuuuchhhh better then this:CineAlta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If it`s good enough for George Lucas.....
here is the list:
List of CineAlta cameras[edit]
Sony F-65
Sony PMW-F55
Sony F-35
Sony F-3
Sony F-5
Sony F-23
Sony HDW-F900
Sony PMW-EX1R
Sony HDC-500[5]
Sony HDC-F950
Sony PDW-F350
Sony SRW-9000pl
Sony PMW-500
Sony PDW-F800
Sony PXW-Z100
Sony PMW-EX3 PC
Sony NEX-Fs700
Sony PDW-700
Sony PDW-510p
Sony PDW-F330l
another real bad ass:Panavision HD-900F - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but regardless all of the above sold for pennies on a dollar. they cost more to make that they priced them for sale.


----------



## SkizeR

Victor_inox said:


> I brought Sony as an example. and they do make bad ass pro garde cameras.http://pro.sony.com/


I know.. I'm saving up for a Sony as we speak. But there are a few companies out there that make some crazy cameras


----------



## WestCo

Jesus Christ said:


> Just about any "high end" manufacturer charging $10k or more for an amp is looking for a sucker.


At a certain point things become ridiculous; no argument there.


----------



## Victor_inox

WestCo said:


> At a certain point things become ridiculous; no argument there.


Joe, look at your avatar, some think MCIntosh gear prices ridiculous.
There plenty modern macs cost more than 10 grand
The "entry level" Mac integrated amp is the 5200 and retail is $5.2K
It`s like Rolls Royce If you must ask....... 
I`d buy it if I were on the market for it, it last forever and then some.
I can`t stand disposable electronics of today. in the last 10 years 3 Harman kardon receivers quit on me and 2 Denons. 
Some people only interested in watts per dollar and if it survive for a warranty period.


----------



## SkizeR

Victor_inox said:


> Please show me muuuuuchhhh better then this:CineAlta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> If it`s good enough for George Lucas.....
> here is the list:
> List of CineAlta cameras[edit]
> Sony F-65
> Sony PMW-F55
> Sony F-35
> Sony F-3
> Sony F-5
> Sony F-23
> Sony HDW-F900
> Sony PMW-EX1R
> Sony HDC-500[5]
> Sony HDC-F950
> Sony PDW-F350
> Sony SRW-9000pl
> Sony PMW-500
> Sony PDW-F800
> Sony PXW-Z100
> Sony PMW-EX3 PC
> Sony NEX-Fs700
> Sony PDW-700
> Sony PDW-510p
> Sony PDW-F330l
> another real bad ass:Panavision HD-900F - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> but regardless all of the above sold for pennies on a dollar. they cost more to make that they priced them for sale.


Red Epic and Scarlet plus their dragon and mysterium packages
Arri Alexa
BlackMagic URSA 4k

all these can compare or do better


----------



## Victor_inox

SkizeR said:


> Red Epic and Scarlet plus their dragon and mysterium packages
> Arri Alexa
> BlackMagic URSA 4k
> 
> all these can compare or do better


agreed on Arri, Black magic is Prosumer grade. Way overkill for Snowboard video  Great for porn!. 
Red and scarlet not better or Movie industry would use them instead. Comparable but only because they use someone else sensors, motors, hardware. 
It`s amazing high quality can be achieved for less than 15K for total package.


----------



## SkizeR

Victor_inox said:


> agreed on Arri, *Black magic is Prosumer grade. Way overkill for Snowboard video  Great for porn!. *
> Red and scarlet not better or Movie industry would use them instead. Comparable but only because they use someone else sensors, motors, hardware.
> It`s amazing high quality can be achieved for less than 15K for total package.


i actually laughed out loud :laugh:

and theres no such thing as overkill  ever see The Art Of Flight? or Nike's Never Not? the art of flight is a cinematic and action sports masterpiece. if you wanna see it i can email it to you. and Never Not is right up there.


----------



## sqnut

Epic derail of a perfectly good thread.


----------



## SkizeR

sqnut said:


> Epic derail of a perfectly good thread.


was thinking the same thing. so.. how bout those amps


----------



## Victor_inox

sqnut said:


> Epic derail of a perfectly good thread.


You started it.


----------



## Victor_inox

SkizeR said:


> was thinking the same thing. so.. how bout those amps


All amps sounds the same, The End!


----------



## sqnut

SkizeR said:


> was thinking the same thing. so.. how bout those amps






Victor_inox said:


> You started it.


 I made a comment to a random dude who was condescending in the extreme and you jumped all over my post


----------



## mrpeabody

cubdenno said:


> Why do personal finances always come into play in these discussions?
> 
> Remember that the DIY audio community is usually predicated on finding the solution that performs as good as or better than commercially available solutions. The DIY community is supposed to attempt to not fall victim to marketing. Or at least try not to.
> 
> Because of these things, the DIY community usually tries to deal within the realm of science. You know, in our case, what can be measured since it is audio.
> 
> So while someone may not fall for the marketing presentation on a high dollar product or care about the aesthetics of the product, that has no bearing on how much money they do or don't have. And really, to even bring that stuff up as an insult is on par with throwing out mom or race insults or the ever popular "I know you are but what am I?"
> 
> If we are going to have a discussion on the merits of electronic products and you disagree with the outcome, throw your own test, invite the very people you are having the discussion with and have a test to prove your opinion on whatever subjectivity you are trying to prove. Vet your test procedures to keep people from coming back at you with the test was inherently flawed from the get go.
> 
> Remember thses tests inform and educate. We don't have enough of them on this site anymore. What makes this site successful was the premise that it was brand neutral. And time and time again it has been shown that if any brand is given favoritism due to sponsorship etc the truth can become skewed. So let's welcome these tests because in the end we all benefit greatly from them.


Summed up perfectly.


----------



## mrpeabody

Victor_inox said:


> All amps sounds the same, The End!


Jeesh, I keep seeing this. 

I think the majority opinion of the group this type of quote is targeted towards isn't arguing that every amp sounds the same. Instead, that if they measure the same then they sound the same.


Someone else touched on the idea of modifying the internals of an amplifier to change the sonic output, and comparing that to using a DSP, which I think is an excellent point. This bring me to a question I have for some.

I noticed, especially hanging around with home audiophiles, that there's is such an emphasis on matching amplifiers, pre-amps, cables, interconnects etc. in order to achieve a "symbiotic" sound and yet there's a distaste for the use of DSP's.

Why bother dropping 5k on a set of speaker wires or way more on a certain amp pre-amp combo to "match" a certain sound, when you can use a much cheaper and much more flexible DSP to get the certain sound you're looking for? 

Help me understand the reasoning.


----------



## cajunner

mrpeabody said:


> Jeesh, I keep seeing this.
> 
> I think the majority opinion of the group this type of quote is targeted towards aren't arguing that every amp sounds the same. Instead, that if they measure the same then they sound the same.
> 
> 
> Someone else touched on the idea of modifying the internals of an amplifier to change the sonic output, and comparing that to using a DSP, which I think is an excellent point. This bring me to a question I have for some.
> 
> I noticed, especially hanging around with home audiophiles, that there's is such an emphasis on matching amplifiers, pre-amps, cables, interconnects etc. in order to achieve a "symbiotic" sound and yet there's a distaste for the use of DSP's.
> 
> Why bother dropping 5k on a set of speaker wires or way more on a certain amp pre-amp combo to "match" a certain sound, when you can use a much cheaper and much more flexible DSP to get the certain sound you're looking for?
> 
> Help me understand the reasoning.


I think it's rooted in our desire for uniqueness.

we want to be able to stamp our personal mojo on the system we put together, and home audio is all about selection of various brands, because the listening position is fixed according to stereo guidelines. You can buy speakers with passive crossovers that work right, right in the box. The box is a known quantity, the way it's made, the spacing, the edge treatment, etc. is all already fixed.

toe-in, toe out.

raise the height, lower the height, use stands that change speaker angle, put rocks on the top of the enclosure, there's not much else going on.

Car audio, the listening position is also fixed, but it's off-center so we have to correct for the room using DSP, it's become a fixture and an expectation in most SQ oriented system designs.

Home audio, means the box is already tweaked. The passive crossover is voiced to the designer's intent, so you buy what you hear in the showroom, and hope it sounds as good at home.

Fooling around with a designer's finished product, like taking the pair of passive crossovers out of a pair of Kef LS50's, and replacing them with active crossovers used to be a losing game.


today the options are more widespread, the DSP abilities have made it possible to get even better sound from the same drivers.

but home audio doesn't want it, because they are still stuck in swapping out boxes, matching components, using tweaks to customize their systems.

and there's a learning curve with DSP, don't forget that.


----------



## Victor_inox

mrpeabody said:


> Jeesh, I keep seeing this.
> 
> I think the majority opinion of the group this type of quote is targeted towards isn't arguing that every amp sounds the same. Instead, that if they measure the same then they sound the same.
> 
> 
> Someone else touched on the idea of modifying the internals of an amplifier to change the sonic output, and comparing that to using a DSP, which I think is an excellent point. This bring me to a question I have for some.
> 
> I noticed, especially hanging around with home audiophiles, that there's is such an emphasis on matching amplifiers, pre-amps, cables, interconnects etc. in order to achieve a "symbiotic" sound and yet there's a distaste for the use of DSP's.
> 
> Why bother dropping 5k on a set of speaker wires or way more on a certain amp pre-amp combo to "match" a certain sound, when you can use a much cheaper and much more flexible DSP to get the certain sound you're looking for?
> 
> Help me understand the reasoning.


You didn`t get sarcasm, I`m sorry.
You enjoy playing with DSP trying to EMULATE something already achieved and that is fine. 
In this hobby I learned one important thing never believe anyone but your own ears.


----------



## mrpeabody

Victor_inox said:


> You didn`t get sarcasm, I`m sorry.


Eh, internet, hard to tell, lol

I have seen this brought up by allot of other people though, so my question still stands for them then. 




cajunner, some excellent points. Especially the learning curve on DSP's. I'm a natural skeptic and love to know how things work. Learning about and using a DSP and how it changes things has been kind of an obsession. I definitely get how others who don't share the same interest wouldn't want to put in the time to figure out how it works and how to implement it.


----------



## mrpeabody

Victor_inox said:


> You enjoy playing with DSP trying to EMULATE something already achieved and that is fine.


So, are you saying without a DSP, and instead using proper amp selection you can recreate the original recording in the car environment?

Yeah I may be leading that question a bit, but you get where I'm going, lol.


----------



## cajunner

something else, entirely off point, but in the game is the sales delivery of home audio.

people who have to sell to make their money, will push a pair of 5K speaker wires, if they have a sucker on the tap.

a lot of the BS involving snake oil fixes in the home audio realm, are because the buyers are already topped out on "flagship" models, and need another venue to dispense their disposable income.


so you see a lot of the push towards neutrality, or pre-amp neutral designs where nothing but the signal is passed through to the next component, it's only human nature to devise a way to augment, to adorn that signal in some way, so we get pitched on interconnects.


there's your tone control. It's built-in, and it's non-adjustable so if you don't like the sound, you have to swap them out.


that's part of it too. A salesman is given his marching orders, and when a mark comes in the door, he goes to work.


----------



## Victor_inox

mrpeabody said:


> So, are you saying without a DSP, and instead using proper amp selection you can recreate the original recording in the car environment?
> 
> Yeah I may be leading that question a bit, but you get where I'm going, lol.


 What is original recording? Do you mean that seating in the driver seat you`d hear it exactly like near field monitors in production studio? 
what if it`s better? Sorry, you don`t need better you need exactly the same,
my bad.
Everything that you hear say after guitar desk resonates is processed sound, therefore not sound the same. 

Fake is fake DSP is fake. I dislike where sound reproduction headed for the last 40 years, especially after Red book CD introduction.
amplifiers became more powerful, speakers less efficient, digital recordings became matter of convenience not music enjoinment. DSPs is another consumer convenience product. to cheat you into believing that you listening to a true to source signal. 
Convenience has it`s place in bluetooth speakers like **** sold by Dr Dre establishment, sound like **** despite DSP on board. Is that what you trying to achieve? 
HAving said that I do use DSP , well Convenience has it`s positive sides.


----------



## mrpeabody

Victor_inox said:


> What is original recording? Do you mean that seating in the driver seat you`d hear it exactly like near field monitors in production studio?
> what if it`s better? Sorry, you don`t need better you need exactly the same,
> my bad.
> Everything that you hear say after guitar desk resonates is processed sound, therefore not sound the same.
> 
> Fake is fake DSP is fake. I dislike where sound reproduction headed for the last 40 years, especially after Red book CD introduction.
> amplifiers became more powerful, speakers less efficient, digital recordings became matter of convenience not music enjoinment. DSPs is another consumer convenience product. to cheat you into believing that you listening to a true to source signal.
> Convenience has it`s place in bluetooth speakers like **** sold by Dr Dre establishment, sound like **** despite DSP on board. Is that what you trying to achieve?
> HAving said that I do use DSP , well Convenience has it`s positive sides.


Only reason I used the idea of the original recording is because that's the definition of an audiophile to most people, wanting to recreate a recording as accurately as possible.

For me, the use of a DSP is to manage the crappy listening environment a car creates. Something that will change how the music sounds waaaaaay more drastically than amp classes, wires, rca's, etc. 

Main reason I brought up the home audio situation, is that to me, spending thousands of dollars on wires or pre-amps to get a certain sound signature makes less sense then using some sort of EQ if your end result is to have that certain sound.


----------



## rton20s

mrpeabody said:


> Someone else touched on the idea of modifying the internals of an amplifier to change the sonic output, and comparing that to using a DSP, which I think is an excellent point. This bring me to a question I have for some.


I asked the question of Turbo, and really hope to get his response. It has only been a day, but he may have decided he was wasting his time with all of us knuckle dragging car audio guys and went back to DIYA.  

And Victor, to call DSP "fake" is a bit of an over-reach. DSP is what you make of it. It can be used to combat the environment of the install to more faithfully reproduce the recordings, like MrPeabody mentioned, or it can be used to completely change the tonality of the music. It is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. And from my point of view, it is replicating what these home audiophiles are doing in the physical/analog space in a much more convenient digital format.


----------



## Victor_inox

DSP s a wonderful thing in a car. it`s convenient. It does TA otherwise impossible in analog domain. too bad that every AD-DA conversion degrade original signal to some degree. technology improve every year and soon there will be none left to truly appreciate analog signal. new generation raised on ipods and absolutely horrifying satellite radio sound. Convenience wins every time, it won again. 
Dinosaurus like myself will die out. 
Here is a true story for you:
I went to symphony with my friends and their 16 y/o
mind you he is playing cello and does it well.
he spent entire concert in headphones.
Listening to whatever while texting to his friends.
No wonder there is no good music made lately, they just too busy conveniently consuming ******** consumer society feed them. 
I truly miss times when I didn`t have cell phone and can be unreachable, now we all "on-call" 24/7. 
rant off. Proceed. 
15y/o girl seating on the couch next to her BF saying "text me it feels weird"( talking directly with her mouth moving) true story. 
P.S. I feel old.


----------



## cajunner

one thing the digital age has brought the youth of today, is access.

let's say you start playing guitar, back when I was trying it was either a book with chords, or it was lessons that cost plenty, with the town "virtuoso" who really was just a starving musician forced to it many times.


nowadays, digital life means that if you want it, youTube has it, waiting for you. You want to learn anything, it's available and not through hours of travel time, getting to be accepted by a clique, making mistakes and not being corrected for months...

the internet brings access to today's youth, if there's a solo you want to learn, you go online and watch someone step by step. Back in the day, we had to hope to catch somebody in concert or on the Late Show, if they caught the guitarist just right, rewinding and playing back VCR tape, haha..

I'm just saying the amount of people with playing chops seems to have increased exponentially, since nobody needs to get discouraged if they can get free lessons and buy their guitar online from GC or Musician's Friend, for half price...

but that's so narrow a focus, we can widen it out too.

today the schools are doing work in regular high school, public high school, that we didn't have to do until years later in college.

the amount of information that is forced into the average child's brain, is higher. I think that if you don't leave a little room for things to bounce around in there, not much comes out that is able to leave a mark, or carve a place in a bench where there's no wood left unscratched.

at once, I feel sad that we are reaching another tipping point, and digital with it's wonderful accessibility means that we can all be experts and give criticism with just a few minutes warning, as we probe a few wiki selections and pretend we're about it.

and again, I feel great, that the same tipping point allows us to move even quicker to even greater ease and convenience into the future, more technology brings more drugs to save our lives, more machines to make the softest pillows, more fleeting in moments we will partition our lives, where we are the direct descendant of loudness war mentality, our very lives filled with the middle and the highs and lows cut off, our own dynamic range being shuttled into conformity...

whew...

conformity is what the establishment needs, but it's not what we as individuals need, we should celebrate our perspective with whatever party favors are left over after Political Correctness and fat shaming and whatever else is taking the fun out, has it's way...


----------



## Victor_inox

children brains will survive they have for a very long time.
surprisingly there so many dumb as a bag of rocks I`m worried what this world coming to. I`m probably exaggerating



.


----------



## legend94

very good thread and work captainobvious

will there be a round two? worry if i missed any info but my attention span does not allow 17 pages!


----------



## turbo5upra

We are doing round 2 tomorrow in New York... It's going to be less formal than his but it's going to be blind and calibrated.


----------



## legend94

turbo5upra said:


> We are doing round 2 tomorrow in New York... It's going to be less formal than his but it's going to be blind and calibrated.


glad to hear it as this article made me think i should care more about other items than amps. assuming the amp is of good quality and plenty of power. 

it would be awesome if you guys put a cheaper mainstream amp with similar power in the mix.


----------



## turbo5upra

Arc xdi v2... Some pg offerings... Hope to have a hd 600/4... 

It's going to be fast passed as we have go karts and food after 

But I'm going to take some notes along the way.


----------



## subwoofery

turbo5upra said:


> Arc xdi v2... Some pg offerings... Hope to have a hd 600/4...
> 
> It's going to be fast passed as we have go karts and food after
> 
> But I'm going to take some notes along the way.


Any class A amp or tube? 

Kelvin


----------



## SkizeR

you should also pick up a cheapo amp off craigslist to see how it compares


----------



## turbo5upra

subwoofery said:


> Any class A amp or tube?
> 
> Kelvin


An arc se and upper end helix with be in the mix too. A/b close enough?


----------



## turbo5upra

SkizeR said:


> you should also pick up a cheapo amp off craigslist to see how it compares


We did... We have a Zapco... Just kidding! I'm sure Steve has something kicking around we could use...

You attending either day?


----------



## subwoofery

turbo5upra said:


> An arc se and upper end helix with be in the mix too. A/b close enough?


The ARC SE is surely in the upper tier for A/B 
The Helix Competition is based on a Class A topology but isn't bias towards A... Very good A/B nonetheless 

Both IMO are the best value in high-end amplification. :thumbsup:

Kelvin


----------



## SkizeR

turbo5upra said:


> We did... We have a Zapco... Just kidding! I'm sure Steve has something kicking around we could use...
> 
> You attending either day?


what days again? and doubt it. dont have any spare cash to drive 8 hours


----------



## SkizeR

if i do il definitly bring a zapco dc amp


----------



## legend94

i want to see something like this, seriously

Sound Ordnance™ M-4100 4-channel car amplifier — 100 watts RMS x 4 at Crutchfield.com


----------



## Victor_inox

turbo5upra said:


> Arc xdi v2... Some pg offerings... Hope to have a hd 600/4...
> 
> It's going to be fast passed as we have go karts and food after
> 
> But I'm going to take some notes along the way.


 I have PG S,R and SD series, sounds great , small S and SD barely get warm.


----------



## turbo5upra

SkizeR said:


> what days again? and doubt it. dont have any spare cash to drive 8 hours


Today and tomorrow...


----------



## sqnut

Is this thread going to be live during the test?


----------



## Stookie

Great test and debate here - def thought provoking !!

Busting for you to do similar on high end class ab amps like 

Mosconi as100.4
Audison voce Quattro
Focal fps 4160


----------



## captainobvious

Stookie said:


> Great test and debate here - def thought provoking !!
> 
> Busting for you to do similar on high end class ab amps like
> 
> Mosconi as100.4
> Audison voce Quattro
> Focal fps 4160



Thanks 

I'd argue the Phoenix Gold Elite, Zapco Z series and Xtant X series represent high end A/B designs, and certainly the Diamond D7 amp as well.


----------



## gckless

Is there a high-quality Class D?


----------



## captainobvious

gckless said:


> Is there a high-quality Class D?



Yes there were- the JL HD and the Zed Leviathan. There was also an Arc XDi v1 in the mix although I wouldn't put it on the "high quality" list by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## gckless

captainobvious said:


> Yes there were- the JL HD and the Zed Leviathan. There was also an Arc XDi v1 in the mix although I wouldn't put it on the "high quality" list by any stretch of the imagination.


I seen that in the original. I guess I figured round 2 would be new amps, but after this comment it seems as though it will be the same amps?

What version Levi?


----------



## captainobvious

Oh, ok I gotcha now. There is no round 2 scheduled currently. Steve, Brian and some of the northern fellas did some basic demoing of amps in Syracuse a couple weeks ago, but no blind comparisons. There may be another blind comparison test like this down the road, but nothing on the calendar as of yet.


----------



## Hanatsu

I've done blind tests of speakers, cables, source units and amplifiers. I can tell you all that the speaker evaluations were by far the most interesting ones. They were the only ones that were fairly consistent. I'm quite certain nowadays that most modern electronics (that are competently designed) sound very similar to each other. In a system with a DSP the difference are so negligible that it can be ignored imo. There seem to be a whole lot of people who believe there's an audible difference between amps when close to clipping but remain pretty transparent below that threshold. If that statement is true, then simply get the most powerful amp you can find and make sure it never clips.

Many audiophiles doesn't like to put any trust into measured data. I often hear that even if differences are subtle, they add up and become much more audible in a complete system. Furthermore, certain combinations of cables, preamps, amps, sources etc "work better" than others. This makes it virtually impossible to test in any efficient manner, by testing I mean evaluations like the one the OP of this thread made. While this might sound logical to some, I tend to disagree. Measured non-linear distortion is often below -100dB of the fundamental, anyone that have heard obvious speaker distortion would perhaps be surprised to know that this audible distortion occurs at very high levels in comparison. In the Klippel listening test most people had trouble hearing even -20dB of non-linear distortion in speakers and I believe this comparison can be made because the speaker's and amplifier's non-linear distortion can in many ways be similar audibly if it approaches high levels. There's of course more to it than non-linear distortion but much of the general interest of "a sonic signature" seems to circle around it. 

I still like to put my trust in hard data which by repeatable results can prove or disapprove something. Changing amplifiers to improve "SQ"? What does that even mean? What parameter is it you want to improve exactly? If you're after 'better sound', as in 'more accurate to the source' the focus should lie where the sound is distorted the most, which is the environment and speakers (in that order). This is all in the acoustic domain.


----------



## Stookie

captainobvious said:


> Thanks
> 
> I'd argue the Phoenix Gold Elite, Zapco Z series and Xtant X series represent high end A/B designs, and certainly the Diamond D7 amp as well.


Aye aye Cap'n , For sure - i went for those 3 as that's what we limited to on 'regular' market in Uk but if your class d test proved anything it might not matter . If you do a test a Mcintosh or Audison Thesis would be interesting

Keep up the great work - this stuff is an addiction and to be told that we might not need to spend thousands backed up by real tests would be a relief


----------



## Stookie

Then if you could compare class d against the ab, say an alpine pdx f4 and a focal fps 4160 (not limited to) that would be interesting


----------



## probillygun

yea, agree and I would offer up a Focal FPS 4160 for the next test if there is one...


----------



## cubdenno

Hanatsu said:


> I've done blind tests of speakers, cables, source units and amplifiers. I can tell you all that the speaker evaluations were by far the most interesting ones. They were the only ones that were fairly consistent. I'm quite certain nowadays that most modern electronics (that are competently designed) sound very similar to each other. In a system with a DSP the difference are so negligible that it can be ignored imo. There seem to be a whole lot of people who believe there's an audible difference between amps when close to clipping but remain pretty transparent below that threshold. If that statement is true, then simply get the most powerful amp you can find and make sure it never clips.
> 
> Many audiophiles doesn't like to put any trust into measured data. I often hear that even if differences are subtle, they add up and become much more audible in a complete system. Furthermore, certain combinations of cables, preamps, amps, sources etc "work better" than others. This makes it virtually impossible to test in any efficient manner, by testing I mean evaluations like the one the OP of this thread made. While this might sound logical to some, I tend to disagree. Measured non-linear distortion is often below -100dB of the fundamental, anyone that have heard obvious speaker distortion would perhaps be surprised to know that this audible distortion occurs at very high levels in comparison. In the Klippel listening test most people had trouble hearing even -20dB of non-linear distortion in speakers and I believe this comparison can be made because the speaker's and amplifier's non-linear distortion can in many ways be similar audibly if it approaches high levels. There's of course more to it than non-linear distortion but much of the general interest of "a sonic signature" seems to circle around it.
> 
> I still like to put my trust in hard data which by repeatable results can prove or disapprove something. Changing amplifiers to improve "SQ"? What does that even mean? What parameter is it you want to improve exactly? If you're after 'better sound', as in 'more accurate to the source' the focus should lie where the sound is distorted the most, which is the environment and speakers (in that order). This is all in the acoustic domain.


Fantastic post!!!!


----------



## 07azhhr

captainobvious said:


> Oh, ok I gotcha now. There is no round 2 scheduled currently. Steve, Brian and some of the northern fellas did some basic demoing of amps in Syracuse a couple weeks ago, but no blind comparisons. There may be another blind comparison test like this down the road, but nothing on the calendar as of yet.


 If another blind test were to be performed, it would be interesting see a mix of low budget, mid level, and hi end amps. 

Low budget examples would be amps like Boss, current AutoTek, and perhaps PPI Picasso series. There are many others to choose from for sure.


----------



## upgrayedd

it would be interesting to do a test where people think they are listening to a high end amp but it is really an entry level piece.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Been there and done that. People can't tell the difference. It's like the bud lit, coors lite, miller lite tests. People cant tell whats what if they dont see the label on it...


----------



## JVD240

Or let them listen to the same amp 5 times in a row and then listen to their 5 different descriptions.


----------



## thehatedguy

I used to pretend to turn the volume/levels down on stuff, asking is that better after I made an adjustment until the person said it was...a lot of times I never actually touched anything.


----------



## Victor_inox

thehatedguy said:


> I used to pretend to turn the volume/levels down on stuff, asking is that better after I made an adjustment until the person said it was...a lot of times I never actually touched anything.


 they saying that so you`ll leave them alone. not everyone cares.
or their hearing got tired.


----------



## lizardking

thehatedguy said:


> I used to pretend to turn the volume/levels down on stuff, asking is that better after I made an adjustment until the person said it was...a lot of times I never actually touched anything.




Too funny!


----------



## SO20thCentury

Victor_inox said:


> they saying that so you`ll leave them alone. not everyone cares.
> or their hearing got tired.


just trying to get thru it to the beer test:beerchug:


----------



## Weigel21

I can confess that I heard a system that sounded pretty decent, only to learn later that it was a build using nothing but Pyle Branded gear. Surprised the hell out of me, I honestly figured it was upper-mid level gear. 

Guy said it took him a while to get things to sound right, but he wanted to prove to not only himself, but others, that cheaper gear could sound just as good as gear costing much more. 

I'd say that in a blind test, many (by no means all) could probably have listened to it and been told it was something like JL C2's and W3 subs and they would have believed it.


----------



## thehatedguy

No not necessarily so. Some people want to believe so bad that the power of suggestion will make them believe whatever you are suggesting. Especially when you are talking about small incremental changes.

I had a home audio friend who got some Shakti stones and put them all over various electronics. I was over there when he got them and was messing around. He would move one and we would listen. He would say x place sounded better than y place...I told him it sounded the same to me. He was amazed that I couldn't hear the changes. I was amazed that he said he could and spent the money buying them. 



Victor_inox said:


> they saying that so you`ll leave them alone. not everyone cares.
> or their hearing got tired.


----------



## lizardking

Power of suggestion....where throughout our history could one start?


----------



## Victor_inox

lizardking said:


> Power of suggestion....where throughout our history could one start?


Easy one - religion.


----------



## Hanatsu

When it comes to speakers, I've tested speaker in the $20 range that is on par with $200 ones. It's not always about price, it's the design used. Non-linear distortion can't be fixed with processing, an irregular FR can be fixed as long as you use them in the pistonic range. Even really cheap crap can be made to sound decent if you use them in their optimal range and apply some processing.


----------



## lizardking

Victor_inox said:


> Easy one - religion.


The greatest ******** story ever told!


----------



## Darth SQ

lizardking said:


> The greatest ******** story ever told!


Let's keep it on topic.


Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## PPI_GUY

Weigel21 said:


> I can confess that I heard a system that sounded pretty decent, only to learn later that it was a build using nothing but Pyle Branded gear. Surprised the hell out of me, I honestly figured it was upper-mid level gear.
> 
> Guy said it took him a while to get things to sound right, but he wanted to prove to not only himself, but others, that cheaper gear could sound just as good as gear costing much more.


The idea of doing something like this has always fascinated me. Taking what is considered "crap gear" and working with it to achieve the same result you'd expect from elite brands.
I've looked at certain Pyle amps and almost pulled the trigger a few times. The only thing that's ever held me back is the embarrassment I'd suffer when people saw the name "Pyle" on the amps in my vehicle! LOL! 
Am I crazy for wanting to do this?


----------



## Hanatsu

Nope ^^

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


----------



## WestCo

PPI_GUY said:


> The idea of doing something like this has always fascinated me. Taking what is considered "crap gear" and working with it to achieve the same result you'd expect from elite brands.
> I've looked at certain Pyle amps and almost pulled the trigger a few times. The only thing that's ever held me back is the embarrassment I'd suffer when people saw the name "Pyle" on the amps in my vehicle! LOL!
> Am I crazy for wanting to do this?


The ppi phantoms can do very well. I don't think they have the clarity of a quality a/b amp, but with a good source and drivers they can do very well.

I wouldn't buy Pyle or Boss strictly on the basis of reliability. A lot of the el cheapo amps can't do rated power, and I don't support companies that lie to the consumer.


----------



## Golden Ear

WestCo said:


> I wouldn't buy Boss strictly on the basis of reliability.


You'd be surprised at the reliability of some of these amps. The first amp I ever bought was a giant 2 channel class a/b Boss amp that I used to run my subs with. I used it for several years then sold it to a friend who is still running it. It's a 14 year old amp.


----------



## PPI_GUY

WestCo said:


> I wouldn't buy Pyle or Boss strictly on the basis of reliability. A lot of the el cheapo amps can't do rated power, and I don't support companies that lie to the consumer.


Here's the only Pyle amp I would consider...

Pyle PLA4988 4 Channel 6000W Bridgeable Mosfet Amplifier at Onlinecarstereo.com


----------



## HardCoreDore

PPI_GUY said:


> Here's the only Pyle amp I would consider...
> 
> Pyle PLA4988 4 Channel 6000W Bridgeable Mosfet Amplifier at Onlinecarstereo.com


Why this one? Just curios.


----------



## PPI_GUY

HardCoreDore said:


> Why this one? Just curios.


After looking at all of the Pyle amps available, this one appears to be best of the bunch. 100 amps of onboard fusing and does that thing have TO3-type output devices???


----------



## Victor_inox

PPI_GUY said:


> After looking at all of the Pyle amps available, this one appears to be best of the bunch. 100 amps of onboard fusing and does that thing have TO3-type output devices???


 6000W? no way in hell. even 600 is questionable.


----------



## WestCo

Golden Ear said:


> You'd be surprised at the reliability of some of these amps. The first amp I ever bought was a giant 2 channel class a/b Boss amp that I used to run my subs with. I used it for several years then sold it to a friend who is still running it. It's a 14 year old amp.


Boss 14 years ago > Boss today
Just my opinion


----------



## Hanatsu

6000w rofl. 4x100w might be closer to the truth.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


----------



## PPI_GUY

Victor_inox said:


> 6000W? no way in hell. even 600 is questionable.


Marketing. I don't think anyone would seriously believe that this amp would get anywhere close to 6000 watts. 800-900 maybe. 
My point was that if you were going to TRY to achieve some level of quality with Pyle amplification, then this amplifier might give you your best shot. 
All Pyle amps have outlandish power ratings like this. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday you know. Good Lord.


----------



## Victor_inox

Nobody said you were.
Marketing obviously works. taking into consideration how uneducated majority of car audio customers are I`m not surprised. Actual power could be calculated closely if there is schematics available.


----------



## PPI_GUY

Victor_inox said:


> Nobody said you were.
> Marketing obviously works. taking into consideration how uneducated majority of car audio customers are I`m not surprised. Actual power could be calculated closely if there is schematics available.


I tried to calculate that amp's best potential output based on the knowledge at hand. 
100 amps of fusing, available voltage (13.8 avg.) and a assumed efficiency somewhere in the ball park of 60%. 
So, 100 x 13.8= 1380 x .60= 828 watts max. 
Obviously, there are a lot of variables including amperage, voltage and actual efficiency. But, with the available info that's the best I could do. 
I doubt the schematics exist anywhere on this side of the Pacific. LOL! 

I still think this particular model would offer the best chance of a Pyle amp being utilized for the purpose I mentioned. Would be interesting to see what the individual mentioned earlier, who used all Pyle-branded equipment selected.


----------



## Victor_inox

PPI_GUY said:


> I tried to calculate that amp's best potential output based on the knowledge at hand.
> 100 amps of fusing, available voltage (13.8 avg.) and a assumed efficiency somewhere in the ball park of 60%.
> So, 100 x 13.8= 1380 x .60= 828 watts max.
> Obviously, there are a lot of variables including amperage, voltage and actual efficiency. But, with the available info that's the best I could do.
> I doubt the schematics exist anywhere on this side of the Pacific. LOL!
> 
> I still think this particular model would offer the best chance of a Pyle amp being utilized for the purpose I mentioned. Would be interesting to see what the individual mentioned earlier, who used all Pyle-branded equipment selected.



828 W possible.


----------



## turbo5upra

That amp ain't got time for ohms law.


----------



## Golden Ear

WestCo said:


> Boss 14 years ago > Boss today
> Just my opinion


That's the only one I've ever used. I'd buy one today just to try it out since they're so cheap


----------



## Weigel21

PPI_GUY said:


> The idea of doing something like this has always fascinated me. Taking what is considered "crap gear" and working with it to achieve the same result you'd expect from elite brands.
> I've looked at certain Pyle amps and almost pulled the trigger a few times. The only thing that's ever held me back is the embarrassment I'd suffer when people saw the name "Pyle" on the amps in my vehicle! LOL!
> Am I crazy for wanting to do this?


I hear you, I don't think I could handle the fear I'd have with the idea of showing someone/anyone a system that was composed of what is largely seen as cheap flee market junk. 

However, I'd be more inclined to show someone such if it actually sounded decent than I would be to show off a multi thousand dollar system that has been wired and setup poorly. 

I mean surely many of you on here have had someone bragging about their "expensive" system and just wanting to show it off, only to see they have what is otherwise decent gear, wired up like crap and the system so out of tune it makes your ears want to bleed. 

I'll admit, I have more to learn when it comes to properly tuning a system. I'd say most of my setups have sounded reasonably decent, but by no means have any of them been nice enough to brag about in any way, shape, or form. Hard as it may be to admit, I'd say most of my systems were installed better than they were tuned.


----------



## spaceace60

Patrick Bateman said:


> I think that's one of the reasons that people like tube amps.
> IMHO people don't want *better* they want *different*
> 
> And tube amps DO vary from model to model, but that's because they color the sound.
> 
> This is also the reason that I've backed off of ultra-low distortion designs; I believe that distortion can be pleasant in many cases, therefore there isn't a huge need to eliminate it entirely.


Yes distortion can be pleasant just ask any of us metal guitar players!! lol(since everything was technically getting to an Einstein level I had to dummy things up a bit lol!) No really imo I do think a bit of color(distortion whatever) in the right way can make sound a bit less sterile (character if you will?)maybe a bad analogy: I like things a little raw(members of bands together at same time in a room to record!)Recording may end up having a few more flaws but usually has better overall feel!!!I myself am opposed to over an produced album(unless its classical/jazz ect.! Anymore everyone wants refined/separate tracks for every tiny detail punched in/out) i'd rather listen to Rush/Van Halen on 1st couple albums than them cleaned up and processed to death as on their later recordings!!! There's a lot of musicians who prefer analog over digital recordings(due to gaps in the signal ect) this is a bit off track but I kinda agree with Pat B. That sound can at times being almost too pure/sterile?? I know that when it comes to guitar amps ect. Analog items and tube amps are known to come off with a bit more warmth as far as tone is concerned! I'm sure there's room for debate when it comes to power amps when used in car audio??


----------



## Victor_inox

I build solid state amp once with distortion so low it was impossible to measure, sounded sterile, absolutely not life like, perhaps I have to dig out that design and build it again, I bet some people will love it.


----------



## spaceace60

PPI_GUY said:


> ^^^THIS may be the single most important post in this entire, very informative thread. People say they want "better" but, in fact they may actually be seeking out something different. Something that appeals to my ear may not appeal to the next guy. In fact, a post here stated (it may have been Patrick himself) that they try to tune for the room they are in. That's a great approach but, couldn't we take it a step further and say we need to tune for the specific ear of the person doing the listening? We literally could take it to such exacting detail. Ultimately, sound and our perception thereof is such a subjective topic that we will never get a consensus...and that is something that should be celebrated rather than overcome.
> 
> Re: tubes.
> Why do guitar players almost universally covet tube amps over solid state? Because they do sound different. But, a Fender always sounds different than a Marshall or a Hiwatt or a Mesa Boogie. That's because of how the tubes (an almost endless variety there as well) color the guitar signal. Not that a Mesa is better than a Fender, etc. Rather, what sounds good to my ear will most likely be different from the next guy.


That's too funny PPI guy lol I was trying to explain the same thing with the same analogy as you! I guess as a guitar myself we are kinda reverting to the same Page(excuse the pun?) Jimmy Page that is lol! I agree I can't imagine how several different car audio amps could REMOTELY ever ever sound even close to one another?? if you removed any tone adjustments from all those guitar amps you mentioned above and they all the same exact output(watts)they wouldn't sound the least bit the same at all!!! hell even a Marshall sounds completely different with 6L6's or 5881's power tubes swapped out!!(as one was British version(6l6) and one was Us version(5881's)!)If that alone makes a ton of difference in the same EXACT head(aka amp)then how would it be possible for an amp with tons of completely different components sound even slightly close to one another?? or more so yet a solid state vs. tube design amp in car applications!!


----------



## cajunner

Pyle, at one point in their existence, made some pretty advanced looking amps.

Like Boss using Zed designed and built product, or the number of amps that PPI made for cheap brands.

Knowing about those diamonds in the rough, means that it's possible to reside squarely in the sweet spot of amplifier capability, while appearing to be unable...


a sleeper system, or a sandbagging competition entry, whatever...


makes perfect sense. But even if the proof was in the pudding, the golden ears would swear to not be able to taste it.


----------



## spaceace60

Jesus Christ said:


> If you can hear it it can be measured. Just because you are unable to correlate what the measurements are showing with what you're hearing doesn't mean the difference isn't shown in the measurements.


Holy jumping Jes^s lol!!! Hey just ask your dad(God presumably right?) just exactly what he thinks about most amps sounding alike and this whole debate will be over as fast as it started!! I mean who's left to argue this debate a random atheist lol! don't mind me I just noticed your user name and thought "Well i'll be damned" lol!!(excuse my pun)He(Jesus) does have an email addy lol! Just messin w/ya! nothing personal just one of those names that kinda stick out like mine being Jim Morrison(for real)!! except my middle name is different how bout you again pun intended i'm not a bible thumper did Jesus Christ have a middle name??


----------



## spaceace60

Jesus Christ said:


> ULA-A5 - IconTV & CriticalMASS Online Catalog - (Powered by CubeCart)
> 
> ULA-4x350CM-² - IconTV & CriticalMASS Online Catalog - (Powered by CubeCart)


Btw I keep seeing these damn things all over(Critical Mass) on Ebay and everywhere else at ridiculous high prices and they always have some major blow out on a so called "B" stock,return item ect ect. but for pennies on the $ compared to their normal stuff listed!! Maybe im wrong but this company reminds me of those guys you hear about or have actually seen in person that drive all over the country (mostly in white vans) selling audio gear outta the back of the van in random parking lots,car washes ect with some sales pitch that they have some left overs or more on the truck than is on the bill of laden ect(aka a SCAM!) like on Ebay they have ones listed like a 12" sub for $10K and then one always way way lower(with some reason such a open box,return ect ect that goes for anywhere from a cpl hundred to a grand(still 90% off list!)depending on daily bids and when that sells they put one more out for bids with same reasons(B stock,open box) maybe i'm missing something or everyone else is?? but somehow has SCAM vibe all over it?? again does anyone have the scoop on this company(Critical Mass)??


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Victor_inox said:


> I build solid state amp once with distortion so low it was impossible to measure, sounded sterile, absolutely not life like, perhaps I have to dig out that design and build it again, I bet some people will love it.


The people who think they like the lowest distortion possible might get their minds changed:laugh:The most sterile and lifeless system I've ever heard was Focal speakers run by Steg amps. The midrange and tweets were Be, midbass was those Focal 5" "subs", and the sub was one of those high dollar yellow Focal 15's inverted. When she forced me to listen to Tool I damn near ran out of the car screaming. I hate Tool with all my heart but hearing it on a system more sterile than most operating rooms made me want to claw my ears out!


----------



## captainobvious

Hillbilly SQ said:


> The people who think they like the lowest distortion possible might get their minds changed:laugh:The most sterile and lifeless system I've ever heard was Focal speakers run by Steg amps. The midrange and tweets were Be, midbass was those Focal 5" "subs", and the sub was one of those high dollar yellow Focal 15's inverted. When she forced me to listen to Tool I damn near ran out of the car screaming. I hate Tool with all my heart but hearing it on a system more sterile than most operating rooms made me want to claw my ears out!


Sounds like a product of tuning (or lackthereof), not with low distortion in the system.


----------



## rton20s

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I hate Tool with all my heart...


And this is why we can never be friends.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Lol, ^ speaking of which, I'll be ready for a listening session in about a week and a half, those are next on the cleaner. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I aim for clinical. Just what's on the recording.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

captainobvious said:


> Sounds like a product of tuning (or lackthereof), not with low distortion in the system.


I agree, and it sounded like there was a hole in the sound where the midbass should have been. Absolutely no meat mixed in with her potatoes.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

rton20s said:


> And this is why we can never be friends.


:laugh:


----------



## Orion525iT

Hillbilly SQ said:


> The people who think they like the lowest distortion possible might get their minds changed:laugh:The most sterile and lifeless system I've ever heard was Focal speakers run by Steg amps. The midrange and tweets were Be, midbass was those Focal 5" "subs", and the sub was one of those high dollar yellow Focal 15's inverted. When she forced me to listen to Tool I damn near ran out of the car screaming. I hate Tool with all my heart but hearing it on a system more sterile than most operating rooms made me want to claw my ears out!


I keep seeing this ideology brought up. If the recording was meant to have distortion, you would think that would be part of the recording process and engineering. 

It's almost like everyone has concluded that in the booth they intentionally make recordings that are "sterile" with the hope the listener has an amp with the proper distortion to make the recording sound good. That approach just seems absurd to me.

I would think that the recording is made to sound the way that it was intended to be heard and that having low distortion drivers and amps would get you closer to that ideal. But instead the artists rely upon people to buy gear with the special blend of components to make just the right distortion so that the recording sounds good?


----------



## captainobvious

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I agree, and it sounded like there was a hole in the sound where the midbass should have been. Absolutely no meat mixed in with her potatoes.


Yup, that's a surefire way to make a system sound very "thin".


----------



## Victor_inox

Orion525iT said:


> I keep seeing this ideology brought up. If the recording was meant to have distortion, you would think that would be part of the recording process and engineering.
> 
> It's almost like everyone has concluded that in the booth they intentionally make recordings that are "sterile" with the hope the listener has an amp with the proper distortion to make the recording sound good. That approach just seems absurd to me.
> 
> I would think that the recording is made to sound the way that it was intended to be heard and that having low distortion drivers and amps would get you closer to that ideal. But instead the artists rely upon people to buy gear with the special blend of components to make just the right distortion so that the recording sounds good?


THat is absolutely Not what he was saying. 

Some people care about their stereo being distortion free and as sterile as possible, some prefer enjoying music, and possibly make it sound more pleasing. there is nothing exists that can`t be improved.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

What you meant to say was, some people prefer accurate reproduction, and some people prefer to change the music to how they think it should sound.


----------



## Victor_inox

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> What you meant to say was, some people prefer accurate reproduction, and some people prefer to change the music to how they think it should sound.


 we were doing it for decades using tone control and EQ, we still doing it with bass boost, Loudness, digital compression compensation,etc.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Room correction, eq for room correction, etc are not the same thing as adding distortion to make something "pleasing" or changing the eq to make the system warmer.


----------



## Victor_inox

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Room correction, eq for room correction, etc are not the same thing as adding distortion to make something "pleasing" or changing the eq to make the system warmer.



yes it it, it`s altering "pure" signal. to not so pure anymore.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

No, the room is altering the signal, and room correction is compensating for that. Not the same thing. The acoustic signal is what matters first. 

If you think the signal should stay untouched, then music would never sound the same in any two different rooms, making high end audio almost pointless.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Everyone's hearing is different. As we age our hearing changes. When I was in my 20's I preferred a sterile sound. As I age I'm wanting more and more warmth in the sound with extra midbass. I've gotten the reputation among my diyma peers for having weak midbass. That has started to change as the years go by. And producers in the studio have their own preference when it comes to studio monitors. No speaker will ever be perfect but with todays knowledge and technology we can come pretty close to it. My home speakers consist of Usher mids and tweets on an overbuilt passive and they're pretty close to studio monitor timbre. I tend to prefer my 5" JBL bookshelf speakers that I use for backup when needed for tv and movies because they give that life to the dialogue that the near perfect Ushers just can't pull off.


----------



## Victor_inox

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> No, the room is altering the signal, and room correction is compensating for that. Not the same thing. The acoustic signal is what matters first.
> 
> If you think the signal should stay untouched, then music would never sound the same in any two different rooms, making high end audio almost pointless.



It seems that opposite camp thinks music should stay untouched, not me.
sterile sound "as artist intended, when in fact it never sounds as intended even after room correction. we don`t know how it was intended after mastering process is done. is there anything wrong if someone wants to add a little more bass or mids or make treble less piercing?


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

My method is to get all frequencies pretty close to equal by ear NOT BY RTA. That way all recordings have an equal chance of sounding the best they can on what I have to offer. I might add a little extra on the bottom end to fit my tastes for a street tune but that's about it.


----------



## Victor_inox

Hillbilly SQ said:


> My method is to get all frequencies pretty close to equal by ear NOT BY RTA. That way all recordings have an equal chance of sounding the best they can on what I have to offer. I might add a little extra on the bottom end to fit my tastes for a street tune but that's about it.


 You rely on your imperfect hearing not science 

who cares if music sounds good to your ears if it`s looks like **** on RTA graph? You my friend is disappearing breed, you like to enjoy what you hear, not to know your room is corrected and RTA looks perfect in 10-100000Hz within 0.01Db.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Victor_inox said:


> You rely on your imperfect hearing not science
> 
> who cares if music sounds good to your ears if it`s looks like **** on RTA graph? You my friend is disappearing breed, you like to enjoy what you hear, not to know your room is corrected and RTA looks perfect in 10-100000Hz within 0.01Db.


Yup, tailoring the sound for your own unique hearing seems to be blasphemy to a lot of people these days. :laugh:


----------



## rton20s

What I am getting is that when you boil it down, there is very little difference between these two...

















Neither one is really going for accurate reproduction, but rather meeting their particular tastes. And both of them are doing it by altering the signal from what was intended and/or mastered.


----------



## weshole

rton20s said:


> What I am getting is that when you boil it down, there is very little difference between these two...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither one is really going for accurate reproduction, but rather meeting their particular tastes. And both of them are doing it by altering the signal from what was intended and/or mastered.


This, I agree with. What one person thinks it should sound like can be light years from what the next person thinks. IT IS ALL SUBJECTIVE TO PERSONAL TASTE.

I have heard studio recordings that**I** thought absolutely sucked (Asia's self titled) That I tried multiple ways to make them sound how I felt they should. And it didn't matter what system (home or car) that I listened to it on, it still sucked. What Im getting at is personal taste has so much more influence on SQ than is being brought into the equation.


----------



## Victor_inox

Refreshing to still have people who listen to the music not equipment.


----------



## legend94

Hillbilly SQ said:


> Yup, tailoring the sound for your own unique hearing seems to be blasphemy to a lot of people these days. :laugh:





Victor_inox said:


> Refreshing to still have people who listen to the music not equipment.


To me that's what its all about as long as you are not competing! What I like does not lend itself to competition so I am not going to spend thousands to compete with a system I don't enjoy.

It's like getting a blowjob, sure at some point you will get off but does it count if you don't enjoy it


----------



## Victor_inox

It`s like who can play guitar faster. 
I worked with famous jazz band a while ago, they`ve had two drummers, one was old dude who seems to enjoy music, other dude was very fast.
I talk to they conductor asking why is young guy is so much faster.
Answer was that old dude found himself and young is still looking.


----------



## Orion525iT

Victor_inox said:


> Some people care about their stereo being distortion free and as sterile as possible, some ic, and possibly make it sound more pleasing. there i. nothing exists that can`t be improved.


Not what I am saying either. First off, being free of artifacts is not mutually exclusive to a pleasing sound. Can't something be distortion free and also sound pleasing? 

Some recordings may not sound pleasing or may sound sterile to the listener, sure. If you want to adjust the sound for that song to suit you, then go ahead. But this is done with EQ and tune. However, at the point where you have intentionally introduced a component that increase distortion globally, you can't really go backwards. I guess if you are someone who feels that no recording has enough distortion or warmth or whatever, then maybe that will work. But if your starting point forces those attributes, then you limit your control over the sound and limit your ability to tailor it the way you want.


----------



## Victor_inox

My started point forces me to use equipment I like, how it sounds, how it looks how well it engineered,etc and not necessarily in that order.


----------



## Hanatsu

Hillbilly SQ said:


> The people who think they like the lowest distortion possible might get their minds changed:laugh:The most sterile and lifeless system I've ever heard was Focal speakers run by Steg amps. The midrange and tweets were Be, midbass was those Focal 5" "subs", and the sub was one of those high dollar yellow Focal 15's inverted. When she forced me to listen to Tool I damn near ran out of the car screaming. I hate Tool with all my heart but hearing it on a system more sterile than most operating rooms made me want to claw my ears out!


This is ridiculous. I guarantee that it got nothing to do with non-linear distortion, at all. Go watch a distortion plot of a normal car audio system. I promise you, go fetch any amp and see if the outcome is different. The THD in the lower 4 octaves in a car at average listening volumes easily goes above 3-10%. No amp will change that, that's the speakers, resonances etc you hear. The audible threshold of harmonic distortion is HIGH. 3% is often perfectly acceptable if not tall order. Amp distortion often lies in the 0,05-0,3% range.

Furthermore, non-linear distortion does not make things sound better. It's crap that ain't supposed to be there, not present in the original signal. Non-linear distortion in electronics is most often very low in level but can be tall order, speakers on the other hand is often high in level but the order is low in comparison. To understand how audible non-linear distortion sounds you really need to experiment and experience it for yourself - I have. It does not explain all the things people supposedly hear, at the usual levels mentioned above it's simply a non-issue. Even at the amounts where it barely gets audible it doesn't simply improve the sound, it degrades it. 

Non-linear distortion is a non-issue till it reaches the audible threshold, then it's bad news. 

Freeware (nonlinear distortion simulation)

Go experiment, see how audible harmonic distortion really is. You can load your own music files and add how much distortion you like. I bet you'll be surprised at the amounts of distortion you can add without any ill effects. 

The most logical answer and the boring mediocre truth is that you heard a case of bad tuning. But it's more fun buying new equipment right?


----------



## cajunner

Orion525iT said:


> Not what I am saying either. First off, being free of artifacts is not mutually exclusive to a pleasing sound. Can't something be distortion free and also sound pleasing?
> 
> Some recordings you may not sound pleasing or may sound sterile to the listener, sure. If you want to adjust the sound for that song to suit you, then go ahead. But this is done with EQ and tune. However, at the point where you have intentionally introduced a component that increase distortion globally, you can't really go backwards. I guess if you are someone who feels that no recording has enough distortion or warmth or whatever, then maybe that will work. But if your starting point forces those attributes, then you limit your control over the sound and limit your ability to tailor it the way you want.


some people like to look through rose-colored lenses at life, huh...



I agree that a system should not impart any coloration that *may* be conducive to some recordings, in the automatic sense, or the built-in, non-defeatable sense.

that was my problem with BBE's Sonic Maximizer, if I left it on, my mood would change and when my music selection shifted from say, hair metal to acoustic folk, the amount of brilliance control I needed also required attention.

a tube amp puts in it's sonic characteristics on every selection. Vic may have a point, some people have way too much variety in their musicography, and leaving a tube sound inserted will challenge those people in that they may want something different, as their musical tastes swing with the breeze.

Vic, might only listen to classical and those selections from a certain hall, or collection that has similar recording techniques and his vinyl collection may be short and sweet...

that could help him decide that a tube insertion is good on all fronts.


But if I had my choice, I'd want to have the option for tube insertion, and the easy button that went with it, maybe even to the point of an ID system that identified which recordings *statistically* proved to be better off with that distortion bomb tied on.

so we're really arguing separate philosophies, some people can admit that their music variety is more important, some need to get it just right for one genre, and others don't really know what's going on, just that they want to improve the sound on some selections and on others, it's fine...


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Hanatsu said:


> This is ridiculous. I guarantee that it got nothing to do with non-linear distortion, at all. Go watch a distortion plot of a normal car audio system. I promise you, go fetch any amp and see if the outcome is different. The THD in the lower 4 octaves in a car at average listening volumes easily goes above 3-10%. No amp will change that, that's the speakers, resonances etc you hear. The audible threshold of harmonic distortion is HIGH. 3% is often perfectly acceptable if not tall order. Amp distortion often lies in the 0,05-0,3% range.
> 
> Furthermore, non-linear distortion does not make things sound better. It's crap that ain't supposed to be there, not present in the original signal. Non-linear distortion in electronics is most often very low in level but can be tall order, speakers on the other hand is often high in level but the order is low in comparison. To understand how audible non-linear distortion sounds you really need to experiment and experience it for yourself - I have. It does not explain all the things people supposedly hear, at the usual levels mentioned above it's simply a non-issue. Even at the amounts where it barely gets audible it doesn't simply improve the sound, it degrades it.
> 
> Non-linear distortion is a non-issue till it reaches the audible threshold, then it's bad news.
> 
> Freeware (nonlinear distortion simulation)
> 
> Go experiment, see how audible harmonic distortion really is. You can load your own music files and add how much distortion you like. I bet you'll be surprised at the amounts of distortion you can add without any ill effects.
> 
> The most logical answer and the boring mediocre truth is that you heard a case of bad tuning. But it's more fun buying new equipment right?


I thought you took your ball and left forever. Could you not live without our opinions that don't line up with yours which in turn causes you to throw a fit and make long posts that have very little to do with the people you quote? Where did I mention non-linear distortion? Even order distortion can be pleasurable. From what I've heard it's the odd order distortion that's bad.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Even order distortion is less objectionable than odd order, but it's still not supposed to be there. It still negatively affects the sound.


----------



## ChrisB

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I thought you took your ball and left forever. Could you not live without our opinions that don't line up with yours which in turn causes you to throw a fit and make long posts that have very little to do with the people you quote? Where did I mention non-linear distortion? Even order distortion can be pleasurable. From what I've heard it's the odd order distortion that's bad.



Like that matters. If I had a dollar for every forum that I quit and came back to, I'd be able to hang out on forums all day because I'd be RICH!:laugh: Besides, it is more fun to annoy everyone than to go with the flow.


----------



## ErinH

you guys are just silly.


----------



## weshole

It seems that some people like to beat a dead horse. Even if it drags on so much that no matter how intelligently they word their rebuttal, they still come across as an a**hat.
It has been good reading though.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

I'm just a dumb hillbilly from ArkansasI think Erin pegged all of us in this thread spot-on...


----------



## caraudiopimps

Post


----------



## caraudiopimps

Victor_inox said:


> It seems that opposite camp thinks music should stay untouched, not me.
> sterile sound "as artist intended, when in fact it never sounds as intended even after room correction. we don`t know how it was intended after mastering process is done. is there anything wrong if someone wants to add a little more bass or mids or make treble less piercing?


Reviving a dead thread to say, when an artist send s a track to mastering, the mastering alters the track. Most big name artists do not master their own music... So "as artist intended" is more or less not going to happen, even if it's played through whatever studio system it was recorded in after mastering. Yes, the artist listens to the song, and gives the go ahead to release after mastering, but that's still not the artist most of the time! I laugh every single time I read an 'audiophile' preaching about how his system is true to the artist's intent. Obligatory 'there are exceptions where artists do master their own music'.


----------



## sqnut

caraudiopimps said:


> Reviving a dead thread to say, when an artist send s a track to mastering, the mastering alters the track. Most big name artists do not master their own music... So "as artist intended" is more or less not going to happen, even if it's played through whatever studio system it was recorded in after mastering. Yes, the artist listens to the song, and gives the go ahead to release after mastering, but that's still not the artist most of the time! I laugh every single time I read an 'audiophile' preaching about how his system is true to the artist's intent. Obligatory 'there are exceptions where artists do master their own music'.


What happens before the CD is recorded or the vinyl pressed, is irrelevant. Now its all about what's on the CD/Vinyl. If you have a decent ref system (2ch / cans) it should give you and idea of what the recording sounds like. The right tune in the car will make all recording sound exactly like they were recorded. So if the engineer gave the recording a bit more bite, that's what you will hear. If it a well balanced and dynamic recording, that's what you'll hear. 

When the tune is right, trust me you won't go looking for a touch more bass, a touch less bite etc. Of course a lot of people are satisfied with, 'sounds good to my ears', and there's nothing wrong with that. Just that sounds good to my ears, may not be right, there is only one right.


----------



## Locomotive Tech

I have watching this thread for some time.......learned a ton. I was one of those stricken by the idea that uber high end gear was always superior, always and in every way shape and form. The gear in my beater was an Alpine CDA9557, with CDT a 2-way passive front, a little TA from the HU, a clarion passive EQ to season my taste. couple of JL HD amps and I thought as well as most of my friends, that my set up was awesome. 

After buy a new car and having limited options with the factory HU that I want to keep, I began researching. A friend of mine had a Helix DSP pro that he was using at the time and integrated it to my old car. I was dumbfounded by the difference. 

Now reading all of this I pray I that I do not get stricken with the perfection virus. I do not even know what linear and non linear distortion are, but I'm afraid I might now be hearing everywhere, in everything including the sound the keys make on my keyboard as I type this. Is there any hope or recovery or am I doomed?


----------



## captainobvious

It's a good thing. It's a great lesson learned that a good dsp and some good tuning makes a HUGE difference in the sound.


----------



## caraudiopimps

sqnut said:


> What happens before the CD is recorded or the vinyl pressed, is irrelevant. Now its all about what's on the CD/Vinyl. If you have a decent ref system (2ch / cans) it should give you and idea of what the recording sounds like. The right tune in the car will make all recording sound exactly like they were recorded. So if the engineer gave the recording a bit more bite, that's what you will hear. If it a well balanced and dynamic recording, that's what you'll hear.
> 
> When the tune is right, trust me you won't go looking for a touch more bass, a touch less bite etc. Of course a lot of people are satisfied with, 'sounds good to my ears', and there's nothing wrong with that. Just that sounds good to my ears, may not be right, there is only one right.



....what?! Are you trying to say that mastering a song makes no difference because it's the CD writing process which makes the difference??


----------



## sqnut

caraudiopimps said:


> ....what?! Are you trying to say that mastering a song makes no difference because it's the CD writing process which makes the difference??


Is that how you read my post? Cause that's not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that when we are reproducing sound in our car, talking about what the artist wanted or what the engineer did is just irrelevant because we cant change it, it's already done, it's on the frickin recording and it is what it is. 

All the esoteric the discussion eventually boils down to the fact is the recording good, bad or somewhere in between. We are not tuning for what the artist wanted or what the engineer wished he had done, we're tuning for accuracy to the recording, period. Clearer now?


----------



## caraudiopimps

sqnut said:


> Is that how you read my post? Cause that's not what I'm saying.
> 
> What I am saying is that when we are reproducing sound in our car, talking about what the artist wanted or what the engineer did is just irrelevant because we cant change it, it's already done, it's on the frickin recording and it is what it is.
> 
> All the esoteric the discussion eventually boils down to the fact is the recording good, bad or somewhere in between. We are not tuning for what the artist wanted or what the engineer wished he had done, we're tuning for accuracy to the recording, period.
> 
> *In response to this, you tune the way I do, by trying to get as close as possible to the recorded audio, however, I very often see people trying to recreate "hear the song as the artist intended" which while it may be semantics, I was simply pointing out that the artist's intention is generally not the final product, and that's why I commented initially*
> 
> Clearer now?


See above too ^

Thanks for clarifying, yeah the way I read your post, I thought you were trying to argue against the fact that mastering a track is irrelevant to the end result. My point initially was simply that the artist's original intention and definitely their recording is typically altered at the mastering stage, and that there are more people than just the artist making the track. So the idea of "true to what the artist intends for us to hear" is almost never truly accurate. Of course, the quality of whatever medium the recording reaches the consumer in further effects the music, and of course the whole point of tuning is to mitigate the issues in recordings, environment, and equipment. 

I come from a production background, and that "true to intention" phrase is one of my pet peeves.

Again, thank you for clarifying, the first sentence in the quote below is really what confused me.

Carry on!



sqnut said:


> What happens before the CD is recorded or the vinyl pressed, is irrelevant. Now its all about what's on the CD/Vinyl. If you have a decent ref system (2ch / cans) it should give you and idea of what the recording sounds like.


----------



## jackies

One aspect that often gets overlooked in this type of discussion is the listener's skills, which are equally important as the equipment quality, if not more. Who can pass a judgement on how something sounds? Most everyone! Could those judgements be considered _sound_? Of course not.


----------



## caraudiopimps

jackies said:


> One aspect that often gets overlooked in this type of discussion is the listener's skills, which are equally important as the equipment quality, if not more. Who can pass a judgement on how something sounds? Most everyone! Could those judgements be considered _sound_? Of course not.


Agreed, I know barely a handful of people who's ears are trained well enough to have a truly valid assessment of a system. But afaik, this test was done for the average listener.


----------



## captainobvious

This is why I like the AX test. You don't need to _choose _which of two references your listening to from memory, you simply listen to a clip of a reference, immediately followed by an unknown and determine if it sounds the same or different. You don't need to worry about *what* is different, simply whether you hear ANY difference.

Each person listens and determines what they can hear. The averages give an idea of how a variety of people score in a larger sample size. It is not an indication that *everyone* will have the same results.

The important thing to take away from doing these is what YOU can hear, what you feel is important and being able to hopefully learn something useful from the experience.


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> This is why I like the AX test. You don't need to _choose _which of two references your listening to from memory, you simply listen to a clip of a reference, immediately followed by an unknown and determine if it sounds the same or different. You don't need to worry about *what* is different, simply whether you hear ANY difference.
> 
> Each person listens and determines what they can hear. The averages give an idea of how a variety of people score in a larger sample size. It is not an indication that *everyone* will have the same results.
> 
> The important thing to take away from doing these is what YOU can hear, what you feel is important and being able to hopefully learn something useful from the experience.


 I do too but unlike most of you I have QSC ABX comparator and yet haven`t found two identically sounded amplifiers. Even same model with one number difference in serial number sounded different. Some harder to distinguish than others but still.... Like you said when you learned what to listed for.
And no I`m not talking about "Golden ears" just trained set. 
What I learned from experience that even marginal difference is still a difference. Highly compressed files nullified that difference to the point of no difference though..So if you listen to streamed crap from Pandora and such amplifier is you least concern.


----------

